Re: domain for Zarcae

[Cyborg Yoryie <yoryie@earthlink.net>]

[: hacktivism :]

What a bunch of crap!

        At first I just objected to the sexist language referring to "sons
of god" because it always amuses me how people keep using it even when
conscious on how sexist the bible ( a book written by men) is.  I did not
reply to the not too subtle "preaching" because I expected it to be a one
time incident, seems like you intend to preach some more from your
"moral-full of hot air- pulpit" so I will reply and I warn you there are no
buts in my reply.

        The only one pointing to inequality between man and womyn was you in
your quote ("Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Sons
of God.: -Matthew 5:9")
the quote clearly excludes womyn unless you really advocate keeping womyn's
contributions invisible and pretend that they are there where the word "son"
is.  Not to, mention must of mainstream religions (western and occidental)
have keep womyn from access to their decision making power.  So maybe you
either admit your quote was sexist and move on or deny it and expose your
fanatism.

>>>>The phrase "Sons of God" was a general term referring to humanity
as a whole. <<<<

        I propose next time you want to refer to humanity as a whole you use
the phrase "daughters of god"  I am sure men will see themselves in that
phrase just as womyn have been forced to 'find' themselves in the other.

then you say:

>>We believe that when action is mixed with
religious faith as the motivational factor, that the action itself gains a
heightened level of morality and reason for existence. <<<

    The faith and action crap:  Your dialectic seems perfect, except that it
belongs in a binary that is useless to people that do not share your
"faith".  It privileges your believes over other people's believes and it
dismisses other sources for an ethics of live that are just as valid and
motivational, and actually with less history of oppression as the faith you
advocate.  All that faith adds to deed is the legitimacy conferred unto
religion and faith, that have keep both from scrutiny, because of the moral
superiority you already claimed.  Why is it morally superior? because it is
faith. Why is it faith? because is morally superior.  That claim of moral
superiority have support slavery, ethnic cleansing, subordination of womyn,
starvation of children, taking of lands from indigenous people, wars,
persecution of queer people and many other atrocities against humanities,
not to mention that now also supports blatant irrational censorship in
Internet. Your claim to moral superiority is full of hot air and is not
supported under historical scrutiny.

>>Third: the usual cry of "Let's try to be open-minded, BUT...." is a
ridiculous and innately fallacious statement. Let's examine. When someone
says "let's be open-minded", it can generally be agreed that this person is
trying to be inclusive of others' viewpoints. This is the position of the
moral relativist >>>>

    Crap must be sold by bundles where you live.  I am still laughing at how
well you create labels ("moral relativist") to accommodate your views and
then advocate for "religious faith"as the only possible alternative.  If you
believe there are more alternatives PLEASE say it and STATE them I want to
know them.  the call for being "open minded" is a valid one.  It is a call
that allows for various points of views to be discussed, it is a call that
will allow different people with different epistemologies, motivations and
ethics to come together and debate and either work together in a common
cause or disagree but get a better understanding of each others needs,
concerns, positions, faiths, etc..  It is really pathetic when you resort to
the example of fascism to raise concerns about "call for open minded", let
me remind you that fascists regimes have exist with the support of
christians, (Mother Theresa visited and kissed Duvalier's hands, Pinochet
(Chilean fascist dictator)  was accepted, supported AND protected by the
catholic church, same with Franco the Spanish fascist, Bautista the Cuban
dictator and the Argentine hierarchy in the dirty war.  As you see history
does not make it too hard to place fascism and christianity in the same
level, since they have slept together in quite several beds.

    Also you insult our intelligence by suggesting that there are no
boundaries or limits to a call for being open minded.  there are, the good
thing is that most people can agree to what those boundaries or limits are,
for example I will agree to participate in a discussion of pornography with
feminists for pornography, feminists against pornography, female
pornographers, male pornographers, lesbian pornographers and religious
people. since I know that I do not OWN or POSSESS the truth I am sure that
such a meeting will promote better understanding of the subject from
multiple viewpoints.  However, I will not participate of a meeting that has
as a premise that blacks, or womyn are inferior.  That has to be more with
my ethics and values than with faith.  On the contrary the point you
advocate, since you OWN THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH you can be intolerant,  and of
course, any question of YOUR judgment is already explained: Faith!! , and
just because of that that is morally heightened?  Puhleeze!!

>>>There MUST be an Absolute
truth, against which we base the concepts themselves of Good and Evil. <<<

I state the opposite, by claiming that you own the absolute truth it is you
who can be intolerant (never mind arrogant).  Without the crutches of faith
you we forced to day to day question what is good or bad and we are force to
police better our actions and our ethics, because there is no "blind wall of
faith" protecting us.  Simple good ol' Write or Wrong jerk reactions (war on
drugs in North America as an example) have failed us miserably just because
people refuses to problematize things enough and refuse to acknowledge
things are more complex than we want.

>>>Statement:   "Rape is wrong".

The answer a relativist staying true to his philosophy would have to give:
"Says who?"<<<<

    I will use your same example.  First the charge of rape was used against
ANY black men that had sex with a white women, no matter how consensual it
was.  The charge of rape  (statutory rape) have been used against a male of
19 that slept with a female of 17,  The charge of rape have been used
against servants that slept with aristocrats.

    so, the 'says who?"is important because it adds context (geographical,
cultural, spatial, timeframe) to a "crime" that has been continuously
redefined through a corrupt, racist, sexist justice system.  Rape is a legal
term, and those that define laws, define the crimes according to their
geography, their class their ethnicity.  By the way, traditionally
CHRISTIANS have opposed that womyn could charge their husbands with rape.
To this day (year 2000) catholic church opposes the use of the word rape
between married persons!!

>>>Either we hold ourselves and everyone else accountable, or we hold no
one accountable, and anarchy reigns. >>>>

               What is the problem with Anarchy?!?!  Are you aware we are
hosted by Tao.Ca?  Anarchy (as opposed to hierarchy (promoted by
christians), is a perfectly acceptable alternative to me.  Please do not use
political terms if you are not aware of their meaning.  Some of us do favor
Anarchy over Hierarchy.  Demonizing Anarchy to make a point is a dated
trick.  And there is more accountability in anarchy that in the so called
democratic regime I live right now.  By the way, you accuse of "scornful
names" but you use "Anarchy"and "moral relativist" in the same
way.....oh...preachers! *sigh*


    So preach all you want, try to convert as many as you want, that is what
preachers do, but do not for once think that your claim to moral superiority
based on some thousands years old racist, sexist, elitist bible will be
uncontested.

    I did not answer to you in private because your screed was sent to the
list, and it deserved to be answered to the list, different than you, I do
not wish to discuss it privately with you or any other.

in a lighter tone, since it seems like you enjoy quoting the bible all the
way back to genesis, I want to share with you and everyone here a letter I
received in Internet full of bible quotes...

***********************Start of Letter*******************
Dear Mr. BibleThumper,

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I
have
learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as
many
people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for
example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however,
regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

    When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus
21:7.
In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around
us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians.
Can you clarify?

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him
myself?

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this?

    Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you
can help. Thank you again for reminding us that god's word is eternal and
unchanging.

*************************End of Letter*******************************


Cyborg
Law cannot helped to be armed, and its arm, par excellence, is death; to
those who transgress it, it replies, at least as a last resort, with that
absolute menace.  The law always refers to the sword.
Michel Foucault, "The History of Sexuality; Volume I"




[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]