Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on April 25, 2006, 03:05:18 PM
http://sixforsure.org/words/?p=155
Quote
URL: http://www.independentmail.com/and/home/article/0,1886,AND_8195_4641568,00.html
Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina
By SEANNA ADCOX
The Associated Press
April 21, 2006
COLUMBIA Lucys Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolinas Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys.But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.
The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.
That would be the most terrible thing in the world, said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and were supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and dont want to do in the privacy of our own homes.
Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including every Sunday churchgoers.
I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. Its ridiculous.
The measure would add sex toys to the states obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.
People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
South Carolina law borrows from a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling to define obscene as something contemporary community standards determine as patently offensive sexual conduct, which lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Sugar N Spice manager Pat Irons says a proposal to outlaw the sale of sex toys in South Carolina is outrageous.
While Davenports proposal is probably aimed at shutting down X-rated adult bookstores, Ms. Irons said, it hurts customers of couples-oriented stores such as her West Columbia shop, which sells everything from lingerie to bridal shower novelties to lotions.
At Sugar N Spice, sex toys are displayed in a separate room. Buyers include men and women who need a little help because surgery or medical problems are affecting their marriage, Ms. Irons said.
Weve been selling these sex toys for 27 years, she said Friday. Even pastors shop in here. They send couples in here they counsel for marriage problems. Its probably going to hit people like that harder than people realize.
A Townville sex shop owner questioned the proposals legality.
I dont think that would be fair, said John Terezakis, owner of Paradise! in Townville. Its depriving people of their freedom of choice. I dont think the customers would appreciate it very much.
Rep. Davenport, who is from Spartanburg County, did not return several messages Friday to talk about his bill, which was introduced last month. No other legislator has signed on as a co-sponsor and its passage this year seems unlikely.
Recent police raids in Rep. Davenports county have targeted adult-oriented businesses.
The sheriffs office there seized movies, sex toys, sexual-enhancement pills and surveillance tapes from two businesses in January.
One of the stores, Priscillas, sued the sheriffs office, claiming the raid violated constitutional rights and asked for the return of the seized items. Sheriff Chuck Wright refused.
The case has not yet gone to trial, Maj. Dan Johnson said.
Maj. Johnson said he knew nothing of Rep. Davenports proposal and was unsure how it could help their investigations, which involve undercover detectives renting movies or buying magazines and prosecutors determining whether theyre obscene.
Were focused on the hard-core magazines, videos & the hard-core porn, he said.
Other states that ban the sell of sex toys include Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas, said Mark Lopez, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Alabamas law banning the sale of sex toys has been circulating through the courts since its passage in 1998. U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr. twice ruled against the law, holding that it violated the constitutional right to privacy, but the state won both times on appeal.
In February 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which is back in the lower courts.
People think its distasteful. It makes for good campaign fodder and panders to the conservative side of people. Thats why we see the laws in the South, Mr. Lopez said.
The ACLU got involved in the case, he said, to keep the government out of the bedroom.
Though the laws dont punish people for owning sex toys, banning their sale is a backdoor attempt to discourage their use, Mr. Lopez said.
People have a fundamental right to engage in lawful sexual practices in the privacy of their home, Mr. Lopez said. Its not like this stuff is available in Macys. Kids arent allowed in. You or I wouldnt accidentally walk into one.
Anderson Independent-Mail reporter Samantha Epps contributed to this story.
Copyright 2006, Anderson Independent Mail. All Rights Reserved.
Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina
By SEANNA ADCOX
The Associated Press
April 21, 2006
COLUMBIA Lucys Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolinas Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys.But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.
The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.
That would be the most terrible thing in the world, said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and were supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and dont want to do in the privacy of our own homes.
Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including every Sunday churchgoers.
I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. Its ridiculous.
The measure would add sex toys to the states obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.
People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
South Carolina law borrows from a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling to define obscene as something contemporary community standards determine as patently offensive sexual conduct, which lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Sugar N Spice manager Pat Irons says a proposal to outlaw the sale of sex toys in South Carolina is outrageous.
While Davenports proposal is probably aimed at shutting down X-rated adult bookstores, Ms. Irons said, it hurts customers of couples-oriented stores such as her West Columbia shop, which sells everything from lingerie to bridal shower novelties to lotions.
At Sugar N Spice, sex toys are displayed in a separate room. Buyers include men and women who need a little help because surgery or medical problems are affecting their marriage, Ms. Irons said.
Weve been selling these sex toys for 27 years, she said Friday. Even pastors shop in here. They send couples in here they counsel for marriage problems. Its probably going to hit people like that harder than people realize.
A Townville sex shop owner questioned the proposals legality.
I dont think that would be fair, said John Terezakis, owner of Paradise! in Townville. Its depriving people of their freedom of choice. I dont think the customers would appreciate it very much.
Rep. Davenport, who is from Spartanburg County, did not return several messages Friday to talk about his bill, which was introduced last month. No other legislator has signed on as a co-sponsor and its passage this year seems unlikely.
Recent police raids in Rep. Davenports county have targeted adult-oriented businesses.
The sheriffs office there seized movies, sex toys, sexual-enhancement pills and surveillance tapes from two businesses in January.
One of the stores, Priscillas, sued the sheriffs office, claiming the raid violated constitutional rights and asked for the return of the seized items. Sheriff Chuck Wright refused.
The case has not yet gone to trial, Maj. Dan Johnson said.
Maj. Johnson said he knew nothing of Rep. Davenports proposal and was unsure how it could help their investigations, which involve undercover detectives renting movies or buying magazines and prosecutors determining whether theyre obscene.
Were focused on the hard-core magazines, videos & the hard-core porn, he said.
Other states that ban the sell of sex toys include Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas, said Mark Lopez, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Alabamas law banning the sale of sex toys has been circulating through the courts since its passage in 1998. U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr. twice ruled against the law, holding that it violated the constitutional right to privacy, but the state won both times on appeal.
In February 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which is back in the lower courts.
People think its distasteful. It makes for good campaign fodder and panders to the conservative side of people. Thats why we see the laws in the South, Mr. Lopez said.
The ACLU got involved in the case, he said, to keep the government out of the bedroom.
Though the laws dont punish people for owning sex toys, banning their sale is a backdoor attempt to discourage their use, Mr. Lopez said.
People have a fundamental right to engage in lawful sexual practices in the privacy of their home, Mr. Lopez said. Its not like this stuff is available in Macys. Kids arent allowed in. You or I wouldnt accidentally walk into one.
Anderson Independent-Mail reporter Samantha Epps contributed to this story.
Copyright 2006, Anderson Independent Mail. All Rights Reserved.
Post by: stevelyn on April 25, 2006, 03:11:27 PM
Post by: Spec ops Grunt on April 25, 2006, 03:11:38 PM
Post by: crt360 on April 25, 2006, 03:27:26 PM
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=3102
Oh, we also have an official state vehicle - the chuckwagon!?!? How long did it take a congressional committee to agree on that? How many chuckwagons have you seen rolling up and down I-35?
Post by: Guest on April 25, 2006, 05:40:15 PM
Post by: Tallpine on April 25, 2006, 06:30:27 PM
must be no other problems for these underworked politicians to solveAFAIK, some of my ancestors lived in Spartanburg County a couple hundred years ago - I hope I'm not related to this jerk.
Like I always say:
"I'll stay out of your bedroom if you stay out of my gun cabinent"
Post by: brimic on April 25, 2006, 07:04:35 PM
Quote
Maj. Johnson said he knew nothing of Rep. Davenports proposal and was unsure how it could help their investigations, which involve undercover detectives renting movies or buying magazines and prosecutors determining whether theyre obscene.
Were focused on the hard-core magazines, videos & the hard-core porn, he said.
I bet they are. Were focused on the hard-core magazines, videos & the hard-core porn, he said.
Post by: Antibubba on April 25, 2006, 08:24:38 PM
"They can have my dildoes when they pry them from my hot, wet hands!"
Post by: bermbuster on April 26, 2006, 02:15:02 AM
I predict that this bill will die of benign neglect. He has been known to make a lot of noise about what most people would consider senseless issues. I can't say that I know him well enough to be able to identify the source of his frustration.
Post by: Leatherneck on April 26, 2006, 03:24:59 AM
TC
Post by: Justin on April 26, 2006, 08:12:44 AM
Quote
Mr. Davenport needs a real job, I think.
People like this go into public service because they don't possess even 1/10 of the work ethic of a kid manning the cash register at a Taco Bell.
Post by: ...has left the building. on April 26, 2006, 08:19:26 AM
Post by: bermbuster on April 26, 2006, 09:43:55 AM
Quote from: Justin
Quote
Mr. Davenport needs a real job, I think.
People like this go into public service because they don't possess even 1/10 of the work ethic of a kid manning the cash register at a Taco Bell.http://www.scstatehouse.net/members/bios/0454545400.html
Post by: Justin on April 26, 2006, 10:57:53 AM
That really explains a lot.
Post by: Art Eatman on April 26, 2006, 12:25:21 PM
They interpreted the Texas Constitution all wrong. They keep saying the legislature meets 140 days every two years. That's a misprint. It's supposed to be two days every 140 years.
I dunno why people get all exercised about sex. It's really simple enough. "Insert Tab A into Slot B. Repeat as necessary."
, Art
Post by: Guest on April 26, 2006, 01:08:51 PM
Post by: ...has left the building. on April 26, 2006, 01:11:55 PM
Quote from: Art Eatman
They interpreted the Texas Constitution all wrong. They keep saying the legislature meets 140 days every two years. That's a misprint. It's supposed to be two days every 140 years.
Now that would be ideal!
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on April 26, 2006, 01:42:51 PM
Post by: Nightfall on April 26, 2006, 02:09:10 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 26, 2006, 05:34:24 PM
"Christo-fascists"? "Fundamentalists"? "religious extremism?" Who is claiming to be a Christian here, and more importantly, where do they claim a religious basis for their actions?
Post by: K Frame on April 26, 2006, 05:45:50 PM
Do you know who invented the chuckwagon?
If you know anything about the history of your state, you might have heard of the guy...
Charles Goodnight.
If you know anything about Goodnight and his partner, Oliver Loving, you'll see where a LOT of the inspiration for Lonesome Dove originated...
Post by: stevelyn on April 27, 2006, 02:58:45 AM
Quote from: fistful
A crackdown on "adult" stores is a war on sex?
"Christo-fascists"? "Fundamentalists"? "religious extremism?" Who is claiming to be a Christian here, and more importantly, where do they claim a religious basis for their actions?
This type of legislation usually emmanates from the above list of usual suspects and those who pander to them. There's no reason to believe it's any different this time.
"Christo-fascists"? "Fundamentalists"? "religious extremism?" Who is claiming to be a Christian here, and more importantly, where do they claim a religious basis for their actions?
Post by: SteveS on April 27, 2006, 03:42:05 AM
Quote from: stevelyn
Quote from: fistful
A crackdown on "adult" stores is a war on sex?
"Christo-fascists"? "Fundamentalists"? "religious extremism?" Who is claiming to be a Christian here, and more importantly, where do they claim a religious basis for their actions?
This type of legislation usually emmanates from the above list of usual suspects and those who pander to them. There's no reason to believe it's any different this time."Christo-fascists"? "Fundamentalists"? "religious extremism?" Who is claiming to be a Christian here, and more importantly, where do they claim a religious basis for their actions?
Post by: matis on April 27, 2006, 03:44:17 AM
"...exercised" is quite apt, Art.
And what about the "buy ammo" part? Buy dildoes and ticklers? Condoms?
Just askin'.
matis
Post by: Standing Wolf on April 27, 2006, 04:01:47 AM
Post by: Art Eatman on April 27, 2006, 04:35:56 AM
Nowadays, most ranches in Texas, "Roundup" is when you go out and honk the horn on the pickup and cow critters come running from all directions.
Back on topic, with drift:
The ultimate in physical coordination: Making love while standing up--in a hammock.
This conclusion was reached after much discussion and numerous glasses of Liquid Enthusiasm on the part of a US Ambassador to the Philippines, a Far East correspondent to the Christian Science Monitor, my mother, and a few other well-lubricated souls. Circa 1953. The ambassador later had small model hammocks--no people--made and sent to the members of that august discussion group.
, Art
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 27, 2006, 09:00:54 AM
Quote from: stevelyn
Quote from: fistful
"Christo-fascists"? "Fundamentalists"? "religious extremism?" Who is claiming to be a Christian here, and more importantly, where do they claim a religious basis for their actions?
This type of legislation usually emmanates from the above list of usual suspects and those who pander to them. There's no reason to believe it's any different this time.Quote from: fistful
A crackdown on "adult" stores is a war on sex?
The question remains. Some o' yall are gettin' mighty worked up about a bill in one out of fifty statehouses. The concern that we might start down a slippery slope to theocracy is understandable, but the fear and disdain are unfortunate. I have grown up around various types of conservative evangelicals, and I can tell you they have a lot of libertarian ideas about some topics. Most of them, however, are just working and taking care of their families and are no more consistent in their political thinking than most other Americans. Rather than insulting and demeaning my fellows, it would be much more helpful to try to explain to them why prohibition of various things would be a bad idea. If you believe in the seperation of church and state, you should respectfully explain to such people how you interpret this concept. As it is, they are only listening to people like Richard Land, Judge Roy Moore and others who actually respect their beliefs.
Post by: Brad Johnson on April 27, 2006, 09:10:25 AM
Pretty soon there will be a "War on Talking Dirty" and a "War on Staring at Good Looking Members of the Opposite Gender"
Brad
Post by: Azrael256 on April 27, 2006, 10:07:32 AM
Quote
This type of legislation usually emmanates from the above list of usual suspects and those who pander to them.
I can agree with that. On a practical level, I don't care who it comes from, or what their motivations are. If something involves consenting adults, it is none of my business and it is most definitely not the government's business. I think the folks who hold prayer vigils outside erotic art shows are a tad bit off their collective rocker, but I will pick up a rifle and defend their rights as well as the people they're protesting against. On a somewhat less practical level, I wonder about the motivation for this "war on sex" nonsense. I am not a biblical scholar, but I question the religious motives. I wonder what, exactly, they are trying to control. Gun control advocates are not really trying to control crime, so I don't think "sex control" advocates are really trying to control morality. I don't have the answer, but it's something worth contemplating.
Post by: thebaldguy on April 27, 2006, 02:53:56 PM
LOL!
I love the felony part. A felony for selling sex toys? Give me a break. This is tax dollars well wasted in my opinion.
Edited for more jokes. This level of legislative stupidy deserves it.
People could serve felony time for selling sex toys. Just like rapists, arsonists, drug dealers and murderers do. Unreal.
"Better shoot to kill officer. She's a felon with a vibrator and it looks like she's not afraid to use it!"
Will there be a sex toy amnesty - like for handguns? Will they pay people $50.00 cash to turn in their sex toys no questions asked?
What will happen if you don't turn them in? Will they issue search warrants? What about mail order? I bet that would be illegal too.
We will all be better off with sex toys off the streets. Oops, I meant out of the stores and bedrooms.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 27, 2006, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Brad Johnson
Pretty soon there will be a "War on Talking Dirty" and a "War on Staring at Good Looking Members of the Opposite Gender"
Don't you remember the sexual hair-as-ment craze a few years back?
Post by: zahc on April 27, 2006, 05:19:07 PM
I think they are trying to control other people, plain and simple. People like power. People are afraid of other people that are different than they. I don't know, I really don't.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on April 27, 2006, 05:22:06 PM
Post by: Preacherman on April 27, 2006, 06:35:44 PM
I'm also reminded of my first-ever encounter with a sex shop, back in 1996, on my first visit to North America. My sister, who lived over here, took me into one just to show me how the other half lived. I burst out in hysterical laughter after a few minutes, and she, rather embarrassed, tried to shush me, and asked me what was so funny. I pointed at an infra-red remote-controlled vibrator on special, and asked what would happen to it when the guy in the apartment next door changed his TV channel using his remote. I had visions of the vibrator going into overdrive!
Still laugh at that one...
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 27, 2006, 06:37:17 PM
Quote from: zahc
"I wonder what, exactly, they are trying to control. Gun control advocates are not really trying to control crime, so I don't think "sex control" advocates are really trying to control morality."
I think they are trying to control other people, plain and simple. People like power. People are afraid of other people that are different than they. I don't know, I really don't.
The article is not worthing my scanning it again, so I will take a guess. Probably, these politicians feel that banning dirty smut stores will be popular with some people, and get them re-elected. Citizens who support this measure probably feel that such dirty smut stores are selling trashy videos and magazines and disturbing sex gadgets that honest folks wouldn't be caught dead with, and making their community look trashy. No big brother stuff, really, they just want the law to keep dirty smut stores out of their town, or at least out of their sight. I think they are trying to control other people, plain and simple. People like power. People are afraid of other people that are different than they. I don't know, I really don't.
Now maybe these people have not thought through the logical implications of such laws, or how they may or may not lead to other laws controlling every single human behavior. Most people don't think that way until such can be used as an argument in their favor. Welcome to democracy.
Post by: stevelyn on April 28, 2006, 03:21:04 AM
Quote from: fistful
Art, way too much info.
A lot of people have traditional moral beliefs, and a belief in legislating them, without adhering to any religion at all. I would say such laws become more valid as religious belief has less control over peoples' actions.
The concern that we might start down a slippery slope to theocracy is understandable, but the fear and disdain are unfortunate. I have grown up around various types of conservative evangelicals, and I can tell you they have a lot of libertarian ideas about some topics. Most of them, however, are just working and taking care of their families and are no more consistent in their political thinking than most other Americans. Rather than insulting and demeaning my fellows, it would be much more helpful to try to explain to them why prohibition of various things would be a bad idea. If you believe in the seperation of church and state, you should respectfully explain to such people how you interpret this concept. As it is, they are only listening to people like Richard Land, Judge Roy Moore and others who actually respect their beliefs.
Just because people have traditional moral beliefs, doesn't give them the right or the duty to legislate those beliefs on others.Quote from: stevelyn
Quote from: fistful
"Christo-fascists"? "Fundamentalists"? "religious extremism?" Who is claiming to be a Christian here, and more importantly, where do they claim a religious basis for their actions?
This type of legislation usually emmanates from the above list of usual suspects and those who pander to them. There's no reason to believe it's any different this time.Quote from: fistful
A crackdown on "adult" stores is a war on sex?
The question remains. Some o' yall are gettin' mighty worked up about a bill in one out of fifty statehouses. The concern that we might start down a slippery slope to theocracy is understandable, but the fear and disdain are unfortunate. I have grown up around various types of conservative evangelicals, and I can tell you they have a lot of libertarian ideas about some topics. Most of them, however, are just working and taking care of their families and are no more consistent in their political thinking than most other Americans. Rather than insulting and demeaning my fellows, it would be much more helpful to try to explain to them why prohibition of various things would be a bad idea. If you believe in the seperation of church and state, you should respectfully explain to such people how you interpret this concept. As it is, they are only listening to people like Richard Land, Judge Roy Moore and others who actually respect their beliefs.
Moral and religious beliefs are personal codes of conduct for an individual to choose whether or not they will follow them.
Legislating morality makes one no different than the Taliban trash.
Post by: Art Eatman on April 28, 2006, 06:17:22 AM
So, backlash. Whatever is a handy target does indeed get targeted.
I'd bet that there aren't really all that many who give a hoot about what's done in privacy. What's repulsive to many, though, is public flaunting of whatever sort of sexual interest folks might have. Doesn't matter if it's prime time on a major network, or "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" on an obscure cable channel. It's seen as flaunting of what is believed to be, more appropriately, private behavior.
You push people long enough and hard enough, they'll push back.
Art
Post by: Justin on April 28, 2006, 06:46:13 AM
Quote
A lot of people have traditional moral beliefs, and a belief in legislating them, without adhering to any religion at all. I would say such laws become more valid as religious belief has less control over peoples' actions.
Yes, because without these laws an army of atheists toting dildos will surely conquer us all.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on April 28, 2006, 07:30:13 AM
Quote from: Justin
Yes, because without these laws an army of atheists toting dildos will surely conquer us all.
I don't know about you, but that scares the hell out of me
Post by: thebaldguy on April 28, 2006, 02:08:24 PM
"You'll have to pry my Magic Wand vibrator from my cold, dead hands!"
LOL
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 28, 2006, 07:10:23 PM
Quote from: thebaldguy
This is great. Here's one from my girlfriend:
"You'll have to pry my Magic Wand vibrator from my cold, dead hands!"
LOL
Note to self; don't admit my significant other needs a vibrator. Embarassing!
"You'll have to pry my Magic Wand vibrator from my cold, dead hands!"
LOL
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 28, 2006, 07:41:19 PM
Quote from: stevelyn
Just because people have traditional moral beliefs, doesn't give them the right or the duty to legislate those beliefs on others.
Moral and religious beliefs are personal codes of conduct for an individual to choose whether or not they will follow them.
Legislating morality makes one no different than the Taliban trash.
I didn't say that moral beliefs against sex toys give anyone a right to ban them. You are really missing my point, part of which was to say that when people do not control themselves with their own moral codes, the majority will demand more government control. Unfortunate, but true. This is partly why the decline of religious belief in America has coincided with an increase in legislation. Moral and religious beliefs are personal codes of conduct for an individual to choose whether or not they will follow them.
Legislating morality makes one no different than the Taliban trash.
Also, religions are much more than just personal codes of conduct. Most of them are all-encompassing frameworks for how one acts in and views the world. Some religions, such as the brand of Islam practiced in much of the Middle East today, teach that the state must enforce religious moral codes. You and I may disagree with this, but that is their religion.
Thirdly, I don't believe that you are opposed to "legislating morality." Most, if not all, laws impose morality on the violator. Even if laws are based on the idea of human rights, these are moral concepts with no more validity than traditional religious ideas. If you don't want anyone's morality imposed on anyone else, then you cannot justify the arrest, trial and sentencing of a terrorist who blows up a bus full of innocents, certainly not if he believes that his religion, his morality, compelled him to do it.
Post by: Tallpine on April 29, 2006, 05:00:55 PM
Really ...?
Ever heard of Plymouth Colony and the Puritans
Post by: Justin on April 29, 2006, 07:51:48 PM
Quote
You are really missing my point, part of which was to say that when people do not control themselves with their own moral codes, the majority will demand more government control.
Feel free to point us to a news story that highlights the rampant crimewave resulting from the wide availability of sex toys.No, really.
I mean, I can almost understand the point of a person like Brent Bozell and his army of clones who get offended at television. But, I'm sorry, attempting to legislate morality via restriction of products that are sold in age-restricted shops or via age-restricted mail order is fractally stupid.
Post by: stevelyn on April 30, 2006, 03:51:43 AM
Quote from: fistful
Thirdly, I don't believe that you are opposed to "legislating morality." Most, if not all, laws impose morality on the violator. Even if laws are based on the idea of human rights, these are moral concepts with no more validity than traditional religious ideas. If you don't want anyone's morality imposed on anyone else, then you cannot justify the arrest, trial and sentencing of a terrorist who blows up a bus full of innocents, certainly not if he believes that his religion, his morality, compelled him to do it.
Apples and oranges comparison and yes I'm opposed to legislating morality.A terrorist blowing up innocent people or any criminal aggression against other persons is not the same thing as prohibiting the sale of certain items or prohibiting activities to consenting adults.
Post by: tyme on April 30, 2006, 11:45:53 PM
Quote
Helaine Gesas, who has lived on Hayvenhurst Avenue for 38 years, was in her kitchen cooking Passover supper when she noticed men hauling cameras and lights into the two-story house across the street.
Her neighbor Kerry Cohen, a paralegal and mother, was on her way out to organize a charity event. As she squeezed past several large production trucks, Cohen looked in her rear-view mirror and saw "scantily clad" young women parking their cars and heading toward the same house.
As far as John R. Johnson was concerned, "that was the end of Easter Sunday." Johnson, another neighbor, told his 9-year-old daughter to stay inside while what he described as a "prison-yard break" a large film crew, many of its members covered in tattoos entered the iron gates of the house in the 3600 block of Hayvenhurst.
Outraged, Johnson called the city seeking to shut the porn shoot down. But everything, he was told, was perfectly legal.
Tattoos, cameras, and scantily-clad women? The horror!
Her neighbor Kerry Cohen, a paralegal and mother, was on her way out to organize a charity event. As she squeezed past several large production trucks, Cohen looked in her rear-view mirror and saw "scantily clad" young women parking their cars and heading toward the same house.
As far as John R. Johnson was concerned, "that was the end of Easter Sunday." Johnson, another neighbor, told his 9-year-old daughter to stay inside while what he described as a "prison-yard break" a large film crew, many of its members covered in tattoos entered the iron gates of the house in the 3600 block of Hayvenhurst.
Outraged, Johnson called the city seeking to shut the porn shoot down. But everything, he was told, was perfectly legal.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 01, 2006, 02:10:15 AM
Post by: roo_ster on May 01, 2006, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: stevelyn
Quote from: fistful
If you don't want anyone's morality imposed on anyone else, then you cannot justify the arrest, trial and sentencing of a terrorist who blows up a bus full of innocents, certainly not if he believes that his religion, his morality, compelled him to do it.
Apples and oranges comparison and yes I'm opposed to legislating morality.A terrorist blowing up innocent people or any criminal aggression against other persons is not the same thing as prohibiting the sale of certain items or prohibiting activities to consenting adults.
We, as a society, have made a moral judgement that murder, rape, & theft are wrong, despite the benefits for the perpetrators.
Arguing that one is opposed to "legislating morality" is akin to saying "I want to live in anarchy where the most ruthlessly violent rule over all others."
Arguing that one is opposed to "legislating morality with regard to sex and its manifestations in the market" seems to be more accurate.
---------------------------------
As to Rep Ralphie Boy & his bill, I am not overly riled. It is a state matter at the state level, & I firmly believe that states, counties, & municipalities ought to be governed as their constitutions and constituents see fit. If his fellow South Carolinians desire such a law & the law passes state constitutional muster, let them lock up the toys. If not, let them make fun at his expense: "Ralph: The man who would put the lock on bondage"
I would be more likely to vote against Ralphie Boy's bill, but would be quite receptive to bills taking a hard look at stores that sell such products, similar to the way I would want feed lots treated. Both can foul up the neighborhood & the locals ought to have a say in the matter.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 01, 2006, 09:01:26 AM
Quote from: Tallpine
"You are really missing my point, part of which was to say that when people do not control themselves with their own moral codes, the majority will demand more government control. Unfortunate, but true. This is partly why the decline of religious belief in America has coincided with an increase in legislation."
Really ...?
Ever heard of Plymouth Colony and the Puritans
I'm not denying that are and have been oppresive theocracies. An example of what I mean is this. If more people adhered to a religion of some sort, a greater share of the TV audience would be offended by profanity, obscenity and sexual content on television. Such content would be more likely to negatively affect the profits of sponsors. In this case, the free market would control TV programming, relegating the FCC to near uselessness.Really ...?
Ever heard of Plymouth Colony and the Puritans
As it is, few really care what's on broadcast TV, so a vocal minority demands, and gets, greater government involvement.
Post by: Strings on May 01, 2006, 12:25:30 PM
Just to answer your question about "blaming" the "Christian Right" for such legislation: EVERY time I've seen any kind of "anti-porn" initiative, it's been run by a group with "Christian" mentioned prominantly in the title. Haven't caught "Muslims for Sexual Purity", or "Jews Against Lewd Behavior"...
>Probably, these politicians feel that banning dirty smut stores will be popular with some people, and get them re-elected. Citizens who support this measure probably feel that such dirty smut stores are selling trashy videos and magazines and disturbing sex gadgets that honest folks wouldn't be caught dead with, and making their community look trashy. No big brother stuff, really, they just want the law to keep dirty smut stores out of their town, or at least out of their sight.<
Isn't the definition of "Big Brother Stuff" one group telling another how to live?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 01, 2006, 03:01:55 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Fistful:
No big brother stuff, really, they just want the law to keep dirty smut stores out of their town, or at least out of their sight.<
Isn't the definition of "Big Brother Stuff" one group telling another how to live?
Who's telling who how to live? Let me give you a little perspective, and then tell you what I mean by that question. You should understand that conservative Christians feel they are under siege. For all the fear of a Christian theocracy, the alleged perpetrators feel they are the persecuted ones. Listen to Christian talk radio, and read the literature some of us are reading, and at least once a month you will hear about some school-kid's Bible being confiscated, or some Christian being told not to pray in the lunchroom at work. Our view of sex is laughed at and called hateful. I say all that to get to this point. I think a lot of people would support this bill just because they view "adult" stores as a big slap in the face to them. No big brother stuff, really, they just want the law to keep dirty smut stores out of their town, or at least out of their sight.<
Isn't the definition of "Big Brother Stuff" one group telling another how to live?
Have you read 1984? Big Brother watched every move and forbade sex except for procreation. I'm not saying that this law is good, just that it's a long way from Big Brother, and that I'm guessing the motivation is much different. Your definition of Big Brother Stuff is so loose that the phrase loses all meaning. As I've already stated, laws have no other purpose than to impose morality.
Post by: Justin on May 01, 2006, 03:25:11 PM
Don't like objectionable content on television?
Then don't subscribe to cable. Or learn how to use the government-mandated V-Chip that comes standard on all TV's these days.
I think that the public school system is a joke, and not likely to give either side what they want, but the Christian right continues to go about it the wrong way, attempting to force their view on the school system rather than taking their kids out of it and campaigning to end public schools altogether.
Quote
I think a lot of people would support this bill just because they view "adult" stores as a big slap in the face to them.
How does this make sense at all? Such stores are generally heavily restricted by zoning ordinances, and don't advertise their presence much. Nobody is forcing anybody to go into such a shop, and viewing it as a "slap in the face" should be taken for the childish temper-tantrum that it is.Quote
Have you read 1984? Big Brother watched every move and forbade sex except for procreation. I'm not saying that this law is good, just that it's a long way from Big Brother, and that I'm guessing the motivation is much different.
Yes, I have. I distinctly remember the mention of a sublet of one of the Ministries that was dedicated to creating and disseminating pornographic material through falsley clandestine methods.From Hunter Rose:
Quote
EVERY time I've seen any kind of "anti-porn" initiative, it's been run by a group with "Christian" mentioned prominantly in the title. Haven't caught "Muslims for Sexual Purity", or "Jews Against Lewd Behavior"...
Two words: Andrea Dworkin.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 01, 2006, 03:33:24 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 01, 2006, 09:05:50 PM
Quote from: Justin
I think that the public school system is a joke, and not likely to give either side what they want, but the Christian right continues to go about it the wrong way, attempting to force their view on the school system rather than taking their kids out of it and campaigning to end public schools altogether.
The Christian right is by no means monolithic. Many of them are doing just as you suggest. The Southern Baptist Convention has been talking for a while about making a resolution to that effect, although it was voted down. I'm guessing that was by the liberal side of the convention. The Christian Right is split regarding vouchers, as we are on Faith-Based Initiatives, with many objecting that govt funding going to private institutions would just bring on govt. control. And you have heard of home-schooling haven't you? Plenty of Christians doing that, like half the kids I grew up with.One point I've been trying to make is that most conservative Christians in America have a lot of libertarian leanings, but like most people, they don't apply their political principles consistently. A little explanation and dialogue with such people would be helpful, but ridicule, fear and hatred of them are counter-productive.
Quote
I think a lot of people would support this bill just because they view "adult" stores as a big slap in the face to them.
Quote from: Justin
How does this make sense at all?
Just the way it is, same as some people get all upset when two furriners dare to speak their furrin language in our country. People are like that. Quote from: Justin
Such stores are generally heavily restricted by zoning ordinances, and don't advertise their presence much.
Where do you live, Salt Lake City? Here in the Saint Loius area, not far from my house, there is one right across from the Wal-Mart, and two or three more across the street from the mall. All of these are on major thorough-fares. I don't know what you mean by "advertising their presence," but I think the lingerie in the windows and names like "Secret Desires" do that well enough. Head west on Interstate 70 towards Kansas City, and there are huge nudey-bar/porn-shops visible from the highway, all with huge billboards. I've seen that in Texas as well. Quote
Have you read 1984? Big Brother watched every move and forbade sex except for procreation. I'm not saying that this law is good, just that it's a long way from Big Brother, and that I'm guessing the motivation is much different.
Quote
Yes, I have. I distinctly remember the mention of a sublet of one of the Ministries that was dedicated to creating and disseminating pornographic material through falsley clandestine methods.
Yeah, you're right, that does take the wind out of the Big Brother talk.
Post by: Art Eatman on May 02, 2006, 04:04:16 AM
Christians are proud of their religion; why not label themselves when they're expressing an opinion? Why should they not speak out agaainst what they see as wrong actions?
Until statism got so much power, the history of the criminal justice system in this country has always considered Judeo-Christian values. The controls on human behavior--or misbehavior--have always reflected these do/don't aspects.
The 1960s saw the beginning of the "anything goes" stuff in our society. That is, nothing really new as far as human interactions or "sins" began, other than the Timothy Leary view that whatever one cared to do could be done anywhere, anytime, any-old-how.
It was a time where responsibilities became subordinated to "Rights"--many of which were newly invented.
This attitude gave us our welfare state's public support. This attitude created the helplessness--from a legal standpoint--against much of "harmless" behavior that is repugnant, such as aggressive panhandlers and street people stinking up a library.
So I again nbring up "Backlash". A lot of people want something done against the slime-people of Hollywood, or the pedophile crowd or the porno stores. They don't bother to differentiate; it's all slime.
Hell's bells, I'm not even religious, but I think I have some understanding of the motivations of the Christian "Right", and I darned sure have SOME agreement with SOME of their views.
What it is, is, there used to be social pressures, peer pressures, that contolled outre behavior. There was a strong separation between private and public behavior. And we functioned pretty well with that situation. Nobody says it was perfect, but much of it was better than the crap we put up with today. Instead of getting rid of the overly repressive stuff and keeping the good, we've done the proverbial throw the baby out with the batwater. Dumb.
Any religion attracts nutzoids. Witness what Jihadists are costing us. I'd just as soon not push on a group that might come up with Jihadists of their own, thank you.
And one t hing I gay-rawn-dam-tee you: Name-calling does not make for effective accomodation of disparate interests, no matter how smug anybody feels when bad-mouthing about these horrible nasty Christian Rightists--you should pardon my sarcasm.
Art
Post by: richyoung on May 02, 2006, 04:26:14 AM
Quote
Just because people have traditional moral beliefs, doesn't give them the right or the duty to legislate those beliefs on others.
Nor does it put any obligation or duty NOT to do so. Its called DEMOCRACY - if 50% +1 vote for it, its coming - and religion and morality are as solid a basis for legislation as any other. Mo body out there is seriously advocating disenfranchising Wiccans, Satanists, Kabalists, Giasts - why should fundamentalists alone be denied access to the political process?Quote
Moral and religious beliefs are personal codes of conduct for an individual to choose whether or not they will follow them.
..and LAWS are institutionalized societal codes of conduct for which choosing to NOT follow has potential consequences.Quote
Legislating morality makes one no different than the Taliban trash.
ALL law is SOMEONE'S morality: from the Americans with Disabilities ACT to CAFE standards to gun control to Social Security to Affirmative Action - it is all someone's imposing a moral judgement on the rest.
Post by: richyoung on May 02, 2006, 04:38:58 AM
Quote from: Justin
Dude, that makes no sense at all. Even if your argument didn't boil down to "The Christian Right aren't a bunch of fascists, but when we get called that, we just have to go out and act like fascists" it's still silly.
Do you even KNOW what "fascism" and "fascia" are? Or are they just lefty buzz words that you've leaned to chuck at anything you don't like? The absolute LAST thing ANY Christian would want is "fascism", seeing as how the first fascists were feeding Christians to lions and such.Quote
Don't like objectionable content on television?
Then don't subscribe to cable. Or learn how to use the government-mandated V-Chip that comes standard on all TV's these days.
..or use your voice to express displeasure to your elected representatives at thow the PUBLIC air waves are being used for profit by PRIVATE companies. Again, I don't understand the theory that only Christian fundamentalists must waive their political rights....Then don't subscribe to cable. Or learn how to use the government-mandated V-Chip that comes standard on all TV's these days.
Quote
I think that the public school system is a joke, and not likely to give either side what they want, but the Christian right continues to go about it the wrong way, attempting to force their view on the school system rather than taking their kids out of it and campaigning to end public schools altogether.
This is a lot like gun owners in California: stay and fight, or pick up stakes and move on. Thats a deeply personal choice, compouned in theis instance by the fact that the CHristians MUST finacially support the public schools with their taxes WITHOUT being reimburded if they take their children out of the system.Quote
How does this make sense at all? Such stores are generally heavily restricted by zoning ordinances, and don't advertise their presence much. Nobody is forcing anybody to go into such a shop, and viewing it as a "slap in the face" should be taken for the childish temper-tantrum that it is.
Not where I live they aren't - they (and the strip clubs) advertise heavily on the radio.
Post by: Justin on May 02, 2006, 06:46:59 AM
Quote
If we don't always have a proper understanding of civil rights and good government, it's probably because most Americans don't. The enemy is not Christianity or Christians; it is the statism that has become ingrained in Americans over so many past decades.
On that we certainly agree.Quote
The Christian right is by no means monolithic. Many of them are doing just as you suggest. The Southern Baptist Convention has been talking for a while about making a resolution to that effect, although it was voted down. I'm guessing that was by the liberal side of the convention. The Christian Right is split regarding vouchers, as we are on Faith-Based Initiatives, with many objecting that govt funding going to private institutions would just bring on govt. control. And you have heard of home-schooling haven't you? Plenty of Christians doing that, like half the kids I grew up with.
For which they ought to be lauded. The education system in this nation is beyond repair, and anyone willing to stand up and voice a solution other than "raise taxes and throw more money at the system" is being gutsy.Quote
One point I've been trying to make is that most conservative Christians in America have a lot of libertarian leanings, but like most people, they don't apply their political principles consistently.
Other than those who self-apply the term libertarian, this could be said to apply to any group in the US. Business owners want to be free to make as much profit as they can, so I guess that makes them libertarian? Drug legalization proponents want to be able to smoke a joint, so I guess that makes them libertarian, too? I'm sorry, but the hallmark of a true libertarian isn't someone who willingly defends only their pet freedoms. A libertarian is someone who is willing to defend even liberties they have no intention in engaging. In fact, they may even find them distasteful or sinful.Quote
Just the way it is, same as some people get all upset when two furriners dare to speak their furrin language in our country. People are like that.
Nonsensical. For this comparison to work, it would have to be two foreigners who choose to speak their native language in their own home.Quote
Where do you live, Salt Lake City? Here in the Saint Loius area, not far from my house, there is one right across from the Wal-Mart, and two or three more across the street from the mall. All of these are on major thorough-fares. I don't know what you mean by "advertising their presence," but I think the lingerie in the windows and names like "Secret Desires" do that well enough.
And how is a name like "Secret Desires" possibly offensive to anyone? If the name were something truly offensive, say by being excessively descriptive of a carnal act, you'd have a point, but getting offended at a lingerie shop that hangs frilly undergarments in the window hardly passes the smell test. There are shops like that around here, but they're obviously not hanging large-format, explicitly photographed banners in the window for the latest video release. All of the places around here that sell that particular line of products tend not to have windows that are open to the streets.Quote
Yeah, you're right, that does take the wind out of the Big Brother talk.
I could make a point, but it would be exceptionally snide and unkind, even by my standards.
Post by: Justin on May 02, 2006, 07:05:19 AM
Quote
So I again nbring up "Backlash". A lot of people want something done against the slime-people of Hollywood, or the pedophile crowd or the porno stores. They don't bother to differentiate; it's all slime.
Then it's indicative of slipshod thinking on their part. There's no shortage of true injustices perpetrated by the state and others that they ought to have a backlash against. Fistful hit on a couple of them. But why so many of these factions waste their time on things like this, or gambling, or any number of other things that only serve to get them brushed with a negative image is patently beyond me.Quote
Any religion attracts nutzoids. Witness what Jihadists are costing us. I'd just as soon not push on a group that might come up with Jihadists of their own, thank you.
If we've reached the point where people in this society are ready to start tossing bombs because some bored, middle-aged housewife decides to go into a sex shop and buy a battery operated "massager" then we've pretty much already lost.
Post by: Justin on May 02, 2006, 07:23:58 AM
Quote
Do you even KNOW what "fascism" and "fascia" are? Or are they just lefty buzz words that you've leaned to chuck at anything you don't like? The absolute LAST thing ANY Christian would want is "fascism", seeing as how the first fascists were feeding Christians to lions and such.
You'll note my use of quotes when I posted the statement with "fascism" in it. I wasn't calling anyone anything. It was a hypothetical statement to make a point, so there's no reason to get tetchy and start trying to label me as some left-wing hatemonger. Thanks all the same, though.Quote
Nor does it put any obligation or duty NOT to do so. Its called DEMOCRACY - if 50% +1 vote for it, its coming - and religion and morality are as solid a basis for legislation as any other. Mo body out there is seriously advocating disenfranchising Wiccans, Satanists, Kabalists, Giasts - why should fundamentalists alone be denied access to the political process?
Majority rule =/= right. Seems to me that Christianity is built around a lot of that. And I hardly see where anywhere in this nation Wiccans, Satanists, Kabalists or Giasts have any sort of political majority.Quote
..or use your voice to express displeasure to your elected representatives at thow the PUBLIC air waves are being used for profit by PRIVATE companies. Again, I don't understand the theory that only Christian fundamentalists must waive their political rights....
So, where does it stop? The right was instrumental in passing legislation to mandate V-Chips on televisions, saying that such a tool would allow parents to screen out objectionable material. Now that they've got that on every television that comes off of an assembly line, they call for further tightening of the Federal decency standards. Which causes me to wonder, at what point will they stop calling for the sanitization of society? Again, just because you can muster a majority to vote for something doesn't make it right. Incidentally, I don't buy the whole "public airwaves" argument. It was a lame argument used as justification for a federal power-grab back in the initial days of television and radio, and it's a lame argument now.Quote
This is a lot like gun owners in California: stay and fight, or pick up stakes and move on. Thats a deeply personal choice, compouned in theis instance by the fact that the CHristians MUST finacially support the public schools with their taxes WITHOUT being reimburded if they take their children out of the system.
No disagreement here. Arguably the public school system hoses devoutly religious parents more than nearly every other group.
Post by: richyoung on May 02, 2006, 10:51:51 AM
Quote from: Justin
You'll note my use of quotes when I posted the statement with "fascism" in it. I wasn't calling anyone anything.
Technically true. What you did was accuse them of acting like fascists....Quote
"...when we get called that, we just have to go out and act like fascists"
Where I come from, accusing someone of "acting like XYZ" is the equivalent of asserting that they, in fact, ARE "XYZ". If that was not your intention, I appologizeQuote
It was a hypothetical statement to make a point, so there's no reason to get tetchy and start trying to label me as some left-wing hatemonger. Thanks all the same, though.
It was a profoundly offensive hypothetical. Perhaps you aren't aware of the common leftist tactic of calling everything they disagree with "fascism. Again, if I misunderstood, I take it back...Quote
Majority rule =/= right.
Never? I don't think so. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. If you feel that strongly about the issue - organize like minded voters and do something about it.Quote
Seems to me that Christianity is built around a lot of that.
Then you need more research. Christians are advised to "...render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars...", meaning that in the good ol USA it is their DUTY to fully participate in the political process, AND not only vote, but vote their conscience.Quote
And I hardly see where anywhere in this nation Wiccans, Satanists, Kabalists or Giasts have any sort of political majority.
Oh really? Never been to San Fransico, New Orleans, parts of Dallas, parts of New York...Quote
So, where does it stop? The right was instrumental in passing legislation to mandate V-Chips on televisions, saying that such a tool would allow parents to screen out objectionable material.
No, PARENTS were instrumental in passing it, as they didn't want little Jane and Johnny watching "Lesbian Nation" or some porn star having her "third eye" bleached to look better from the rear on screen, or various other bits of garbage that show up on the tube, while they were at work and using the TV as a babysitter so they could both work and make the payments on their McMansion, SUV European sedan, boat, RV, etc....Quote
Now that they've got that on every television that comes off of an assembly line, they call for further tightening of the Federal decency standards.
The airwaves belong to the public - they have, or should have, just as much say in how they are used as any other citizen. Don't like it? Persuade them otherwise, or out-vote them,..or get cable or satellite TV - plenty of garbage including soft-core porn & no need to worry about the blue noses votes...Quote
Which causes me to wonder, at what point will they stop calling for the sanitization of society? Again, just because you can muster a majority to vote for something doesn't make it right.
Again, it also doesn't make it WRONG,...even if YOUR position is otherwise.Quote
Incidentally, I don't buy the whole "public airwaves" argument. It was a lame argument used as justification for a federal power-grab back in the initial days of television and radio, and it's a lame argument now.
"Buy" or not, its how things are done. Don't like it? Convince a majority to elect representatives that will do otherwise, or appoint Supremes that will see things your way. Just don't complain that the opposition is exercising those same rights...
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 02, 2006, 04:28:30 PM
Quote from: Justin
For which they ought to be lauded. The education system in this nation is beyond repair, and anyone willing to stand up and voice a solution other than "raise taxes and throw more money at the system" is being gutsy.
So you don't stand by your earlier complaint about the CR going about it the wrong way? FWIW, the only gutsy thing I've heard in the area of education is that of abolishing the DoE. The other options are good, but not all that gutsy.Quote from: fistful
One point I've been trying to make is that most conservative Christians in America have a lot of libertarian leanings, but like most people, they don't apply their political principles consistently.
Quote from: Justin
Other than those who self-apply the term libertarian, this could be said to apply to any group in the US. Business owners want to be free to make as much profit as they can, so I guess that makes them libertarian? Drug legalization proponents want to be able to smoke a joint, so I guess that makes them libertarian, too? I'm sorry, but the hallmark of a true libertarian isn't someone who willingly defends only their pet freedoms. A libertarian is someone who is willing to defend even liberties they have no intention in engaging. In fact, they may even find them distasteful or sinful.
I didn't say they were true libertarians, but I think most conservatives, Christian or not, are more libertarian than what you are describing. In my experience, most conservative Christians are libertarian on:Business regulation, even though most don't own businesses.
Guns, though many don't have any.
Campaign finance reform, but only because talk radio tells them so.
Abortion, as libertarians believe government should punish murderers - even though none of the CR are fetuses.
Homosexual sodomy - Believe it or not, I think a lot of them would rather not re-criminalize it.
And to steer this totally off-topic, they oppose legal recognition of homosexual marriage. This is a libertarian stance, as HM would be an INCREASE in government regulation.
Quote from: fistful
Just the way it is, same as some people get all upset when two furriners dare to speak their furrin language in our country. People are like that.
Quote from: Justin
Nonsensical. For this comparison to work, it would have to be two foreigners who choose to speak their native language in their own home.
No sir, we're not talking about people using sex toys at home, we're talking about selling them in stores open to the public. Like I said, I don't approve of the bill. I am only trying to explain what its supporters might be thinking.Quote from: Justin
And how is a name like "Secret Desires" possibly offensive to anyone?
Justin, if you are going to respond to my post, then at least have enough respect to listen to what I am saying. I'm not claiming the phrase is offensive, only that the stores in my area don't hide what they are. Put that name on your store and put some lingerie in the windows and it's pretty obvious what you're peddling. This is in response to your opinion that such stores "don't advertise their presence much." And how can you pretend that such stores are not offensive to people, when we're talking about the people who are offended by them?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 02, 2006, 05:41:30 PM
Quote from: richyoung
Its called DEMOCRACY - if 50% +1 vote for it, its coming
But fortunately, we have an anti-democratic institution called the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of the minority, or at least it's supposed to. Quote from: richyoung
ALL law is SOMEONE'S morality: from the Americans with Disabilities ACT to CAFE standards to gun control to Social Security to Affirmative Action - it is all someone's imposing a moral judgement on the rest.
Well said.FWIW, Rich, Justin was not calling us fascists. But I don't feel like explaining it, except to say that he was trying to sum up my statements, as he understood them.
Post by: Strings on May 02, 2006, 07:46:18 PM
Ok, by that logic, states should be able to outlaw gun stores for the same reason. I know you're not saying you agree with the bill, fistful, just pointing it out...
>I'm not claiming the phrase is offensive, only that the stores in my area don't hide what they are. Put that name on your store and put some lingerie in the windows and it's pretty obvious what you're peddling. This is in response to your opinion that such stores "don't advertise their presence much."<
So? I lost my grandfather in France in WWII: does this give me the right to raise Hell about German stores? Or is there someone outside these places with a shotgun, forcing folks in?
>And how can you pretend that such stores are not offensive to people, when we're talking about the people who are offended by them?<
Dude... there are people out there that find you handle offensive! Does that mean they should have the right to ban your handle?
I don't recall any mention ANYWHERE of a right not to be offended, not until VERY recent years. Pick ANYTHING, and there's someone somewhere that's offended by it...
Oh... one last thing:
>Mo body out there is seriously advocating disenfranchising Wiccans, Satanists, Kabalists, Giasts<
Try being a member of one of the above groups in the US military. While nobody is actively trying to bar us from voting, it's a serious fight on most bases to practice our faith (oh yeah... that pesky First Amendment)...
Post by: Art Eatman on May 03, 2006, 04:18:22 AM
Er, yes. By the way, there's a web site called The High Road. It has a Legal and Political forum. I submit that there are a plethora of posts which evidence slipshod thinking.
Some percentage of ANY group is just that way.
I'm not trying to justify either side of the porno argument. I'm trying to point out some of the real-world reasons for the behavior of some highly-vocal Christians. Always remember that to SOME extent they represent the views of the non-vocal Christians and of the secular folks.
What I've seen, over and over and over, is that arguments of this sort bring out extreme examples as though they are the commonplace norm. That's just not the way it is.
Most of us subscribe to the idea that we're limited by the other fella's nose, right? I.e., do whatcha want as long as you don't hurt him. Okay, fine. But that holds for mental as well as physical. It's tied to that devil-word "responsibility". Extreme example: You're in church for your friend's wedding. An ant crawls up your pants leg and bites you. What you don't do is scream out, "That *expletive deleted*in' ant bit me!" at the top of your lungs.
Sure, the occasional mental hotfoot is a fun thing. Your sense of responsibility should tell you that it's not an unending set of career actions. Hard to hold a job, for one thing. I'm not calling for nicey-nice behavior at all times. I'm saying that you don't go through life agitating, annoying and pissing off a notable percentage of the people around you.
What came out of the '60s was a high regard for one's own rights, and a loss of interest in the rights of others. This accompanied a notable decline in consideration of consequences of one's decisions and actions. That all spilled out of the Hippie society and into the mainstream as the Hippies aged. They went out and became stockbrokers, teachers and politicians and carried the ideas with them.
Folks can holler about social contract and liberty and freedom and Constitutional rights, and it all looks good on paper and sounds great over a pitcher of beer or with brie and wine.
Has damn-all to do with people as people.
Art
Post by: richyoung on May 03, 2006, 04:36:21 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: richyoung
Its called DEMOCRACY - if 50% +1 vote for it, its coming
But fortunately, we have an anti-democratic institution called the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of the minority, or at least it's supposed to.Quote
FWIW, Rich, Justin was not calling us fascists. But I don't feel like explaining it, except to say that he was trying to sum up my statements, as he understood them.
OK - my bad.
Post by: richyoung on May 03, 2006, 04:43:19 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Try being a member of one of the above groups in the US military. While nobody is actively trying to bar us from voting, it's a serious fight on most bases to practice our faith (oh yeah... that pesky First Amendment)...
America was founded as a Judeo-Christian country. Step outside of that tradition, and you are going to have friction, especially in the military. The First Amendment was put in there so we wouldn't have one TYPE of Christianity declared the "OFFICIAL" state religion, leading to Lutherans killing Catholics, (or vice-versa), as had happened in ENGLAND with the ... Church of England. On top of that, as I'm sure you know, Congress has the authority to raise an army and prescribe the manner of its functioning - that's why the Bill of Rights DOES NOT APPLY to individuals serving in the military - rather the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies. Not enough Wiccan chaplins? Write your Congeressman - its his fault.
Post by: Strings on May 03, 2006, 08:05:16 AM
Oh, I'm sorry... i guess we shouldgo and found our own country then?
I know that's not what you were suggesting, but I have heard such suggested many times...
>...rather the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies. Not enough Wiccan chaplins? Write your Congeressman - its his fault.<
Not a complaint about "enough Wiccan Chaplains". How about the simple right to hold differing beliefs, without constant harasment (had to threaten my ship's original Chaplain before he quit riding me). How about allowing service members to have a place to worship (Google "Witches of Fort Hood")? Won't go into the BS i ran up against in boot...
Hate to say it, but anyone of a Christian faith (of whatever variety) is in a kinda bad spot to claim "persecution" from, at least when talking to me...
Post by: richyoung on May 03, 2006, 09:10:12 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
>
Hate to say it, but anyone of a Christian faith (of whatever variety) is in a kinda bad spot to claim "persecution" from, at least when talking to me...
I'm sorry - refresh my memory. When was the last time the United States, military or otherwise, did the following?Hate to say it, but anyone of a Christian faith (of whatever variety) is in a kinda bad spot to claim "persecution" from, at least when talking to me...
1. Crucify Wiccans.
2. Flog Wiccans.
3. Feed Wiccans to lions in front of crowds as "entertainment".
4. Kill Wicans.
5. Sell Wiccans into slavery.
6. Outlaw the Wiccan religion.
7. Blame WIccans for burining down the capital city.
8. Torture Wiccans.
9. Compel Wiccans by force and fear to renounce their religion and commit, to them, blasphemy.
You choose to follow a "non-mainstream" religion. There is a price to pay for that. Muslims in the U.S> military face similar problems. I mean no personal disrespect, but the cold hard fact is there aren't enough of (pick minority religion here) to justify re-tooling the military to deal with ALL of them - and as soon as you did, the Satanist would be howling that they aren't allowed to practice sexual magic or human sacrifice in the chapels on post.
Post by: Strings on May 03, 2006, 11:00:03 AM
>You choose to follow a "non-mainstream" religion. There is a price to pay for that. Muslims in the U.S> military face similar problems.<
Huh... didn't think I was asking for all that much...
>I mean no personal disrespect<
Then think twice, post once. Although it'll take a LOT more effort to offend me, I can't speak for other pagans on here...
>but the cold hard fact is there aren't enough of (pick minority religion here) to justify re-tooling the military to deal with ALL of them - and as soon as you did, the Satanist would be howling that they aren't allowed to practice sexual magic or human sacrifice in the chapels on post.<
Wow... might I suggest you drop out of this part of the debate? You just demonstrated that you have no clue what you're talking about with regards to "non-mainstream religions". However...
I don't expect the military to "re-tool". However, I expect just a touch of effort made to allow "non-mainstream practices", where possible. Which is, at best, currently a hit-or-miss proposition...
BTW: I don't recall hearing any Christians being threatened with burning at the stake. But I've recieved such threats ('course, being me, I told 'em to come along and try: I have most around me outgunned). Yet y'all keep screaming that "Christians are being persecuted!"
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 03, 2006, 05:54:23 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Hate to say it, but anyone of a Christian faith (of whatever variety) is in a kinda bad spot to claim "persecution" from, at least when talking to me...
Admitting your bias is the first step to getting past it. Persecution you have suffered should make you more sensitive to the persecutions of others. Christians have been persecuted, sometimes cruelly, throughout history, and they are being shot, beaten, jailed and tortured around the world today. http://www.persecution.com/basic/feature.cfm - Honest-to-goodness persecution around the world.
http://www.aclj.org/News/ - violations of Christians' religious freedom in the United States
Hunter, your responses to my post were so aside from the point that there is little to be gained by responding to it. Suffice to say, I was attempting to explain the feelings, ideas and behavior of others, whether rational or not.
Post by: Strings on May 03, 2006, 08:13:02 PM
As for this: "Hate to say it, but anyone of a Christian faith (of whatever variety) is in a kinda bad spot to claim "persecution" from, at least when talking to me...", when was the last time YOU had your life threatened for your religious beliefs? Are there some issues where people need to get over the "Seperation of Church and State"? Oh yeah... that particular issue needs to be let die. However, when I've had several offers of bodily harm from members of a religious group, and I hear other members of that group claim they're "persecuted" because they aren't allowed to pray at an event (or better, teach their version of myth as science), I get a lil' bucky...
As far as the original post: if you don't like adult stores, don't enter one. Don't try telling me I can't though... that's stepping over the line...
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 04, 2006, 02:15:27 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
hmmm... looks predominantly like a Christian group to me...
no comprendo.Quote from: Hunter Rose
However, when I've had several offers of bodily harm from members of a religious group, and I hear other members of that group claim they're "persecuted" because they aren't allowed to pray at an event (or better, teach their version of myth as science), I get a lil' bucky...
So if teachers and administrators tell kids they can't pray before they eat or read their Bibles in school, are you saying this isn't persecution? I hear and read about this on a regular basis, both from local people I know and in various news media. Yeah, I know, it ain't being fed to lions, but is it persecution?
Post by: stevelyn on May 04, 2006, 03:06:51 AM
Quote from: fistful
Who's telling who how to live? Let me give you a little perspective, and then tell you what I mean by that question. You should understand that conservative Christians feel they are under siege.
They brought it on themselves when they allowed the tv talking-head, televangelist trash like Falwell, Robertson others of the ilk speak for them.
Post by: SteveS on May 04, 2006, 04:07:18 AM
Quote from: stevelyn
Quote from: fistful
Who's telling who how to live? Let me give you a little perspective, and then tell you what I mean by that question. You should understand that conservative Christians feel they are under siege.
They brought it on themselves when they allowed the tv talking-head, televangelist trash like Falwell, Robertson others of the ilk speak for them.Post by: richyoung on May 04, 2006, 05:42:33 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Rich: when was the last time any of the above was done to a Christian?
Christians are being sold into slavery in parts of Africa today. They are persecuted, prosecuted, and executed throughout the Islamic world and Communist counties such as China and Cuba. Right now. Here in the US we are just mocked and ridiculed - for now.Quote
As a general rule, arguements SHOULD have some relation to the discussion: that was just a random list of atrocities (most, to the best of my knowledge, fairly old)...
...as I've said, going on right now...>You choose to follow a "non-mainstream" religion. There is a price to pay for that. Muslims in the U.S> military face similar problems.<
Quote
Huh... didn't think I was asking for all that much...
What exactly are you asking for?>but the cold hard fact is there aren't enough of (pick minority religion here) to justify re-tooling the military to deal with ALL of them - and as soon as you did, the Satanist would be howling that they aren't allowed to practice sexual magic or human sacrifice in the chapels on post.<
Quote
Wow... might I suggest you drop out of this part of the debate?
Suggest all you want - don't be suprised if I don't comply...I take it you are unaware that Satanist have sued in court to be allowed to sacrifice animals in prison, and to have black masses on military bases?Quote
You just demonstrated that you have no clue what you're talking about with regards to "non-mainstream religions". However...
What I do or don't have a clue of is beyond your ken - you don't know me. There is a difference between ignorance and disagreement.Quote
I don't expect the military to "re-tool". However, I expect just a touch of effort made to allow "non-mainstream practices", where possible. Which is, at best, currently a hit-or-miss proposition...
...so you expect the chaplain, probably from a Protestant denomination, to not only allow, but enthusiastically support actions contrary to his religion in his church? Pagan worship & all? You don't ask much...or would you be satisfied with seperate facilities?Quote
BTW: I don't recall hearing any Christians being threatened with burning at the stake.
Then the news of the man in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity and was threatened with capital punishment for doing so somehow escaped your notice? In was in all hte mainstream media last month...or how about this charming story..."Sudanese Christian slave 'crucified' by Muslim master: After being nailed to a board by his master and left for dead the last in a series of torturous acts a Sudanese Dinka boy escaped from his bondage and lived to tell his horrific story.
The story of "Joseph," a Christian, is told in a recent newsletter of the Persecution Project Foundation, an organization that monitors Christian persecution in Africa. "
Quote
Yet y'all keep screaming that "Christians are being persecuted!"
...see above... plus over 130 evangelical pastors killed in Columbia, Parliamentarians in the Netherlands have urged the government to investigate reports of death threats against former Muslims who converted to Christianity, muslim stabbed six Christians, killing one, in Alexandria, the Palestinian Bible Society has temporarily closed down its center with bookshop in Gaza City after it came under a bombing threat, human rights officials in Europe and the United States expressed concern Wednesday, May 3, over the persecution of Christians in the former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan, there was concern Saturday, April 8, over the future of Christian radio in Russia after the Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications refused to renew the radio license of a key evangelical radio station,...wonder why Christians DARE snivel about being "persecuted"?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 04, 2006, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: stevelyn
They brought it on themselves when they allowed the tv talking-head, televangelist trash like Falwell, Robertson others of the ilk speak for them.
Sounds like blaming the rape victim, but you do have a point. The conservative evangelical scholar Francis Schaefer had a lot to say about the foolishness of early evangelicals' anti-intellectualism and withdrawal from the world.Ironically, it was the pagan Romans and Jews who first persecuted Christians. Some of their - uh - descendants returned the favor, having lost sight of Christ's teachings. Then there are the Orthodox and Catholic churches that are currently trying to push Evangelicals and Protestants out of their areas. People are great, aren't they?
Post by: Strings on May 04, 2006, 10:42:15 PM
Only when served with a nice holandaise sauce...
>Christians are being sold into slavery in parts of Africa today. They are persecuted, prosecuted, and executed throughout the Islamic world and Communist counties such as China and Cuba. Right now. Here in the US we are just mocked and ridiculed - for now.<
Whereas I've had some of your fellow believers threaten bodily harm to me, here in the US. Don't be going on about what's happening in other parts of the globe: not much I can do about it...
>...so you expect the chaplain, probably from a Protestant denomination, to not only allow, but enthusiastically support actions contrary to his religion in his church? Pagan worship & all? You don't ask much...or would you be satisfied with seperate facilities?<
Again, check out the Witches of Fort Hood. They HAD a facility, and it got trashed by others (and not much done about it). This is also where the mighty cry of "Bush wants to outlaw Wicca!" came from.
ANY area that can provide a little privacy could be used for ceremony: for us, we don't need a special building. Most times, we can't even get the use of a conferance room or similar...
BTW: I DO love the "A Christian on the other sode of the world gets scratched, and I bleed" thing. It's almost cute!
Post by: Strings on May 04, 2006, 10:46:11 PM
>Suggest all you want - don't be suprised if I don't comply...I take it you are unaware that Satanist have sued in court to be allowed to sacrifice animals in prison, and to have black masses on military bases?<
Gee... a few kooks do something, and right away anyone with similar beliefs are just as evil. Pot, meet Kettle...
I know several "Satanists". They don't believe in any kind of living sacrifice. Grow up, and look beyond your own faith's propaganda!
As for the dreaded "Black Mass": can't think of many (outside MAYBE Le Vey's "Church of Satan") that even use the phrase. And Le Vey's followers aren't exactly "real" (read the Satanic Bible: it's actually a fairly bad joke)
Post by: richyoung on May 05, 2006, 05:06:50 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
I know several "Satanists". They don't believe in any kind of living sacrifice.
That would be news to Sharon Tate and her unborn child....Quote
Grow up, and look beyond your own faith's propaganda!
"In his bid for spiritual power {Aleister} Crowley even directly petitioned the Fallen Angel by praying and killing small birds before a human skeleton which he mounted on a makeshift altar in his home. [Wilson: 2000] ...There is also a vague reference to the human sacrifice of a male child in Magick in Theory and Practice ...The modern founder of Witchcraft Gerald Gardener hired Crowley to formulate the primary magical ceremonies practiced in some form by the vast majority of Wiccans to this day. Despite their claims that they are practicing the continuation of pre-Christian Goddess religion which survived from ancient times, most modern Witches are merely celebrating the nature rites of the "Great Beast 666" {Crowley}."http://williamhkennedy.com/articles/satanism.html
Not to mention Charley Manson, the "Son of Sam" killer, and various others linked to the Satanic wing of the Process cult.
Having a little trouble with facts?
Post by: RaggedClaws on May 05, 2006, 05:14:38 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism
Post by: richyoung on May 05, 2006, 05:47:24 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 05, 2006, 08:24:59 AM
Post by: Sindawe on May 05, 2006, 08:38:44 AM
Quote
Such practices are forbidden by the Bible, according to those who want the Fort Hood covens curtailed.
''There are 112 verses where God calls this not just sin but ... abomination,'' said the Rev. Jack Harvey, pastor of the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Killeen, just outside Fort Hood.
One verse he cites is Exodus 22:18: ''Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.''
''God detests this,'' Harvey said. ''This is like homosexuality, which God also says is an abomination.''
Earlier this month, 13 conservative religious groups, including the Christian Coalition with 2.1 million members, called on Christians to boycott joining or re-enlisting in the Army until witchcraft is banned on posts.
Source: http://www.holysmoke.org/wicca/ft-hood.htm
Sounds to me like Jack Harvey has been taking lessons from the Taliban. Or is it the other way round?''There are 112 verses where God calls this not just sin but ... abomination,'' said the Rev. Jack Harvey, pastor of the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Killeen, just outside Fort Hood.
One verse he cites is Exodus 22:18: ''Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.''
''God detests this,'' Harvey said. ''This is like homosexuality, which God also says is an abomination.''
Earlier this month, 13 conservative religious groups, including the Christian Coalition with 2.1 million members, called on Christians to boycott joining or re-enlisting in the Army until witchcraft is banned on posts.
Source: http://www.holysmoke.org/wicca/ft-hood.htm
Quote
Hey, did you guys hear about that bill in South Carolina?
Elaborate please. There have been LOTS of bills in South Carolina.
Post by: Strings on May 05, 2006, 10:37:44 AM
>The modern founder of Witchcraft Gerald Gardener hired Crowley to formulate the primary magical ceremonies practiced in some form by the vast majority of Wiccans to this day.<
BS. I've studied both ceremonial magic and Wicca (I AM Wiccan), and there're VERY few similarities...
>Despite their claims that they are practicing the continuation of pre-Christian Goddess religion which survived from ancient times<
PLEASE don't get me started on the fluff bunnies!
So fistful... what bill was it you were talking about? :neener:
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 05, 2006, 02:43:39 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
>Despite their claims that they are practicing the continuation of pre-Christian Goddess religion which survived from ancient times<
PLEASE don't get me started on the fluff bunnies!
So fistful... what bill was it you were talking about? :neener:
Oh, just some bill I heard about on the internet. I am going to start a thread on how paganism was portrayed in The Da Vinci Code. Having just about finished the book I am amazed at Dan Brown's obsession with "the sacred feminine," as if this were the sine qua non of paganism.
PLEASE don't get me started on the fluff bunnies!
So fistful... what bill was it you were talking about? :neener:
Post by: Justin on May 05, 2006, 03:01:30 PM
Post by: Justin on May 05, 2006, 05:21:59 PM
This here's the new Silly Meter" Mark II.V®
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 05, 2006, 05:55:56 PM
Quote from: Sindawe
Elaborate please. There have been LOTS of bills in South Carolina.
Sindawe, if you're joking, then I took the bait. I refer to the bill that started this thread.Quote
War on Sex
What gun for Sex?
Post by: Sindawe on May 05, 2006, 07:04:07 PM
Quote
Sindawe, if you're joking, then I took the bait. I refer to the bill that started this thread.
DOH! I can SUCH a Blonde at times. Quote
What gun for Sex?
A SAW. Most definitely a SAW!!!
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 05, 2006, 07:21:09 PM
Ever carried a SAW on a sling? They're very pokey.
Post by: Strings on May 05, 2006, 09:53:15 PM
Want to learn some actual TRUTH about Wicca? check out Wicca for the rest of Us.
"Fluff bunnies" are the ones going on about how "ancient" Wicca is (1957), how early civilizations were matriarchal (some may have been, but they weren't necessarily better), the terror or the "Burning Times" (The witch hunts in medieval Europe. Various claims have actually topped several million, which is I think a bit higher than the population at the time), and other non-sensical stuff. BTW... Bunnies are usually also bliss-ninnies...
And fistful? You owe me for the mental images of you and the SAW, ESPECIALLY given the original topic of this thread!
Post by: bermbuster on May 06, 2006, 04:30:12 AM
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4830.htm
It was introduced on 3/15 and sent to the Judiciary Committee. So far Rep. Davenport is the only sponsor of the bill.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 06, 2006, 05:23:17 AM
Post by: bermbuster on May 06, 2006, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: fistful
What has that to do with Satanist goddess-worshippers sacrificing Christian maidens in the chapel at Fort Hood?
If you are referring to my post about the bill in committee of the SC legislature, that is what this thread started out being about. The route to Satanist goddess-worshippers was interesting however.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 06, 2006, 12:16:39 PM
Post by: bermbuster on May 06, 2006, 01:55:46 PM
Quote from: fistful
This thread has really become hilarious.
No doubt
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 06, 2006, 02:18:45 PM
Post by: bermbuster on May 06, 2006, 03:20:50 PM
Post by: Strings on May 06, 2006, 08:10:24 PM
Post by: richyoung on May 08, 2006, 04:17:09 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Gee Rich... you DO remember who Charley was claiming to be when those killings happened, right?
Gee, Hunter, you DO know that Charley was imitating CROWLEY when he claimed to be J.C., right? Crowley not only claimed to be Jesus on various occasions, but one of his most famous photographs was in a cruxifiction pose.Quote
BS. I've studied both ceremonial magic and Wicca (I AM Wiccan), and there're VERY few similarities...
That odd...evne scholars that take the position that Crowley had less influence on Wicca conceed that Ye Bok of Ye Art Magiacl was based in part on Crowley's The Equinox, Volume III Number 1 (The Blue Equinox), and Magick in Theory and Practice.
Post by: Strings on May 08, 2006, 08:26:37 AM
Odd... I've never heard of that book anywhere. But it's YOUR proof that Crowley was a major influence on Wicca?
BTW: followers or Crowley's religion are called "Thelemic". Want some unbiased info? There's even some interesting little historical tidbits in AC's life...
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 08, 2006, 08:49:32 AM
Post by: richyoung on May 08, 2006, 11:02:16 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
>That odd...evne scholars that take the position that Crowley had less influence on Wicca conceed that Ye Bok of Ye Art Magiaclwas based in part on Crowley's The Equinox, Volume III Number 1 (The Blue Equinox), and Magick in Theory and Practice.<
Odd... I've never heard of that book anywhere. But it's YOUR proof that Crowley was a major influence on Wicca?
"The earliest copy of the Gardnerian rituals extant, from before Valientes reworking of them, are in a hand-written/caligraphed grimoire called Ye Bok of ye Art Magical (the BAM for short) which is in Gardners own handwriting."Odd... I've never heard of that book anywhere. But it's YOUR proof that Crowley was a major influence on Wicca?
"Ever since the 1960s, there has been a rumour circulating that Aleister Crowley wrote the Wiccan rituals for Gerald Gardner.[1] ....Certainly there are grounds that would seem to support this claim: anyone familiar with both the published works of Crowley and with Gardnerian Wiccan rituals will notice quite a bit of Crowleys poetry in the rituals, even after Doreen Valiente, by her own admission,[3] rewrote the rituals to remove or disguise much of the Crowley material. "
...the above from a web page by a Roger Dearnaley, who seeks to minimize the percieved influence of Crowley on Wiccan ritual, and claims to be a "...second degree Gardnerian". I felt this might have a little more credibility with you than a Christian source.
Post by: Strings on May 08, 2006, 11:06:04 AM
I'm friends with some VERY serious scholars (Wiccan, Thelemic, Christian), and have NEVER heard this mentioned ANYWHERE else. But I'll check up on it (just to remain objective)...
Post by: Strings on May 08, 2006, 01:29:35 PM
"...that there are several cases of possible influence from Crowley on the book, including actual quotes on magical theory from Crowley's own published works; words or symbols associated with Crowley; and parts of some rituals. However, it is equally clear that Crowley would not have written it; for one thing, "Ye Bok" doesn't spell magic with a "k." As Dearnaley says, "If Crowley himself had written it, he would surely have titled it something like The Art of Magick, vel Liber XL (or De Arte Magica), not Ye Bok of ye Art Magical."
I'm pretty sure there's actually no serious doubts that Gardner wrote this book, and I'm also pretty sure that the original manuscript is currently at the Wiccan Church of Canada. There are some relevant historical facts: Gardner is known to have been familiar with Crowley's writing as well as meeting Crowley himself, though after, not before, he began investigating the occult. "
There are also worlds of difference between how most Wiccans today practice, and how Garndner parcticed (much like the differences between early Christians and modern Lutherians).
Now I think we've taken this thread far enough off topic...
Post by: bermbuster on May 09, 2006, 02:13:36 AM