CAPTIVE VIRGINS, POLYGAMY AND SEX SLAVES: WHAT MARRIAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THE BIBLE
Valerie Tarico / AlterNet / 29 JUN 2015
Bible believers are beside themselves about the prospect that marriage norms and laws are changing, but let me tell you a secret about Bible believers that I know because I was one. Most don’t actually read their Bibles.
If they did, they would know that the biblical model of sex and marriage has little to do with the one they so loudly defend. Sex in the Bible includes rape, incest, master-slave sexual relations, captive virgins, and more. Of course, just because a story is told in the Bible doesn’t mean it is intended as a model for moral behavior. Does God forbid or command the behavior? Is it punished or rewarded? In the New Testament stories, does Jesus change the rules or leave them alone? By these criteria, the Bible not only describes many forms of sexual relationships (including sexually coercive relationships), it gives them the divine thumbs up.
NOT ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN
The God of the Bible explicitly endorses polygamy and sexual slavery and coerced marriage of young virgins along with monogamy. In fact, he endorses all three to the point of providing detailed regulations. Based on stories of sex and marriage that God rewards and appears to approve one might add incest to the mix of sexual contact that receives divine sanction.
NEW TESTAMENT ENDORSES OLD TESTAMENT
Nowhere does the Bible say, “Don’t have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you.” Consent, in the Bible, is not a thing. Furthermore, none of the norms that are endorsed and regulated in the Old Testament law – polygamy, sexual slavery, coerced marriage of young girls—are revised, reversed, or condemned by Jesus. In fact, the writer of Matthew puts these words in the mouth of Jesus:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law [the Old Testament] until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)
The Law of which Jesus speaks is the Law of Moses, or the Torah, and anyone who claims the Bible as the perfect word of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God should have the decency to read the Torah carefully—and then keep going.
Polygamy. Polygamy is a norm in the Old Testament and accepted in the New Testament. Biblicalpolygamy has pages dedicated to 40 biblical figures, each of whom had multiple wives. The list includes patriarchs like Abraham and Isaac. King David, the first king of Israel may have limited himself to eight wives, but his son Solomon, reputed to be the wisest man who ever lived had 700 wives and 300 concubines! (1 Kings 11)
Sex Slaves. Concubines are sex slaves, and the Bible gives instructions on acquisition of several types of sex slaves, although the line between biblical marriage and sexual slavery is blurry. A Hebrew man might, for example, sell his daughter to another Hebrew, who then has certain obligations to her once she is used. For example, he can’t then sell her to a foreigner. Alternately a man might see a virgin war captive that he wants for himself.
War Booty. In the book of Numbers (31:18) God’s servant commands the Israelites to kill all of the used Midianite women who have been captured in war, and all of the boy children, but to keep all of the virgin girls for themselves. The Law of Moses spells out a purification ritual to prepare a captive virgin for life as a concubine. It requires her owner to shave her head and trim her nails and give her a month to mourn her parents before the first sex act (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). A Hebrew girl who is raped can be sold to her rapist for 50 shekels, or about $580 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). He must then keep her as one of his wives for as long as she lives.
Brother’s Wife. A man might acquire multiple wives whether he wanted them or not if his brother died. In fact, if a brother dies with no children, it becomes a duty to impregnate his wife. In the book of Genesis, Onan is struck dead by God because he fails to fulfill this duty – preferring to spill his seed on the ground rather than providing offspring for his brother (Genesis 38:8-10). A New Testament story shows that the tradition has survived. Jesus is a rabbi, and a group of scholars called Sadducees try to test his knowledge of Hebrew Law by asking him this question:
Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” (Matthew 22:24-28).
Jesus is too clever for them and points out that in Heaven, that place of perfect bliss, there is no marriage.
Having a brother act as a sperm donor isn’t the only biblical solution to lack of offspring. The patriarch Abraham is married to his half-sister Sarah, but the two are childless for the first 75 years or so of their marriage. Frustrated, Sarah finally says, “The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Her slave, Hagar, becomes pregnant, and then later Sarah does too and the story gets complicated (Genesis 16). But that doesn’t stop Abraham’s grandson Jacob from participating in a competition, in which his two wives repeatedly send in their slaves to get pregnant by him, each trying to get more sons than the other (Genesis 30:1-22).
BIBLE BELIEVERS OR SIMPLY CHANGE-AVERSE?
These stories might be irrelevant to the question of biblical marriage were it not that Bible believers keep telling us that God punishes people when he dislikes their sexual behavior. He disliked the behavior of New Orleans gays so much, according to Pat Robertson, that he sent a hurricane to drown the whole city – kind of like Noah’s flood. And yet, according to the Bible story, both Abraham and Jacob were particularly beloved and blessed by God.
The point is that marriage has changed tremendously since the Iron Age when the Bible was written. For centuries, concubines and polygamy were debated by Christian leaders – accepted by some and rejected by others. The nuclear family model so prized by America’s fundamentalist Christians emerged from the interplay between Christianity and European cultures including the monogamous tradition of the Roman Empire. As humanity’s moral consciousness has evolved, coerced sex has become less acceptable even within marriage while intertribal and interracial marriage has grown in acceptance. Today even devout Bible believers oppose sexual slavery. Marriage, increasingly, is a commitment of love, freely given. Gay marriage is simply a part of this broader conversation, and opposition on the part of Bible believers has little to do with biblical monogamy.
Since many Christians haven’t read the whole Bible, most “Bible believers” are not, as they like to claim, actually Bible believers. Biblical literalists, even those who think themselves “nondenominational,” almost all follow some theological tradition that tells them which parts of the Bible to follow and how. Granted, sometimes even decent people do get sucked into a sort of text worship that I call bibliolatry, and Bible worship can make a person’s moral priorities as archaic and cruel as those of the Iron Age tribesmen who wrote the texts. (I once listened, horrified, while a sweet, elderly pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses rationalized the Old Testament slaughter of children with the same words Nazis used to justify the slaughter of Jewish babies.)
But many who call themselves Bible believers are simply, congenitally conservative – meaning change-resistant. What really concerns them is protecting the status quo, an ancient hierarchy with privileged majority-culture straight males at the top, which they justify by invoking ancient texts. Gay marriage will come, as will other reproductive rights, and these Bible believers will adapt to the change as they have others: reluctantly, slowly and with angry protests, but in the end accepting it, and perhaps even insisting that it was God’s will all along.
The idiot repeats the lie of "Hands up. Don't shoot" but will not address black on black murders.
"...there were 8,000 to 9,000 African-Americans killed each year -- 93 percent of them by African-Americans.
The numbers came from a 2007 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report, which stated that blacks were victims of 7,999 homicides in 2005 and said that 93 percent were killed by people who shared their race." Source - Politifact
Where is the socialist outrage over black on black murders?
PAUL KRUGMAN: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE WEST IMPOSES ENDLESS CRIPPLING AUSTERITY ON A COUNTRY
Greece's debt trap is inescapable and its exit from the euro will hurt the whole world economy.
By Janet Allon / AlterNet / June 29, 2015
Paul Krugman has long been sounding the alarm about the relentless imposition of economy-hobbling austerity measures on Greece. Now, the worst-case scenario he has warned about seems to be coming to pass, with Greek banks closing and panic spreading. Will anyone learn the right lesson? Doubtful.
He opens his Monday column with this strong statement: "It has been obvious for some time that the creation of the euro was a terrible mistake. Europe never had the preconditions for a successful single currency — above all, the kind of fiscal and banking union that, for example, ensures that when a housing bubble in Florida bursts, Washington automatically protects seniors against any threat to their medical care or their bank deposits."
But worse than not creating a centralized currency is when a country has to exit it. And that is the decision that is facing beleaguered Greek voters. "Next week the country will hold a referendum on whether to accept the demands of the 'troika'," Krugman writes, "the institutions representing creditor interests — for yet more austerity."
He takes the stance that Greece should vote 'no' and leave the euro. Because they have no choice. Further austerity will ruin them.
Yes, Krugman allows, the Greeks did need to cut back their overspending in the 2000s, but they have done that repeatedly and dutifully raised taxes. The problem is they cut so much spending that their economy simply collapsed. Revenues plummeted. Krugman then connects this with the euro, and why it is unworkable.
And this collapse, in turn, had a lot to do with the euro, which trapped Greece in an economic straitjacket. Cases of successful austerity, in which countries rein in deficits without bringing on a depression, typically involve large currency devaluations that make their exports more competitive. This is what happened, for example, in Canada in the 1990s, and to an important extent it’s what happened in Iceland more recently. But Greece, without its own currency, didn’t have that option.
So have I just made the case for “Grexit” — Greek exit from the euro? Not necessarily. The problem with Grexit has always been the risk of financial chaos, of a banking system disrupted by panicked withdrawals and of business hobbled both by banking troubles and by uncertainty over the legal status of debts. That’s why successive Greek governments have acceded to austerity demands, and why even Syriza, the ruling leftist coalition, was willing to accept the austerity that has already been imposed. All it asked for was, in effect, a standstill on further austerity.
But the troika was having none of it. It’s easy to get lost in the details, but the essential point now is that Greece has been presented with a take-it-or-leave-it offer that is effectively indistinguishable from the policies of the past five years.
It's not tenable for the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, to take this deal. A socialist, he ran against austerity. But it's not tenable for Greece no matter who leads it. The result is only endless austerity and endless depression.
Krugman closes with strong words:
Don’t be taken in by claims that troika officials are just technocrats explaining to the ignorant Greeks what must be done. These supposed technocrats are in fact fantasists who have disregarded everything we know about macroeconomics, and have been wrong every step of the way. This isn’t about analysis, it’s about power — the power of the creditors to pull the plug on the Greek economy, which persists as long as euro exit is considered unthinkable.
So it’s time to put an end to this unthinkability.
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: BACKING GREECE INTO A CORNER SERVES NO ONE
June 08, 2015 / Irish Examiner / Joseph Stiglitz
Greece has met its creditors’ demands more than halfway. Europe and the troika should now abandon damaging demands and work with Greece for all our sakes, says Joseph Stiglitz.
A woman sits on a row of chairs to form a makeshift bench at a bus stop in Athens, Greece, yesterday.A woman sits on a row of chairs to form a makeshift bench at a bus stop in Athens, Greece, yesterday.
European Union leaders continue to play a game of brinkmanship with the Greek government.
Greece has met its creditors’ demands far more than halfway. Yet Germany and Greece’s other creditors continue to demand that the country sign on to a programme that has proven to be a failure, and that few economists ever thought could, would, or should be implemented.
The swing in Greece’s fiscal position from a large primary deficit to a surplus was almost unprecedented, but the demand that the country achieve a primary surplus of 4.5% of GDP was unconscionable.
Unfortunately, at the time that the troika — the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund — first included this irresponsible demand in the international financial programme for Greece, the country’s authorities had no choice but to accede to it.
The folly of continuing to pursue this programme is particularly acute now, given the 25% decline in GDP that Greece has endured since the beginning of the crisis. The troika badly misjudged the macroeconomic effects of the programme that they imposed. According to their published forecasts, they believed that, by cutting wages and accepting other austerity measures, Greek exports would increase and the economy would quickly return to growth. They also believed that the first debt restructuring would lead to debt sustainability.
The troika’s forecasts have been wrong, and repeatedly so. And not by a little, but by an enormous amount. Greece’s voters were right to demand a change in course, and their government is right to refuse to sign on to a deeply flawed programme.
Having said that, there is room for a deal: Greece has made clear its willingness to engage in continued reforms, and has welcomed Europe’s help in implementing some of them.
A dose of reality on the part of Greece’s creditors — about what is achievable, and about the macroeconomic consequences of different fiscal and structural reforms — could provide the basis of an agreement that would be good not only for Greece, but for all of Europe.
Some in Europe, especially in Germany, seem nonchalant about a Greek exit from the eurozone. The market has, they claim, already “priced in” such a rupture. Some even suggest that it would be good for the monetary union.
I believe that such views significantly underestimate both the current and future risks involved. A similar degree of complacency was evident in the United States before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.
The fragility of America’s banks had been known for a long time — at least since the bankruptcy of Bear Stearns the previous March. Yet, given the lack of transparency (owing in part to weak regulation), both markets and policymakers did not fully appreciate the linkages among financial institutions.
Indeed, the world’s financial system is still feeling the aftershocks of the Lehman collapse. And banks remain non-transparent, and thus at risk. We still don’t know the full extent of linkages among financial institutions, including those arising from non-transparent derivatives and credit default swaps.
In Europe, we can already see some of the consequences of inadequate regulation and the flawed design of the eurozone itself.
We know that the structure of the eurozone encourages divergence, not convergence: As capital and talented people leave crisis-hit economies, these countries become less able to repay their debts.
As markets grasp that a vicious downward spiral is structurally embedded in the euro, the consequences for the next crisis become profound. And another crisis is inevitable: It is in the very nature of capitalism.
ECB president Mario Draghi’s confidence trick, in the form of his declaration in 2012 that the monetary authorities would do “whatever it takes” to preserve the euro, has worked so far.
But the knowledge that the euro is not a binding commitment among its members will make it far less likely to work the next time. Bond yields could spike, and no amount of reassurance by the ECB and Europe’s leaders would suffice to bring them down from stratospheric levels, because the world now knows that they will not do “whatever it takes”. As the example of Greece has shown, they will do only what short-sighted electoral politics demands.
The most important consequence, I fear, is the weakening of European solidarity. The euro was supposed to strengthen it. Instead, it has had the opposite effect.
It is not in the interest of Europe — or the world — to have a country on Europe’s periphery alienated from its neighbours, especially now, when geopolitical instability is already so evident.
The neighbouring Middle East is in turmoil; the West is attempting to contain a newly aggressive Russia; and China, already the world’s largest source of savings, the largest trading country, and the largest overall economy (in terms of purchasing power parity), is confronting the West with new economic and strategic realities. This is no time for European disunion.
Europe’s leaders viewed themselves as visionaries when they created the euro. They thought they were looking beyond the short-term demands that usually preoccupy political leaders.
Unfortunately, their understanding of economics fell short of their ambition; and the politics of the moment did not permit the creation of the institutional framework that might have enabled the euro to work as intended.
Although the single currency was supposed to bring unprecedented prosperity, it is difficult to detect a significant positive effect for the eurozone as a whole in the period before the crisis. In the period since, the adverse effects have been enormous.
The future of Europe and the euro now depends on whether the eurozone’s political leaders can combine a modicum of economic understanding with a visionary sense of, and concern for, European solidarity. We are likely to begin finding out the answer to that existential question in the next few weeks.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia University. His most recent book, co-authored with Bruce Greenwald, is Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development, and Social Progress.
Experts are worried if Greece defaults others like Italy and Portugal will do the same. Here are real examples of the failure of socialism not working yet the Democrats/Socialists want to bring socialism to the US? Are they stupid or slow leaners or just stupid slow learners?
1,000 DEAD IN PAKISTAN’S HEAT WAVE, AND IT’S ONLY JUNE
With climate change, extreme weather events are likely to become more frequent and more deadly.
By Shaya Tayefe Mohajer / TakePart / June 28, 2015
The devastating heat wave that has scorched southern Pakistan with temperatures as high as 113 degrees marked a grim toll Thursday: 1,000 have died in Karachi, where morgues are running out of space and hospitals are short of beds, according to The New York Times.
“Most of the dead, many of them drug addicts and the homeless, have come from the poor areas of the city,” the Times reports.
Health care workers are working overtime to treat dehydration and heat stroke in 14,000 people who have flooded hospitals. Air conditioners have not been much help, as the hours-long power outages that regularly afflict the country have become more frequent.
In recent decades, the poverty rate in Pakistan has fallen radically — from 34 percent in 2001 to 12.4 percent in 2011, a dramatic improvement, according to the country’s officials.
SO, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?
Heat waves have proved deadly all around the world in recent years, killing in rich and poor countries alike. With climate change, extreme weather events are likely to become more frequent. Last month, 2,300 died in Indian villages. During the summer of 2003, some 70,000 died across 16 European countries. In Chicago in 1995, more than 700 died (and 18 more perished from heat in that city in 2012). A report issued earlier this week from the Environmental Protection Agency predicts that heat waves in major U.S. cities will kill 12,000 a year by 2100.
The heat is the latest in a string of deadly natural disasters in Pakistan in the last decade. More than 70,000 people were killed in October 2005 when a magnitude-7.6 earthquake struck Kashmir. Flooding displaced or affected 20 million people in 2010 when the Indus River overflowed. The economic effects of those disasters were “not as great as might be expected,” according to The Economist, something it attributes to the “extraordinary resilience of rural Pakistan.”
Gearing up for another great week, these guys have been phenomenal this year with the plays they have uncovered.
More BS pushing a political agenda. just about everything you do today involves some health risk. Come on folks, these climate change shysters are selling you snake oil. Wake up and run them out of town.
REACTION TO SCOTUS “OBAMACARE” RULING REVEALS REPUBLICANS’ INTRINSIC INHUMANITY
Rmuse / PoliticusUSA / June, 27th, 2015
Republicans and conservatives spend no small amount of their time preaching that America is a Christian nation, or trumpeting their own Christian bona fides at every opportunity to whomever is unfortunate enough to have to listen to them. For any reasonable human being who has rudimentary knowledge of the Christian religion and more specifically the teachings of the faith’s namesake Jesus Christ, it is an abomination that people that are innately cruel and inhumane would have the temerity to claim they are followers of a historical figure who preached to do anything possible, including selling all their belongings, to care for other human beings.
That idea of compassion, or humanity for other human beings, particularly American human beings, has become anathema to Republicans and conservatives over the past six years and of all the various ways it has been made manifest is a burning desire to deny basic medical care to tens of millions of Americans. On Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled that about 8 million Americans can continue getting pathetically-minimal tax credits to help purchase health insurance, Americans were treated to the true measure of Republican and conservative inhumanity and cruelty towards American citizens.
Last week when comedian Marc Maron interviewed President Obama, an interview worth the time to listen to in its entirety, the President spent a fair amount of time heralding the basic goodness and humanity of the American people. Although the President was fundamentally correct that ‘most’ Americans are kind-hearted and generous toward other Americans, he should have at least noted there are plenty of Americans that are cold-hearted and intrinsically cruel, and that they are Republicans in Congress, state legislatures, and governors’ mansions as well as paid by conservative media and belief tanks to spread their hate as commentators and pundits. No matter how one assesses the conservative lust to abolish the Affordable Care Act and deny Americans affordable healthcare insurance policies, it is remarkable that the attacks on the ACA are not borne of opposition based on policy, but on sheer cruelty and inhumanity.
The case that should have never made it to the nation’s High Court was the result of four cruel conservatives obsessed with denying millions of Americans affordable healthcare insurance. How obsessive? The plaintiffs in the case against the government had to comb through over 900 pages of the verbose healthcare law to find four words they concluded were enough to take healthcare insurance away from 8 million Americans and leave them without medical care.
Such a task is not only obsessive, it represents the level of inhumanity endemic to Republicans and conservatives of all stripes. However cruel those four conservatives’ intention in suing the government over four words of text in a 900-page law were, the response from conservative pundits and Republicans, especially Republican presidential candidates, after the ruling was announced revealed the extent of the deep-seated inhumanity that pervades the conservative movement.
It is not worth reiterating every single raging response from Republican politicians and conservative pundits, or even one of them, to the High Court’s ruling; there are scores of articles and commentary about the hatred for other Americans conservatives directed at one specific member of the Supreme Court.
Of all the Republican and conservative hatred going around yesterday for all things “Obamacare,” including the Supreme Court, it is a true mystery why Chief Justice John Roberts became conservatives and Republicans ultimate persona-non-grata over even President Obama. It is a mystery because apparently that while Republican and conservative pundits’ heads were exploding right off their bodies over the ruling, they failed to hear, or read, that the ruling was decided by a 6 – 3 vote in the government’s favor.
What that means is that even if Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the inhumane plaintiffs and joined the three cruel conservative Justices, the Court still would have upheld the legitimacy of the law by a 5 – 4 vote. However, Republicans particularly, and conservatives generally, are so angry that they missed a golden opportunity to deny upwards of 8 million Americans access to affordable healthcare insurance, that not only did they lose their ability to read the final vote count, but they revealed their true colors and lashed out at a truly staunch conservative who helped give them victories in Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, Christian prayers at government meetings, the legal right to harass women seeking family planning assistance, and abolished the Voting Rights Act; rulings they never thought to label judicial tyranny like they have the Affordable Care Act ruling announced on Thursday. If nothing else, based on John Roberts opinion in writing for the majority, it is relatively obvious to even his harshest liberal critic that the man does not harbor the same base inhumanity apparent in his Republican and conservative detractors.
It is nearly impossible to quantify inhumanity, or cruelty for that matter, because taking pleasure in human beings’ suffering, or worse, crusading to perpetuate their suffering by denying something as fundamentally basic as medical care is immeasurably cruel. It is true that none of the Republican outrage aimed at the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday even mentioned how disappointed cruel conservatives were they failed to deny medical insurance to 8 million of their fellow Americans they wanted to see sick and dying.
However, after 50-plus attempts to destroy the Affordable Care Act, five years’ worth of lies and misinformation about the healthcare law, and an angry conservative movement decrying “judicial tyranny” because 8 million Americans still have medical insurance, the only reasonable conclusion is that the entire conservative movement is exactly what many Americans have learned is true; a tragic number of Americans are inherently cruel and inhumane towards other Americans.
Horse dump,, it's all politics,, and tell that to the Chinese,, they are jumpin off bridges about right now,, and 10k people dying,, it's cause they cant keep their wienies in their pants to keep from breedin, therefore, not enough housin,, get real Elk,,
John W Arthur | The Next Digit | June 28, 2015
Climate change has become one of the most important topics in the news feeds in the past decade. Now everything has reversed, this week, The Lancet reported that people are not concerned about the climate change and also the effect of climatic changes in their personal lives and bodies.carbon-dioxide-climate-change
Nowadays, people’s concern goes far beyond than the polar ice caps, but doctors in an international commission on health and climate found that the global warming has a large scale effect on human lives. The commission has also revealed that, even after heavily publicizing the issue, people aren’t noticing about the changes and not even thinking to fix them.
Hugh Montgomery, Ph.D., director of the University College London’s (UCL) Institute for Human Health and Performance (IHHP) and co-chair of the commission says,
“CLIMATE CHANGE IS A MEDICAL EMERGENCY AND IT THUS DEMANDS AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE.”
Rest of the panel didn’t mince any words; fellow co-chairs mentioned that change in climate might reverse all the health gains in world’s economic development. This should be compared to the scale and importance of the effect to as same as HIV and tobacco awareness, both combined. In the meanwhile, the commission has identified the eight major ways of climatic changes and how it hurts the health of people right now.
Perry Sheffield, M.D., researcher and physician at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a livestream press event,
“MANY AMERICANS THINK OF CLIMATE CHANGE AS SOMETHING FAR OUT AND DISTANT. THEY DON’T REALIZE HOW MUCH IT IMPACTS THEM PERSONALLY ALREADY,”
THANKS TO AN INCREASE IN DROUGHTS, FLOODS AND STORMS, THE PANEL WARNS THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE MIGHT AFFECT THE PEOPLE AND THERE MIGHT EVEN CAUSE AN INCREASE IN ALLERGIES, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, MALNUTRITION AND OTHER DISEASES SUCH AS RESPIRATORY DISEASES, INFECTIOUS DISEASES AND MENTAL ILLNESS TOO.
Ian Hamilton, Ph.D., of the UCL Energy Institute and co-author of the paper published by the commission as,
“THERE ARE PHYSIOLOGICAL LIMITS TO HOW MUCH WORK WE CAN DO IN HEAT, which would affect people who work outdoors, like farm or construction workers, “But HEAT STRESS WOULD ALSO AFFECT ELDERLY, LOW INCOME, AND OTHER VULNERABLE PEOPLE. THERE IS A SEVERE FEELING OF HELPLESSNESS WHEN PUT UNDER A CONDITION WHERE A PERSON LOSES THEIR HOME OR, WORSE, THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS DUE TO CATASTROPHIC EVENTS—EVENTS THAT WE EXPECT TO BECOME MORE FREQUENT IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT ADDRESSED”
Most of the people in this globe think that, climatic changes are meant for catastrophic events like hurricanes and tornadoes. But, he mentioned that, the increase in heat in the year of 2003 results in a massive heatwave in Europe, which caused almost ten thousands of people die due to inefficient housing.
He also added that, HEATWAVES BRINGS DROUGHTS IN SEVERAL AREAS AND ALSO KILL FOOD CROPS THAT CAUSE ILLNESS, MALNUTRITION AND DEATH FOR YEARS. THE STUDY ALSO PROVIDES MOST SURPRISING INFORMATION THAT, GLOBAL WARMING ALSO CAUSES PEOPLE’S MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND INCREASES RISK OF GETTING MENTAL DISORDERS SUCH AS DEPRESSIONS, POST-TRAUMATIC DISORDERS AND SO ON.
OVERTHROW THE JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP
The Scalia dissent demonstrates why the fight for traditional values cannot and must not stop
Cliff Kincaid | Canada Free Press | June 27, 2015
Commentators have missed the real significance of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the gay marriage case. He calls the decision a judicial “Putsch,” an attempt to overthrow a form of government—ours. His dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, was written “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”
His comment about the Court using the kind of reasoning we find in a fortune cookie is a funny line. But there is much of the Scalia dissent that is not funny and which serves as a warning to the American people about what the Court has done to us.
Scalia understands the power and meaning of words and he chose the word “putsch” for a specific purpose. One definition of the term means “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government…” Another definition is “a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.”
Hence, Scalia is saying this was not only a blatant power grab and the creation of a “right” that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he says.
In that sense, he is warning us that we need to understand the real significance of this decision, and go beyond all the commentators talking about “marriage equality” and “equal rights” for homosexuals. In effect, he is saying that the decision is really not about gay rights, but about the future of our constitutional republic, and the ability of the people to govern themselves rather than be governed by an elite panel making up laws and rights as they go.
Scalia’s dissent cannot be understood by listening to summaries made by commentators who probably didn’t read it. Although I may be accused of exaggerating the import of his dissent, my conclusion is that he is calling for nothing less than the American people to understand that a judicial dictatorship has emerged in this country and that its power must be addressed, checked, and overruled.
MAJORITY ON THE COURT UNDERMINED THE MAIN PRINCIPLE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
The implication of his dissent is that we, the American people, have to neutralize this panel, perhaps by removing the offenders from the court, and put in place a group of thinkers who are answerable to the Constitution and the people whose rights the Court is supposed to protect.
He says the majority on the court undermined the main principle of the American Revolution—“the freedom to govern themselves”—by sabotaging the right of the people to decide these matters. The Court destroyed the definition of marriage as one man and one woman “in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.” In other words, the Court acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally.
Scalia called the decision “a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”
Justice Scalia goes on, however, to attempt to explain why this is happening. He basically says, in so many words, that the majority of the Court is un-American, completely out of touch with American traditions and the views of ordinary Americans. He rips the Federal Judiciary as “hardly a cross-section of America,” people from elite law schools, with not a single person from middle-America, and not a single evangelical Christian or even a Protestant of any denomination. He calls the Court, on which he serves, a “highly unrepresentative panel of nine,” that has engaged in “social transformation” of the United States.
More than that, after examining the elite views and backgrounds of the “notorious nine,” he declares that while the American Revolution was a rejection of “taxation without representation,” we have in the gay marriage case, “social transformation without representation.”
One cannot help but think that Scalia wants readers to recall Obama’s promise of the “fundamental transformation” of America, except that in this case Obama has been assisted by five judges who did not represent—or even care about—the views of America as a whole.
While Scalia zeroed in on his colleagues on the Court, we can easily apply his analysis to the unelected members of the liberal media who pretend to offer the American people an objective and sensible interpretation of the decision.
On CNN, for example, anchor Brooke Baldwin “moderated” a discussion between lesbian liberal Sally Kohn and liberal pro-gay “Republican” Margaret Hoover. The only issue was when the Republican Party would accept gay rights and sell out conservative Christians. Baldwin herself is a member, or at least a supporter, of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.
Conservatives watching Fox News and hoping for a pro-traditional values perspective are likely to be seriously disappointed as well. The new Fox star, Megyn Kelly, is getting rave reviews from the liberals for defending homosexual and transgender rights. A special report by Peter LaBarbera examines how Fox has been almost as biased on this issue as other media, calling the channel “unfair, unbalanced and afraid.” The word “afraid” describes the general failure to challenge the homosexual movement, into which Fox News has been pouring a significant amount of money for many years. Indeed, some “conservatives” have gone way over to the other side, with Greg Gutfeld, another rising Fox star, insisting that gay marriage is a conservative concept.
THE SCALIA DISSENT DEMONSTRATES WHY THE FIGHT FOR TRADITIONAL VALUES CANNOT AND MUST NOT STOP
The Scalia dissent demonstrates why the fight for traditional values cannot and must not stop. That fight must continue because our form of democratic self-government is in grave jeopardy, and has in fact suffered a major blow. A federal constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage is one obvious course of action. But that won’t solve the basic problem of an emerging judicial dictatorship willing to redefine historical institutions, make up rights, and defy common sense.
The court’s reputation for “clear thinking and sober analysis” is in danger because of this terribly misguided decision, Scalia writes. In other words, the Court is drunk with power and cannot see or think straight.
The same can be said about the major media which cover this decision as just another controversial ruling that people will disagree on.
In fact, as the Scalia dissent notes, this decision will live in infamy. It is as if a Pearl Harbor-type attack has been achieved on America’s moral fabric and constitutional foundations.
In this context, Scalia talks about the Court overreaching its authority and moving “one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.” In my view, this is an open invitation for responsible elected officials to take power away from this Court and return it to the people.
REPUBLICAN PARTY RESPOND? SOME BIG MONEY PLAYERS ARE DEMANDING THE WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER, SO THE GOP CAN “MOVE ON.”
But how will the Republican Party respond? Some big money players are demanding the white flag of surrender, so the GOP can “move on.” This is what the British “Conservative” Party has done, and we see the consequences there, as Christians are now being arrested by police or fired from their jobs for expressing views in favor of traditional values and traditional marriage.
Scalia’s discussion of “social transformation” of the United States without the voluntary input or approval of the people captures the essence of the coup that has been carried out. This process now has to be explained in terms that most people understand. It is, in fact, the phenomenon of cultural Marxism, an insidious process explained so forcefully in Professor Paul Kengor’s new book, Takedown.
As Kengor notes, gay marriage is only the beginning of this cultural transformation. By redefining the historical institution, the Court has opened the door to multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.
A country that descends to the bottom of the barrel morally and culturally will not be able to defend itself against its foreign adversaries and enemies. Indeed, we have the evidence all around us that, as the culture has degenerated, our ability to defend ourselves has simultaneously been weakened. The recent Pentagon gay pride event featured a male General introducing his husband, as a transgender Pentagon civilian employee looked on.
The next step, from the point of view of those objecting to this fundamental transformation of America, has to be to find those elected leaders willing to act. The presidential campaign of 2016 is an opportunity to find out who understands the crisis and whether they have a way out.
‘GAY MARRIAGE’ RULING: EVIL WITH A SILVER LINING
Matt Barber | Canada Free Press | June 28, 2015
Well, that was predictable. On Friday, with its majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, five judicial imperialists perched high atop the U.S. Supreme Court bench called the Supreme Being a liar. They presumed to invent, out of thin air and through judicial fiat, a “constitutional right” to sin-based “gay marriage.” (Father God, as you exact Your perfect justice on America, please have mercy upon Your faithful.)
The horrific nature of this illegitimate decision cannot be overstated. It makes a mockery of the institution of marriage, something of which God alone has the authority to design and define. It represents a level of judicial activism unmatched since Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell or Roe v. Wade.
Man-woman marriage, as He designed it, is the metaphor God uses for the relationship between Christ and His Church. In addition to mocking marriage, this decision mocks God.
Which is by spiritual design.
Satan is laughing himself silly right now. His demonic minions, both above and below, are popping the bubbly and clinking the champagne flutes.
Evil has triumphed.
For now at least.
But not in the end.
Because God will not be mocked.
And victory is His.
Still, on top of being an arrogant affront to Almighty God, this opinion of five unelected and unaccountable justices is also a constitutional disaster. “The Court’s decision fundamentally rewrites the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to radically redefine the cornerstone institution of marriage, which is older than the Court itself,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.
The decision also drew sharp criticism from the Court’s four dissenting justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, rightly observed that the activist majority opinion hijacks the democratic process and is not based on the rule of law: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” wrote Roberts.
Justice Scalia similarly called the ruling a “threat to American democracy.” The “pretentious” and “egotistic” decision, he railed, “robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
But I promised a silver lining, and there is one. One that is sure to infuriate the anti-Christian left. The majority opinion emphasized that this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage” should not be construed to trump religious liberty:
“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”
I’m not naïve. We’ll have to see what this actually means in coming years, but when filtered through any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause, what it means is that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.”
Of course there’s nothing honest about the five liberals on this court, and Chief Justice Roberts makes that point in his dissent. He expresses skepticism as to the majority’s sincerity: “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage,” he writes. “The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise‘ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”
“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage,” he continues. “[W]hen, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court.”
Little doubt indeed.
As many of us have long warned, all this “gay marriage” nonsense was never about “marriage equality.” It was, and remains, a spiritual battle camouflaged in the formal attire of judicial and public policy wrangling. It was always about forcing Christ’s faithful followers, under penalty of law, to abandon biblical truth and embrace sexual sin. The goal of “LGBT” activists and secular progressives has long been to pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion – Christianity in particular – and to silence all dissent.
Let me be clear. You will never silence us, and we Christians don’t need liberty crumbs tossed down from some temporal bench on high. Christians, faithful Christians (as opposed to the apostate variety), will not, indeed cannot, have anything whatsoever to do with the wickedness that is “gay marriage,” and we will disobey any man-made law or ruling that presumes to make us do otherwise.
That said, it does provide some consolation to have, in the spirit of Hobby Lobby, this court at least pay lip service, inelegant though it may be, to every American’s God-given constitutional right to freedom of conscience. The one positive thing that came from this ruling is the reaffirmation of First Amendment protections guaranteeing, for instance, that the Christian baker, florist, photographer, et al., cannot be penalized by the government for refusing to participate in sin – for declining to provide goods or services for “gay weddings,” or for otherwise refusing to recognize “gay marriage” for anything other than the evil it represents.
Even so, let us not don our rose-colored glasses. Friday’s ruling comes straight from the pit of Hell. Even with its religious liberty “silver lining,” it has not ended the debate; it has only just launched it. It has opened the floodgates to anti-Christian persecution. Leftist lawsuit abuse against Christian individuals and organizations will now flow hot like the River Styx.
As the Roberts court leans left, growing acrimony from Scalia and Alito.
By JOSH GERSTEIN | Politico | 6/26/15
As the Supreme Court winds down a term marked by momentous decisions, two things stand out from the historic session.
One, the court’s reputation for conservatism under Chief Justice John Roberts has eroded — at least to a degree.
And two, the gloves came off, with the justices hurling especially nasty words at each other, shattering the illusion that they are all good friends.
The string of wins for liberals was undeniable. Three years after saving President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement from a potentially devastating blow, Roberts led the court to a 6-3 ruling Thursday rejecting a new legal challenge that could have upended Obamacare by denying insurance subsidies to Americans in 34 states.
Gay rights advocates also scored a landmark victory Friday as the court effectively made same-sex marriage rights the law of the land, holding in a far-reaching, 5-4 decision that the Constitution prohibits states from denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
And in an opinion that would have drawn far more attention in a less action-packed year, the court ruled Thursday, 5-4, that proof of intentional bias is not required in housing discrimination cases. The Obama administration and civil rights groups were so fearful of losing on that point that they maneuvered for years to keep such disputes about so-called “disparate impact” off the court’s docket.
The series of wins had some liberals conceding that warnings about the Roberts Court being a conservative juggernaut look to have been exaggerated.
“There’s still plenty for liberals to be worried about, but I do think that in the last few years of the Roberts Court, most —certainly not all — of the big decisions have come out in a way that liberals could celebrate,” said University of California at Los Angeles law professor Adam Winkler.
Some conservatives see a similar phenomenon, but dispute how pronounced or permanent it may be.
“It’s probably a pullback in the rate of conservative trending, more than a shift that tells us we’ve got a more liberal court,” said Kevin Walsh, a University of Richmond law professor and former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. “You can’t always use a single term as a unit of analysis.”
Likewise, not all liberals are convinced that the Roberts Court has turned over a new leaf.
“A lot of people who just tuned in yesterday might not realize this court is a f***n disaster. #BlindSquirrels,” former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) wrote on Twitter Friday.
Some courtwatchers fretted that much of the recent dialogue between the justices devolved to invective and personal barbs. Scalia pulled no punches, blasting the majority decision in the same-sex marriage case as a “judicial Putsch,” and leveling attacks that seemed directed squarely at Justice Anthony Kennedy, who penned the court’s majority opinion.
Scalia called Kennedy’s opinion “often profoundly incoherent” and declared that its “style is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.” At another juncture, Scalia ridiculed Kennedy’s language as sounding like an aphorism from a fortune cookie.
Justice Samuel Alito also bitterly accused the majority of advancing a “deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation.”
One prominent Supreme Court historian said Friday that such language signaled a growing chilliness and perhaps even animosity between the justices.
“This has the ring of the 1940s to it, where the court was badly fractured and there was no love lost between several of the justices,” University of Texas professor Lucas Powe said. “Scalia has been acting as if he really wants to be on Fox and Friends.”
Walsh said he also sees greater tension on the court, but “would not hang all that on Scalia.”
“It does really seem as if this term has revealed a lot more personal dissension among the justices,” Walsh said, pointing to the sparring between various justices during oral arguments on a death penalty case — one of those expected to be resolved on Monday at the court’s final sitting of the term. “In some ways, it does seem personal in a way it hasn’t typically.”
Many lawyers said they believe the bitterness of some of the opinions and exchanges causes heartburn for Roberts, who is eager to have the court seen as an institution not consumed by the food fights that often break out in Congress and between Congress and the White House.
It was notable that Scalia’s opinion ridiculing Kennedy’s writing in the same-sex marriage case was endorsed by Thomas and Alito, but not by Roberts. In fact, Roberts did not sign on to any of his colleagues’ dissents. Scalia and Thomas joined Roberts’ opinion, but Alito did not.
“I would be shocked if Roberts ever got near the invective that Scalia uses,” Powe said.
Regarding tone, some prominent liberals also appreciated Roberts’ restraint — and reasoning — in his dissent in the same-sex marriage case, even though he ultimately rejected the notion of a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbian couples.
“The two best opinions Roberts has written on the court are his opinion in the Obamacare and gay marriage cases,” said Walter Dellinger, who served as acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration. “While I don’t agree with his bottom line in the same-sex marriage case, he wrote the most respectful and best-reasoned argument for allowing the democratic process to run its course. None of the advocates defending bans on same-sex marriage at the court came close to articulating as good an argument as Chief Justice Roberts.”
Dellinger said he was struck by the difference in tone between Alito and Roberts. “Alito could barely contain his anger and foresees people opposing gay rights being marginalized and discriminated against themselves, whereas Roberts speaks with great sympathy of the desire of gay people to be married,” Dellinger said.
If the court has drifted left a bit, it’s unclear how much credit — or blame — Roberts deserves for that development. He dissented in the both the gay marriage case and the fair housing case, so it’s hard to attribute the majority’s rulings to him.
But Dellinger, who had previously scoffed at the notion that Roberts was a more moderate justice than Scalia, Thomas or Alito, said the way the chief justice framed his opinions this week gives that notion some merit.
“The respectful tone the chief justice takes towards gay rights in his dissent, coupled with the fact he gave the best articulation of the theory behind the Affordable Care Act, means I think this is a more pronounced moderation on the part of Chief Justice Roberts than we have seen in any previous term,” Dellinger said.
Richard this is the way the moron answers all posts, off topic. It's one of the many things that makes him and idiot. trying to have a meaningful conversation with him is like trying to logic with a fourth grader.
The Supreme Court is a political court that does not represent the majority view in his country/. 'nuff said.