> From: Xenophile
> Can we talk about space?

Fair deal, but unless you know of a good simple way of getting your hands on
a few billion dollars, then sooner or later we'll need to talk about
politicians. In America they seem to regard NASA as merely a rather boring
way of getting government money and jobs directed towards their
constituents. They don't think that way about other parts of government. The
police and army are there to do a job, not just serve as a political vehicle
for moving money around. How can we get politicians to view space efforts in
the same light?

In other nations, how can we get them to view space as important at all?
Replacing Trident might work as a technology R&D scheme in the UK, and
France in a few years time. What about elsewhere?

How can space exploitation and/or settlement be presented as something which
helps them win their next election?

John

John wrote,

How can space exploitation and/or settlement be presented as
something which helps them win their next election?

As I mentioned in the post somebody called a rant, but in which I am
both perfectly sincere and prepared to defend (which makes it not
the dismissive "rant" but simply an idea put forward in a civilized
way, yes?) the good hard-data discussion has now, as predicted,
ended with this same old conundrum, a human one, this time called by
the anticarrot "politics": in this particular one, John says the
politicians must see space exploitation [John,was that a slip? Or do
you really mean 'exploitation' and not 'exploration'?] as something
which helps them win their next election, and then things could go
forward--I am guessing John means that last phrase, sorry, but I
mean.

Well, the only way to do that, of course, is to make them think
their electorate cares about it. The electorate must in fact
actually care about it. But what conditions are necessary for that
to happen? Why don't people see it now? [Leaving out the esteemed
list contributors, of course.] WHY are people so negative toward
space exploitation or exploration? Every possible reasons proferred
would fail the history test, that is, humanity has suffered worse
(fill in the blank reason) and still stepped up to the plate--with
some exceptions that bear examination, like the hunter-gatherers who
saw and experienced food production and rejected it, continuing to
hunter-gather with subsequent lack of development but more free
time, according to Diamond. What is our deal, anyway?

Say, for example, we offer profit, or rather the unsure earning
thereof, as the reason why industry people don't do the satellite
solar thing. Besides the fact that the list seems to argue most
effectively that this isn't true, which makes the idea fail as an
explanation anyway, other periods of history risked what
proportionately represented as great an investment, with equally
unguaranteed results, and they did not do so out of wanton hunger,
in other words, were not forced to do so. Why is our epoch so
unwilling to venture the same, to try for real adventure? I have
offered one idea (that we have stopped believing in ourselves even
though we seem to suffer from the opposite, an inflated sense of our
own human capability to do the whole thing ourselves, to banish
God), and my understanding of why this happened and continues to
happen. (I would like to say I also think it is repairable, by a
single act of contrition and repentence.)

Will the list give John's question--what would it take to convince
politicians, which I have rightly amended to, what would it take to
convince politicians' electorates --the attention it deserves? If we
don't, we're more like the talking NASA heads, butterflies.

Jan

-- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> > From: Xenophile
> > Can we talk about space?
>
> Fair deal, but unless you know of a good simple way of getting
your hands on
> a few billion dollars, then sooner or later we'll need to talk
about
> politicians. In America they seem to regard NASA as merely a
rather boring
> way of getting government money and jobs directed towards their
> constituents. They don't think that way about other parts of
government. The
> police and army are there to do a job, not just serve as a
political vehicle
> for moving money around. How can we get politicians to view space
efforts in
> the same light?
>
> In other nations, how can we get them to view space as important
at all?
> Replacing Trident might work as a technology R&D scheme in the UK,
and
> France in a few years time. What about elsewhere?
>
> How can space exploitation and/or settlement be presented as
something which
> helps them win their next election?
>
> John
>
simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine

Cool. I'm perfectly happy to discuss how to get politicians
interested. And how to get their constituents interested.

And even religion, as it pertains to High Frontier. For instance:
when exactly is the Sabbath if you experience twelve or so sunrises
every twenty-four hours? How does a prohibition against travel on the
Sabbath pertain to being in, say, a Low Earth Orbit? How is an
Orthodox Jew supposed to deal with this environment? How does a
Muslim bow towards Mecca (not bowing TO Mecca; Mecca is not a God to
be bowed to)? Some Neo-Pagans hold their rituals in open fields or
sacred groves. Would a field or grove in an Island Three be
satisfactory? Are there any Christian considerations on a level with
these?

What I don't care for is an argument about who has the "best"
political philosophy or the "best" religion. If Jesus, Mohammad, and
Buddha know how to get launch costs down, then great, somebody quote
me the chapter and verse. If not, then I really don't care what they
have to say. Not here. Somewhere else I might, and might be prepared
to argue all night long why my faith is the true one, why my political
philosophy is the best one. But here, I don't care.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
>
> Cool. I'm perfectly happy to discuss how to get politicians
> interested. And how to get their constituents interested.
>
> And even religion, as it pertains to High Frontier. For instance:
> when exactly is the Sabbath if you experience twelve or so sunrises
> every twenty-four hours? How does a prohibition against travel on
the
> Sabbath pertain to being in, say, a Low Earth Orbit? How is an
> Orthodox Jew supposed to deal with this environment?

I suspect the solution is quite simple. Since in my current flop, I
have my colonists having trouble coping with wanding into different
parts of a colony for lunch in one section, then into another where
dinner is being served and then into a third where it is luncn and a
fourth where it is breakfast, the solution is simply to establish
Time Zones. Initially in the colony itself and then among the
colonies as they form up into groups. The colony may be able to set
the amount of the day but rules may be established.

Their big problem is how to keep things going during the Sabbath
observance since even pushing a lightswitch would be considered WORK
even if it were voice operated.

How does a
> Muslim bow towards Mecca (not bowing TO Mecca; Mecca is not a God to
> be bowed to)?

They may have to crawl into the zero gravity core of the colony and
pray straight down.

Some Neo-Pagans hold their rituals in open fields or
> sacred groves. Would a field or grove in an Island Three be
> satisfactory?

That would be up to them to determine.

Are there any Christian considerations on a level with
> these?

Not that I know of.
>
> What I don't care for is an argument about who has the "best"
> political philosophy or the "best" religion. If Jesus, Mohammad,
and
> Buddha know how to get launch costs down, then great, somebody quote
> me the chapter and verse. If not, then I really don't care what
they
> have to say. Not here. Somewhere else I might, and might be
prepared
> to argue all night long why my faith is the true one, why my
political
> philosophy is the best one. But here, I don't care.
>

A lot of things run on Common Sence. Society's First task is to
maintain and preserve itself. Second Task it to produce the Next
Generation that will hopefully grow and improve upon what the
existing generation is doing and prepare it for its period of life so
that it can maintain itself and produce its succeeding generation.

are there any Christian considerations on a level with
> these?

Yes. I'm working on this question in the third short story of the
series I've been working on.

The first big one is the heart of the Church, the Incarnation.
Christ is God, and united the God nature with human nature, that's
why the word is incarnation, if you know the Latin root. This is the
teaching that "makes all things possible," as St. Paul said--makes
it possible, but not inevitable, for man NOT to steal, not to lie,
to remain faithful to one wife and one family, which is not at all
natural. It is also the teaching that makes the absolute respect for
the human person possible. This is a delicate point in civilization.
We know deep down that we must use animals and when we permit the
dominant social teaching equate humanity with animals, we open the
door to all other abuse. To say that the nature of the poorest child
in the poorest place in the world is united to the nature of the
living God is--important. (Of course the Church doesn't always live
up to this! But it's bound to the teaching, and saints live up to
it.)

But will this teaching, the Incarnation, apply to aliens? Does the
same Christ who offering himself in place of us saved mankind from
the just consequences of our sins, save them? And are we, as
Catholics, bound by the same love that sent the little friars into
the huge southwest and Latin America, bound also to bring it to
small green guys in Alpha Centauri?

This same question applies on earth, too, and B16 has addressed it
explicitly. One of the things that "the spirit" (us hippie
nutscases) of Vatican II was wild to do was "adapt" Christ to our
age. In fact, all ages have wanted to do that, because there's
something really really hard to accept that an actual guy who spoke
an actual language (Aramaic) lived in a town, in a time, and that
town and that time were not OUR TIME and OUR TOWN!! How dare God!
Let's put him in a suit, and cut that hair! Etc. Etc.

But the heart of it all is that it isn't some kind of myth designed
to lull us to sleep but something real, and that means
time/culture/place bound [I guess sort of like Mecca--not a relative
point, but an actual point.]. Anyway, Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger
reiterated the teaching loud and clear. Christ isn't "adaptable." He
lived in one time, one place, married the God nature to humanity,
and offered his life for us on one lonely hilltop. (That this gives
unspeakable dignity to every lonely hilltop is something else to
discuss, and why Christianity, above all other religions, is so
precious to the future. It's like this emphasis on the particular is
what redeems every particular.)

Anyway, the Church has not ever written on whether the incarnation
applies to aliens. I might get excommunicated and have to repent.
But I think I am correctly applying the principal in saying, yes, it
does. I think by this, if the stories were read, I could unleash a
little of the same energy that fueled the other pushes outward, when
the Frontier wasn't high, but west. This could be good for space
exploration, or exploitation, I'm waiting for Joe to explain his use
of the word.

There are a few other things, too. For example, the Church must use
wheat in the consecration of the host. No substitutes allowed. So if
wheat is touchy to get growing in space, there won't be any Blessed
Sacrament for a while. Same with wine. Must use wine. It must be
done as Christ said, or it doesn't count. (These limitations are in
no way bad--they bring out the best in humans, and it's the best we
need, not the willingness to jerry-rig everything.)

Also a priest is consecrated by a bishop who was consecrated by a
bishop who was consecrated by one of the original apostles, and the
paperwork exists, must exist, to prove it. So how will that be done
in space? The story I'm working on now is the first bishop of the
universe, hastily consecrated on earth and sent to join his brother
on the arkship the Regina Coeli, headed for Alpha Centauri to bring
back carbon dioxide resistent plants to gene splice and save earth
plants, including wheat (which really is suffering if recent crops
are a sign of the future). See, that would be necessary to maintain
Catholicism in space--no bishop, no priests, no mass or sacraments,
no Church.

There are probably other caveats, but I think these are the main
ones.

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
> wrote:
> >
> > Cool. I'm perfectly happy to discuss how to get politicians
> > interested. And how to get their constituents interested.
> >
> > And even religion, as it pertains to High Frontier. For
instance:
> > when exactly is the Sabbath if you experience twelve or so
sunrises
> > every twenty-four hours? How does a prohibition against travel
on
> the
> > Sabbath pertain to being in, say, a Low Earth Orbit? How is an
> > Orthodox Jew supposed to deal with this environment?
>
> I suspect the solution is quite simple. Since in my current flop,
I
> have my colonists having trouble coping with wanding into
different
> parts of a colony for lunch in one section, then into another
where
> dinner is being served and then into a third where it is luncn and
a
> fourth where it is breakfast, the solution is simply to establish
> Time Zones. Initially in the colony itself and then among the
> colonies as they form up into groups. The colony may be able to
set
> the amount of the day but rules may be established.
>
> Their big problem is how to keep things going during the Sabbath
> observance since even pushing a lightswitch would be considered
WORK
> even if it were voice operated.
>
> How does a
> > Muslim bow towards Mecca (not bowing TO Mecca; Mecca is not a
God to
> > be bowed to)?
>
> They may have to crawl into the zero gravity core of the colony
and
> pray straight down.
>
> Some Neo-Pagans hold their rituals in open fields or
> > sacred groves. Would a field or grove in an Island Three be
> > satisfactory?
>
> That would be up to them to determine.
>
> Are there any Christian considerations on a level with
> > these?
>
> Not that I know of.
> >
> > What I don't care for is an argument about who has the "best"
> > political philosophy or the "best" religion. If Jesus,
Mohammad,
> and
> > Buddha know how to get launch costs down, then great, somebody
quote
> > me the chapter and verse. If not, then I really don't care what
> they
> > have to say. Not here. Somewhere else I might, and might be
> prepared
> > to argue all night long why my faith is the true one, why my
> political
> > philosophy is the best one. But here, I don't care.
> >
> A lot of things run on Common Sence. Society's First task is to
> maintain and preserve itself. Second Task it to produce the Next
> Generation that will hopefully grow and improve upon what the
> existing generation is doing and prepare it for its period of life
so

In a message dated 4/27/2007 3:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dante_feditech@... writes:

> Fair deal, but unless you know of a good simple way of getting your hands
> on
> a few billion dollars, then sooner or later we'll need to talk about
> politicians.

Not necessarily. The talking to the politicians is as hard to do as
continuing to try to get the money elsewhere.
Also, if you do get the politicians to help you do it, you are selling your
soul to the worst devil one can think of. You will have 6 billion bosses
instead of one or 100.
What you will be able to do will not be based on merit, it will be based on:
You have to do this because of the color of my skin. You have to do this based
on my religion. You have to do this based on my sex. You have to do this
based on how much I weigh. You have to do this because I only have one arm or one
leg. You have to do this because I THINK it.

Best bet, leave the politicians out of it as much as you can. Obey their laws
but do not let them OWN you and your efforts.

> In America they seem to regard NASA as merely a rather boring way of
> getting government money and jobs directed towards their constituents. They don't
> think that way about other parts of government. The police and army are there
> to do a job, not just serve as a political vehicle for moving money around.
> How can we get politicians to view space efforts in the same light?

They mess up all of these other things and I hope they never get the message
because they have already done us enough damage.
The best message that they should get is to leave us alone as long as we act
with responsibility.

> In other nations, how can we get them to view space as important at all?
> Replacing Trident might work as a technology R&D scheme in the UK, and
> France in a few years time. What about elsewhere?

This should be looked upon as an individual effort composed of the people who
actually want to do it. It is not and should be viewed as a responsibility of
the Human Race.
Only those who want to and are actually willing can be counted on. Only those
who actually do it will benefit in any real way.
It can and will be done by a self selected few who will find an unencumbered
way.

> How can space exploitation and/or settlement be presented as something
> which
> helps them win their next election?

There is no real way and to try is to waste precious time that could be used
to accomplish something else.

> John
>
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO GET TO MARS IN THIS LIFE TIME?
The nine life support systems (as defined by NASA) are:
Air Supply - Food production and delivery - Waste management, - Water supply
- Temperature control - Electricity - Transportation -Communications -
Recreation
I include: Radiation Protection. - Information storage/retrieval/processing -
Ability to construct necessary additions.

There are things that YOU can actually do today that will make a difference.

John Wayne Smith, CEO
1000 Planets, Inc.
http://www.1000Planets.com

One more small thing: Xenophile wrote, "What I don't care for is an
argument about who has the "best" political philosophy or the "best"
religion. If Jesus, Mohammad, and Buddha know how to get launch
costs down, then great, somebody quote me the chapter and verse."

The only reason to discuss religion/philosophy at all is to
determine if and how these disciplines can help (or hinder)mankind.
To discuss which one is "best" at that is as valid as to discuss
which launch procedures are best, or which solar collectors are
best, or any other question.

It is to be appreciated that these discussions can get ugly, but
every discussion of worth has that possibility, and always has. You
gotta run the race as if you wanted to win it, or you might as well
get out. That goes for every question that has bearing on our
future. You can't declare some of it off limits unless you want to
argue first, and win it,too, that the question of "does one religion
or another foster or hinder our quest toward the conquest of space"
is useless to our goals. You haven't won that argument at all, and
it is unscientific as well as illiberal in the classic sense to
simply declare some issues off limits.

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:
>
> Cool. I'm perfectly happy to discuss how to get politicians
> interested. And how to get their constituents interested.
>
> And even religion, as it pertains to High Frontier. For instance:
> when exactly is the Sabbath if you experience twelve or so sunrises
> every twenty-four hours? How does a prohibition against travel on
the
> Sabbath pertain to being in, say, a Low Earth Orbit? How is an
> Orthodox Jew supposed to deal with this environment? How does a
> Muslim bow towards Mecca (not bowing TO Mecca; Mecca is not a God
to
> be bowed to)? Some Neo-Pagans hold their rituals in open fields or
> sacred groves. Would a field or grove in an Island Three be
> satisfactory? Are there any Christian considerations on a level
with
> these?
>
> What I don't care for is an argument about who has the "best"
> political philosophy or the "best" religion. If Jesus, Mohammad,
and
> Buddha know how to get launch costs down, then great, somebody
quote
> me the chapter and verse. If not, then I really don't care what
they
> have to say. Not here. Somewhere else I might, and might be
prepared
> to argue all night long why my faith is the true one, why my
political

I suppose it might make interesting Science Fiction. And I think this
would border on going 'political' but I think this might do.

I'm hardly one to go New Age with the scriptures as many have but I
would suspect that any being that can pass the Standard of I THINK
THEREFORE I AM would qualify for Christ's affection and kindness
since such a person's ability would dictate posesion of a soul.
Afterall, the Ethiopian eunoch was as alien to the Judean world of
Jesus as one could get yet he was the first gentile convert followed
by the Centurian Cornellius. And Jesus did not define the bounderies
of the world. He did through Paul pretty much set things down in
regards to Sin and Sinners. It is not in the body that one finds
oneself but the way one does with one's body that sets things.

This would also apply to geneticly created beings, creatures such as
the Frankenstein monster.

After all the difference between an angel and a demon is not species
but the behavior or 'lifestyle' they have embraced.

As for comunities in Space, well one could certainly say a strong
moral code is essential to a good strong society.

Janet, I do enjoy reading about many different topics, especially ones pertaining to space exploration, colonization and settlement. However from my own experience, not every related topic must be discussed inorder to solve a single problem. We could go into discussing what car Boeing's employees should all drive to save money, so that Boeing can sell slightly less expensive launch vehicles. However that is obviously not of immediate conscern to getting humanity into space, so I don't see that as being required discussion for a group like this. I don't consider anything off limit to discussion, but many things would be out of place for the -spacesettlers- yahoo group.

This group isn't here to discuss the betterment of humanity in general, but to help get humanity into space on a long-term baisis.

I hope that doesen't sound harsh, I'm not trying to be. I do enjoy reading the posts of everyone here on this list (well those who actually post of course).

Sincerly
-Michael P.

janet_baker76 wrote: One more small thing: Xenophile wrote, "What I don't care for is an
argument about who has the "best" political philosophy or the "best"
religion. If Jesus, Mohammad, and Buddha know how to get launch
costs down, then great, somebody quote me the chapter and verse."

The only reason to discuss religion/philosophy at all is to
determine if and how these disciplines can help (or hinder)mankind.
To discuss which one is "best" at that is as valid as to discuss
which launch procedures are best, or which solar collectors are
best, or any other question.

It is to be appreciated that these discussions can get ugly, but
every discussion of worth has that possibility, and always has. You
gotta run the race as if you wanted to win it, or you might as well
get out. That goes for every question that has bearing on our
future. You can't declare some of it off limits unless you want to
argue first, and win it,too, that the question of "does one religion
or another foster or hinder our quest toward the conquest of space"
is useless to our goals. You haven't won that argument at all, and
it is unscientific as well as illiberal in the classic sense to
simply declare some issues off limits.

Jan

politics and religion? got a life time? we would never get beyond
such discussion. or have they heard yet?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Michael Persohn-Costa
wrote:
>
> Janet, I do enjoy reading about many different topics, especially
ones pertaining to space exploration, colonization and settlement.
However from my own experience, not every related topic must be
discussed inorder to solve a single problem. We could go into
discussing what car Boeing's employees should all drive to save
money, so that Boeing can sell slightly less expensive launch
vehicles. However that is obviously not of immediate conscern to
getting humanity into space, so I don't see that as being required
discussion for a group like this. I don't consider anything off limit
to discussion, but many things would be out of place for the -
spacesettlers- yahoo group.
>
> This group isn't here to discuss the betterment of humanity in
general, but to help get humanity into space on a long-term baisis.
>
> I hope that doesen't sound harsh, I'm not trying to be. I do enjoy
reading the posts of everyone here on this list (well those who
actually post of course).
>
> Sincerly
> -Michael P.
>
> janet_baker76
wrote: One more small thing:
Xenophile wrote, "What I don't care for is an
> argument about who has the "best" political philosophy or
the "best"
> religion. If Jesus, Mohammad, and Buddha know how to get launch
> costs down, then great, somebody quote me the chapter and verse."
>
> The only reason to discuss religion/philosophy at all is to
> determine if and how these disciplines can help (or hinder)
mankind.
> To discuss which one is "best" at that is as valid as to discuss
> which launch procedures are best, or which solar collectors are
> best, or any other question.
>
> It is to be appreciated that these discussions can get ugly, but
> every discussion of worth has that possibility, and always has.
You
> gotta run the race as if you wanted to win it, or you might as
well
> get out. That goes for every question that has bearing on our
> future. You can't declare some of it off limits unless you want to
> argue first, and win it,too, that the question of "does one
religion
> or another foster or hinder our quest toward the conquest of
space"

In a message dated 4/27/2007 7:05:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
janet_baker76@... writes:

> As I mentioned in the post somebody called a rant, but in which I am
> both perfectly sincere and prepared to defend (which makes it not
> the dismissive "rant" but simply an idea put forward in a civilized
> way, yes)?

Although I consider myself an atheist, Janet's epistle (rant :) ) is
important.
It may not have anything to do with building a space city on the surface of
it, but it is very important in keeping one up there and working.
I blame Nebuchadnezzar the first for the elevation of Jehovah to the position
of the primary God of the Jews, but looking back it was a good idea.
I would like to be considered that wise in hind site years from now.
Religion right or wrong has helped us more than it has hurt us.
Every major religion except one contains the ideas put forth in this message.
Those ideas are the ones that have allowed us to progress to where we are now
and without some version of them we will not succeed anywhere else.

Janet's epistle contains the wisdom necessary to make this idea work. Why put
out the energy (money is stored energy) to do this if it has a high chance of
failure.

I will gladly put up with Janet's ranting to get the core of the message and
have it presented here and else where.
I do not suggest that she make a daily habit of it but IT should be brought
up, every now and then, just to remind us.
It is what makes us HUMAN and even space nuts like me like to believe we are
human.

John Wayne Smith, CEO
1000 Planets, Inc.
http://www.1000Planets.com

See what's
free at http://www.aol.com.

Amen, I am going to save this.

John Wayne

In a message dated 4/28/2007 8:25:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dinmont2@... writes:

I have to disagree..
Religion has nothing to do with being "human"..
I don't think it adds anything to the discussion...
And whoever thinks slaughtering, enslaving, or even just oppressing
hundreds of millions of people who disagree with you is "helpful"..
Well.. I just don't agree..

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, jwsmith42000@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 4/27/2007 7:05:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> janet_baker76@... writes:
>
> > As I mentioned in the post somebody called a rant, but in which I am
> > both perfectly sincere and prepared to defend (which makes it not
> > the dismissive "rant" but simply an idea put forward in a civilized
> > way, yes)?
>
> Although I consider myself an atheist, Janet's epistle (rant :) ) is
> important.
> It may not have anything to do with building a space city on the
surface of
> it, but it is very important in keeping one up there and working.
> I blame Nebuchadnezzar the first for the elevation of Jehovah to the
position
> of the primary God of the Jews, but looking back it was a good idea.
> I would like to be considered that wise in hind site years from now.
> Religion right or wrong has helped us more than it has hurt us.
> Every major religion except one contains the ideas put forth in this
message.
> Those ideas are the ones that have allowed us to progress to where
we are now
> and without some version of them we will not succeed anywhere else.
>
> Janet's epistle contains the wisdom necessary to make this idea
work. Why put
> out the energy (money is stored energy) to do this if it has a high
chance of
> failure.
>
> I will gladly put up with Janet's ranting to get the core of the
message and
> have it presented here and else where.
> I do not suggest that she make a daily habit of it but IT should be
brought
> up, every now and then, just to remind us.
> It is what makes us HUMAN and even space nuts like me like to
believe we are

In a message dated 4/29/2007 9:46:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sqorpo@... writes:

>
> I have to disagree..
> Religion has nothing to do with being "human"..
> I don't think it adds anything to the discussion...
> And whoever thinks slaughtering, enslaving, or even just oppressing
> hundreds of millions of people who disagree with you is "helpful"..
> Well, I just don't agree.

I do not disagree with your sentiments and agree that religions have a dark
history.
However, while what you say is true, the real histories of the various
religions are not as well known as is the horrible examples that you list.
As a decedent of the American Indian tribes (mostly Cherokee) I am well aware
of what has been done in the western hemisphere under the name of religion
and specifically the Catholic Church. There was a lot bad, but the end result
was good.
Most of my ancestors walked the "trail of tears."

However, that is still not a good reason to deny the good that has came from
religion. To me it is about time to get away from religions and embrace like
philosophies that do not have the histories or the perchance of violence that
religions do.
I am an Objectivist, and being objective cannot deny any truth.

Jhon Wayne.

PS this will be my last post on this subject because it is getting too off
topic. I will discuss it individually but not here.
I still cannot disagree with the core of Janet's post on the subject.

Terrier, you wrote,

"After all the difference between an angel and a demon is not species
but the behavior or 'lifestyle' they have embraced."

If you don't mind, I'll have to use that. It really expresses what I
was thinking. And it sure applies to earth as well!

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
>
> I suppose it might make interesting Science Fiction. And I think
this
> would border on going 'political' but I think this might do.
>
> I'm hardly one to go New Age with the scriptures as many have but
I
> would suspect that any being that can pass the Standard of I THINK
> THEREFORE I AM would qualify for Christ's affection and kindness
> since such a person's ability would dictate posesion of a soul.
> Afterall, the Ethiopian eunoch was as alien to the Judean world of
> Jesus as one could get yet he was the first gentile convert
followed
> by the Centurian Cornellius. And Jesus did not define the
bounderies
> of the world. He did through Paul pretty much set things down in
> regards to Sin and Sinners. It is not in the body that one finds
> oneself but the way one does with one's body that sets things.
>
> This would also apply to geneticly created beings, creatures such
as
> the Frankenstein monster.
>
> After all the difference between an angel and a demon is not
species

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
wrote:

> in this particular one, John says the
> politicians must see space exploitation [John,was that a slip? Or do
> you really mean 'exploitation' and not 'exploration'?] as something
> which helps them win their next election, and then things could go
> forward--I am guessing John means that last phrase, sorry, but I
> mean.

I agree with John, exploitation is the correct term to use.
Exploration is also important, but the profit potential (not only
money, but clean energy, resources and frontier escape release of
pressure on society will be immensely important in the future
elections---once politicians and 'citizens' recognize the reality of
the need to go 'Up and Out' or the species will go "DOWN AND OUT".

As for the rest of Janet's post about convincing the electorate, I
don't think there is a way to conveniently have the average U.S.A.
citizen show any concern for the future of 'humanity'. As long as John
Q. Public and wife Jane, with their 1.4 kids and 2.2 pets are
satisfied with their life as is, they don't give a flip for the rest
of the world or country or state or city or neighborhood.

I think a better viewpoint is to allow the pioneers to do their thing
and develop space without further government help. NASA has shown how
to go up and out. Now it is time for the commercial world to develop
the technology to allow US, the 'common' people, to get off this
dead-end rock and out into the solar system (and, eventually, beyond)
and live the life of our nomadic ancestors who were always looking for
the 'greener grass' over the next hill. Sure, many will die due to the
hazards of the environment. Many died on every expansion of the human
race from the cradle of our origin till the conquest of Earth. People
die. It's what we do. How we live our lives in-between cradle and
grave is what is important. I want to be a pioneer, although it is too
late for me. Maybe some of the readers of this will be pioneers, or
their children or grandchildren.

Find an aerospace company that is doing what you want done and invest
in it. Buy some stock in that company and vote your conscience in the
quarterly or annual meetings. Drive the company to get off Earth and
take you with it.

Best wishes,

Harvey

OK now, this stuff about wheat and wine and paperwork to show the
lineage of consecration; now THAT is interesting and really doesn't
have to get us arguing about whether or not the Catholics are right or
wrong to worry about that stuff. It's sort of like my "can you have a
sacred grove in an O'Niell?" What you think of the Neo-Pagan religion
itself is beside the point. Let's answer the engineering questions
(growing or importing wheat, piping in moonlight for those sacred trees).

I've said before: if you believe in God while you are on Earth, you
will probably believe in God when you are in Space. If you do not
believe in God while you are on Earth, you probably won't believe in
God when you are in Space.

--- In spacesettlers, "janet_baker76" wrote:

> One more small thing: Xenophile wrote, "What I don't care for is an
> argument about who has the "best" political philosophy or the "best"
> religion. If Jesus, Mohammad, and Buddha know how to get launch
> costs down, then great, somebody quote me the chapter and verse."

> The only reason to discuss religion/philosophy at all is to
> determine if and how these disciplines can help (or hinder)mankind.

There are groups for that. I feel that this is not one of them, but
see below.

> To discuss which one is "best" at that is as valid as to discuss
> which launch procedures are best, or which solar collectors are
> best, or any other question.

Except, of course, that this group is about space and living in space
and what is needed to accomplish that. Since many religions have
demonstrated a capacity for technological living (consider Rome, Salt
Lake City, Dubai, and Tokyo), it seems to me that a discussion of
whether Paul of Tarsus, Joseph Smith, Mohammad, or Buddha has the best
understanding of the Divine is irrelevant FOR THIS GROUP. That
doesn't mean it isn't splendidly irrelevant somewhere else. But here,
I can't see any difference between that and discussing which was the
best James Bond movie. It doesn't make any difference... here. But
see below.

> It is to be appreciated that these discussions can get ugly, but
> every discussion of worth has that possibility, and always has. You
> gotta run the race as if you wanted to win it, or you might as well
> get out.

I don't care to win or lose this particular race HERE. I can't see
any purpose to running this particular race HERE. But see below.

> That goes for every question that has bearing on our future. You
> can't declare some of it off limits unless you want to argue first,
> and win it, too, that the question of "does one religion or another
> foster or hinder our quest toward the conquest of space" is useless
> to our goals. You haven't won that argument at all, and it is
> unscientific as well as illiberal in the classic sense to simply
> declare some issues off limits.

This is the "below" I've been asking you to see in this post.

OK, look, I twisted my ankle and have been cooped up in this little
apartment for most of two weeks. I'm a little stir crazy, and when
the Godtalk and political stuff set me off, well, it REALLY set me
off, more than it usually would. I realize that I am not the owner
nor the moderator of this group (nor do I wish to be), therefore it
isn't my call what is or is not "off limits" (nor should it be).
So if I was a bit over the top, I'm sorry. I'm not taking back any of
the content, but I'm sorry if I acted like somehow it was my place to
tell people what they could talk about. It isn't.

Hetrevillion wrote,

"I don't think there is a way to conveniently have the average U.S.A.
citizen show any concern for the future of 'humanity'. As long as
John Q. Public and wife Jane, with their 1.4 kids and 2.2 pets are
satisfied with their life as is, they don't give a flip for the rest
of the world or country or state or city or neighborhood."

Yes, this is the problem almost as challenging as the technological
problems. I mentioned before, Jared Diamond's book gives some
details about similar economic/environmental situations on earth
where tribes in identical environmental conditions and sometimes in
the same geographical area made different decisions. Tribes started
out as hunter-gatherers. In some areas, due to tweaks in the
environment, the conditions existed that gave rise to a kind of
collective decision to either move to or not move to food production-
-agriculture, animal domestication. But not everybody chose to make
the change.

One would think that the decision would be automatic, a no-brainer
for whatever group of people, but Diamond says two things that give
the discussion bearing on our times: an analysis of living sites
seems to say that hunger-gathers consumed more calories than those
peoples who moved to food production, and also enjoyed more leisure
time. The other thing is some tribes outright rejected food
production even when the local conditions supported it and their own
neighbors practiced it, making it easy to "import" food production,
even entire packages as happened throughout the world. And some
tribes resist it to this day.

They choose their, well, has to be 2.0 children, and their cave.
They evidently reject "working for the future" or working for the
good of mankind. Other tribes chose to make the change, in the
process enjoying less freedom than the hunter-gatherers, but having--
enjoying--specialists who drove the society to further advances.
These people followed a path of LESS for themselves in order that
the whole society would have more--if there was a chance to reason
it out. And if there wasn't a reasoning of it out, what was there?
Surely they must have talked about things--they do to this day.
There are Indian tribes in Mexico that to this day resist changing
their ways of life. Of course, now the government supports them, I
think. They beg a lot in the cities. (It is often the most
vulnerable members of this population, by the way, that ends up in
the states, in the fields, at age fourteen.)

It's really a tempting subject of investigation, given that we seem
to be at a similar juncture. We could stay static, or even contract
("Cutting off our desires" to survive) but enjoy what we enjoy-we
think we can, anyway. And perhaps somehow we could, if we tweaked
our power production somehow, cleaned up a little. I think it is
worthy of discussion, anyway, at times, as a necessary adjunct to
the tech discussion. (If we don't make it to space, can we survive,
is the question being put forward.)

What I keep thinking about is, what were the guys who
moved "forward" thinking? What motivated them? (What did they
understand and when did they understand it? And what do we
understand, and when will we understand it?)

By the way, I myself prefer the word "exploitation"
over "exploration" because I think as humans we have to keep alive
the very important and ancient idea, "I'm allowed to exploit"
however one defines it, with its warts and its glories, because if
that idea is allowed to disappear and human beings
eschew "exploitation" in all of its many manifestations we will HAVE
to go back to being hunter-gathers. Not even hunters! Carrion-
eaters! We exploit the universe. It's like that. We're allowed. God
gave us dominion, as it says in Genesis. We better do it wisely. He
says that, too--wise stewardship. (This idea, dominion, is under
constant attack in the modern media.)

But there are things that government CAN do, and capitalism better
be prepared to purify itself, as well--and, if you will permit me to
say, the social encyclicals of the Church--just google social
encyclicals-- are a very good antidote to the extremes of both
imperialism and socialism, and could be studied with at least as
much care as propulsion systems by those who really want to make
that Trip.

It's possible that the opportunities in space will work the same way
the old frontier did, and if so, that could help. I think it cleaned
it up, opened it up, reduced monopolization. (All we have to do is
just not kill the natives in the process, and there the Church as in
Catholic worked better than the church as in protestant, if one
compares Latin America to North America, just the native population
at some chosen point after the colonialization, minus the deaths due
to infection, which were the same ratio in all areas. These are the
figures we leftists found, in the civil rights movement in the
sixties, comparing slavery among both African and native slaves, in
North and Latin America, and we found that slavery was much more
humane in Latin America, with the right to work for oneself outside
of a defined number of hours for the owner, and the right to buy
one's freedom, plus other rights, the right to marry, for example,
all defined and defended by the Church, or rather by the saints in
the Church.Plus the fact that it was much more sanctioned to kill a
native in Latin America than in the great Indian Wars in the north.
We studied these things as leftists, not as Catholics.)

I could be wrong about the frontier, High or West either, cleaning
things up, though. It's the Han Solo version of economics, I'm
afraid.

I'm thinking that, in our times, reducing people's anxieties about
these fundamentals--by covering, debating, educating-- might reduce
our present social lethargic approach to the future. Turn us on
again, turn us out of our cosy nests. (Unfortunately the mention of
Church makes some people nervous,like they might have to give up
masturbating, again. Which they would, by the way.)

Yours,
Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "hetrevillion"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
> wrote:
>
> > in this particular one, John says the
> > politicians must see space exploitation [John,was that a slip?
Or do
> > you really mean 'exploitation' and not 'exploration'?] as
something
> > which helps them win their next election, and then things could
go
> > forward--I am guessing John means that last phrase, sorry, but I
> > mean.
>
> I agree with John, exploitation is the correct term to use.
> Exploration is also important, but the profit potential (not only
> money, but clean energy, resources and frontier escape release of
> pressure on society will be immensely important in the future
> elections---once politicians and 'citizens' recognize the reality
of
> the need to go 'Up and Out' or the species will go "DOWN AND OUT".
>
> As for the rest of Janet's post about convincing the electorate, I
> don't think there is a way to conveniently have the average U.S.A.
> citizen show any concern for the future of 'humanity'. As long as
John
> Q. Public and wife Jane, with their 1.4 kids and 2.2 pets are
> satisfied with their life as is, they don't give a flip for the
rest
> of the world or country or state or city or neighborhood.
>
> I think a better viewpoint is to allow the pioneers to do their
thing
> and develop space without further government help. NASA has shown
how
> to go up and out. Now it is time for the commercial world to
develop
> the technology to allow US, the 'common' people, to get off this
> dead-end rock and out into the solar system (and, eventually,
beyond)
> and live the life of our nomadic ancestors who were always looking
for
> the 'greener grass' over the next hill. Sure, many will die due to
the
> hazards of the environment. Many died on every expansion of the
human
> race from the cradle of our origin till the conquest of Earth.
People
> die. It's what we do. How we live our lives in-between cradle and
> grave is what is important. I want to be a pioneer, although it is
too
> late for me. Maybe some of the readers of this will be pioneers, or
> their children or grandchildren.
>
> Find an aerospace company that is doing what you want done and
invest
> in it. Buy some stock in that company and vote your conscience in
the
> quarterly or annual meetings. Drive the company to get off Earth
and

Oh I'm so glad to have found something interesting to you! (Those are
the same things that are interesting to me, too.) I'm going back to
lurking now, learning the technicalities if I can, which this list does
so well. But I will tolerate your sacred grove when we get there.
That's not the same as to say I think you are free to believe in
neopaganism, because I could argue all night that it's not a very good
driver, because it's far too loose, far too present-centered; but the
principal of tolerance can be useful to civilization.

Bear in mind that there are a good many space engineers who don't want
a sacred grove, either. They find the whole idea of stopping for a
second and saying thank you to whatever entity to be most disruptive of
their perception that they are God. It is this perception that ought to
scare hell out of normal experienced men. It scares hell out of me.

I'm working on the story where all the wheat and wine get delivered. So
I'll let you know.

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
>
> OK now, this stuff about wheat and wine and paperwork to show the
> lineage of consecration; now THAT is interesting and really doesn't
> have to get us arguing about whether or not the Catholics are right or
> wrong to worry about that stuff. It's sort of like my "can you have a
> sacred grove in an O'Niell?" What you think of the Neo-Pagan religion
> itself is beside the point. Let's answer the engineering questions
> (growing or importing wheat, piping in moonlight for those sacred
trees).

ever hear of future shock? it was predicted and most are suffering
from this. yes most have their heads in the sand. after all most
are living hand to mouth. the middle class is no more for the most
part. people are living hand to mouth, frightend of this present
administration that uses this to it's advantage. the dollar worth 3
cents now what people with this economy would want to pay for
something they will never injoy the benifit of? our tax monies go to
pay the federal reserve only for printing monies they no longer print
as we are digitised. to print a bill of any denomination cost 3
cents. it is clear this pres. who is related to the royal family has
allowed the world bank who owns the federal reserve to depleat this
country of what little independance it had. the stock market though
it might look good represents other countries and a few here who
could afford to invest. get real! virgin airways will have to do
the investing as with La. desaster, we did not and wont pay for the
land to be recovered. we/the goernment will wait for others to
depleat their funds. the only technology the people commoners will
see is the chip inplants in our cloths products and bodies. to busy
trying to find food that is not processed clean air and water. this
space is for the elite to run to after many have died in the process
tweeking out the dangers for what Hitler would consider the supior
race. as in any new frontier. the ones left behind will serve the
8% of the elite who are the global hoppers. unless????????? but as
i read in this post and agree,,,polarized fearful and complacent.

- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
wrote:
>
> Hetrevillion wrote,
>
> "I don't think there is a way to conveniently have the average
U.S.A.
> citizen show any concern for the future of 'humanity'. As long as
> John Q. Public and wife Jane, with their 1.4 kids and 2.2 pets are
> satisfied with their life as is, they don't give a flip for the rest
> of the world or country or state or city or neighborhood."
>
> Yes, this is the problem almost as challenging as the technological
> problems. I mentioned before, Jared Diamond's book gives some
> details about similar economic/environmental situations on earth
> where tribes in identical environmental conditions and sometimes in
> the same geographical area made different decisions. Tribes started
> out as hunter-gatherers. In some areas, due to tweaks in the
> environment, the conditions existed that gave rise to a kind of
> collective decision to either move to or not move to food
production-
> -agriculture, animal domestication. But not everybody chose to make
> the change.
>
> One would think that the decision would be automatic, a no-brainer
> for whatever group of people, but Diamond says two things that give
> the discussion bearing on our times: an analysis of living sites
> seems to say that hunger-gathers consumed more calories than those
> peoples who moved to food production, and also enjoyed more leisure
> time. The other thing is some tribes outright rejected food
> production even when the local conditions supported it and their
own
> neighbors practiced it, making it easy to "import" food production,
> even entire packages as happened throughout the world. And some
> tribes resist it to this day.
>
> They choose their, well, has to be 2.0 children, and their cave.
> They evidently reject "working for the future" or working for the
> good of mankind. Other tribes chose to make the change, in the
> process enjoying less freedom than the hunter-gatherers, but having-
-
> enjoying--specialists who drove the society to further advances.
> These people followed a path of LESS for themselves in order that
> the whole society would have more--if there was a chance to reason
> it out. And if there wasn't a reasoning of it out, what was there?
> Surely they must have talked about things--they do to this day.
> There are Indian tribes in Mexico that to this day resist changing
> their ways of life. Of course, now the government supports them, I
> think. They beg a lot in the cities. (It is often the most
> vulnerable members of this population, by the way, that ends up in
> the states, in the fields, at age fourteen.)
>
> It's really a tempting subject of investigation, given that we seem
> to be at a similar juncture. We could stay static, or even contract
> ("Cutting off our desires" to survive) but enjoy what we enjoy-we
> think we can, anyway. And perhaps somehow we could, if we tweaked
> our power production somehow, cleaned up a little. I think it is
> worthy of discussion, anyway, at times, as a necessary adjunct to
> the tech discussion. (If we don't make it to space, can we survive,
> is the question being put forward.)
>
> What I keep thinking about is, what were the guys who
> moved "forward" thinking? What motivated them? (What did they
> understand and when did they understand it? And what do we
> understand, and when will we understand it?)
>
> By the way, I myself prefer the word "exploitation"
> over "exploration" because I think as humans we have to keep alive
> the very important and ancient idea, "I'm allowed to exploit"
> however one defines it, with its warts and its glories, because if
> that idea is allowed to disappear and human beings
> eschew "exploitation" in all of its many manifestations we will
HAVE
> to go back to being hunter-gathers. Not even hunters! Carrion-
> eaters! We exploit the universe. It's like that. We're allowed. God
> gave us dominion, as it says in Genesis. We better do it wisely. He
> says that, too--wise stewardship. (This idea, dominion, is under
> constant attack in the modern media.)
>
> But there are things that government CAN do, and capitalism better
> be prepared to purify itself, as well--and, if you will permit me
to
> say, the social encyclicals of the Church--just google social
> encyclicals-- are a very good antidote to the extremes of both
> imperialism and socialism, and could be studied with at least as
> much care as propulsion systems by those who really want to make
> that Trip.
>
> It's possible that the opportunities in space will work the same
way
> the old frontier did, and if so, that could help. I think it
cleaned
> it up, opened it up, reduced monopolization. (All we have to do is
> just not kill the natives in the process, and there the Church as
in
> Catholic worked better than the church as in protestant, if one
> compares Latin America to North America, just the native population
> at some chosen point after the colonialization, minus the deaths
due
> to infection, which were the same ratio in all areas. These are the
> figures we leftists found, in the civil rights movement in the
> sixties, comparing slavery among both African and native slaves, in
> North and Latin America, and we found that slavery was much more
> humane in Latin America, with the right to work for oneself outside
> of a defined number of hours for the owner, and the right to buy
> one's freedom, plus other rights, the right to marry, for example,
> all defined and defended by the Church, or rather by the saints in
> the Church.Plus the fact that it was much more sanctioned to kill a
> native in Latin America than in the great Indian Wars in the north.
> We studied these things as leftists, not as Catholics.)
>
> I could be wrong about the frontier, High or West either, cleaning
> things up, though. It's the Han Solo version of economics, I'm
> afraid.
>
> I'm thinking that, in our times, reducing people's anxieties about
> these fundamentals--by covering, debating, educating-- might reduce
> our present social lethargic approach to the future. Turn us on
> again, turn us out of our cosy nests. (Unfortunately the mention of
> Church makes some people nervous,like they might have to give up
> masturbating, again. Which they would, by the way.)
>
> Yours,
> Jan
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "hetrevillion"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > in this particular one, John says the
> > > politicians must see space exploitation [John,was that a slip?
> Or do
> > > you really mean 'exploitation' and not 'exploration'?] as
> something
> > > which helps them win their next election, and then things could
> go
> > > forward--I am guessing John means that last phrase, sorry, but
I
> > > mean.
> >
> > I agree with John, exploitation is the correct term to use.
> > Exploration is also important, but the profit potential (not only
> > money, but clean energy, resources and frontier escape release of
> > pressure on society will be immensely important in the future
> > elections---once politicians and 'citizens' recognize the reality
> of
> > the need to go 'Up and Out' or the species will go "DOWN AND OUT".
> >
> > As for the rest of Janet's post about convincing the electorate, I
> > don't think there is a way to conveniently have the average U.S.A.
> > citizen show any concern for the future of 'humanity'. As long as
> John
> > Q. Public and wife Jane, with their 1.4 kids and 2.2 pets are
> > satisfied with their life as is, they don't give a flip for the
> rest
> > of the world or country or state or city or neighborhood.
> >
> > I think a better viewpoint is to allow the pioneers to do their
> thing
> > and develop space without further government help. NASA has shown
> how
> > to go up and out. Now it is time for the commercial world to
> develop
> > the technology to allow US, the 'common' people, to get off this
> > dead-end rock and out into the solar system (and, eventually,
> beyond)
> > and live the life of our nomadic ancestors who were always
looking
> for
> > the 'greener grass' over the next hill. Sure, many will die due
to
> the
> > hazards of the environment. Many died on every expansion of the
> human
> > race from the cradle of our origin till the conquest of Earth.
> People
> > die. It's what we do. How we live our lives in-between cradle and
> > grave is what is important. I want to be a pioneer, although it
is
> too
> > late for me. Maybe some of the readers of this will be pioneers,
or

A lot of good points here... There is a lot of truth in what you say,
but I think it is just the reason needed for the push to "nationalize"
and "internationalize" all these major endeavors in space.. There's
plenty of room for private industries.. In fact, I think their
involvement is crucial in a thriving "space based" economy.. But it's
true that nobody is going to invest 100s of billions of dollars in
something that may not return a profit in their lifetime.. Plus it's a
whole "infrastructure" that needs built, not just a few SPSs or
another ISS.. Even with the "hotels" and tourism stuff won't put
enough money into space to do the things we need..

I'm afraid to say that "politics" is the only way to make this
happen.. It's true that it seems difficult to think about spending all
this money on space when most people in the world can barely afford to
feed themselves.. But it's just those kinds of tough choices that
invest in the future.. And maybe we can't house and feed all the
worlds people, but maybe some of their children will have the
opportunity to have a better life.. Or maybe their children's
children.. I look at it like taking "action" to develop preventative
solutions to some of these problems.. Instead of "reacting" to the
problems after the damage is already done... It's about changing the
way we think about the future. And how we prepare for it.. "Future
Shock" is a good term to describe this.. I think most people don't
realize that the future happens much faster than it used too.. We used
to be able to think about it for a while, talk it over, weigh out all
the options, write some books about it, and wait 20 30 40 50 years for
it to happen.. Now things change so rapidly, most people are still
trying to understand technologies that are already 10 to 20 years
old.. Even most of the people that are so called "tech savvy" are 5
years behind the curve.. Amazing things are coming out of our
universities, labs, and private R&Ds every single day.. We just need
to get these things on the market much faster and invest more into
making this happen..

Putting money into wars and extreme amounts of defense, is last
centuries strategy.. That's over.. We need to set a new strategy for
this century and ones to come (if we make it that far)..

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "gale white"

Hi,
Why don't you talk about this stuff in another forum?
I like to read and discuss the Nuts and Bolts of space
travel.
Thank you very much,
Dave H.

--- jwsmith42000@... wrote:

Well Dave.. You're commenting on a post almost a month old and a topic
that has thankfully died out.. That is until you brought it up again..

The truth being what it is.. Unfortunately religion plays a huge roll
in the politics of humans in space. Just like it does in all other
sciences, some people just can't or won't get past their beliefs even
in the face of facts..

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Dave Handwerk wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Why don't you talk about this stuff in another forum?
> I like to read and discuss the Nuts and Bolts of space
> travel.
> Thank you very much,
> Dave H.
>
> --- jwsmith42000@... wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 4/29/2007 9:46:40 AM Eastern
> > Daylight Time,
> > sqorpo@... writes:
> >
> > > I have to disagree..
> > > Religion has nothing to do with being "human"..
> > > I don't think it adds anything to the
> > discussion...
> > > And whoever thinks slaughtering, enslaving, or
> > even just oppressing
> > > hundreds of millions of people who disagree with
> > you is "helpful"..
> > > Well, I just don't agree.
> >
> > I do not disagree with your sentiments and agree
> > that religions have a dark
> > history.
> > However, while what you say is true, the real
> > histories of the various
> > religions are not as well known as is the horrible
> > examples that you list.
> > As a decedent of the American Indian tribes (mostly
> > Cherokee) I am well aware
> > of what has been done in the western hemisphere
> > under the name of religion
> > and specifically the Catholic Church. There was a
> > lot bad, but the end result
> > was good.
> > Most of my ancestors walked the "trail of tears."
> >
> > However, that is still not a good reason to deny the
> > good that has came from
> > religion. To me it is about time to get away from
> > religions and embrace like
> > philosophies that do not have the histories or the
> > perchance of violence that
> > religions do.
> > I am an Objectivist, and being objective cannot deny
> > any truth.
> >
> > Jhon Wayne.
> >
> > PS this will be my last post on this subject because
> > it is getting too off
> > topic. I will discuss it individually but not here.
> > I still cannot disagree with the core of Janet's
> > post on the subject.
> >
> > removed]
> >
oneSearch: Finally, mobile search