the Jefferson Starship Flies Again

Thank you, George, I appreciate also your willingness to love the
poor. We were talking about Don's ideal space colony which would
be "something like the Haight Ashbury idealistic movement" and I was
telling Don that I was an activist in the Haight for fourteen years
and that it might have been idealistic but it most definitely was
not irreligious nor was it ever "free" in the sense of being free of
Christian values. We were trying to apply Christian values.

I suggest Don call his colony the Jefferson Starship. (If you don't
get the reference, google it and take a listen.)

It's funny that there should be an overlap of topics like this, but
it's true that the same policies that would really help the poor
probably also would enhance the survival statistics of the human
race, whether on a space colony or on (the space colony we already
have called) Earth. When we discuss these issues, we're getting
ready to "clean house," as you said. We're putting the discussion in
public, influencing the public, possibly influencing the next
generation of political choices. That latter possibility has to
happen, because, so it seems to me, neither existing political party
is about helping the poor. We presently have a choice between a kick
in the head and a kick in the stomach.

I want to say the conservative side's weaknesses stem from their
Protestantism, and the liberal's side from their Atheism, and again
offer Catholicism's traditional solutions to these problems (I do so
out of love, honestly).

Here's how it's different. Remember the missionaries and saints.
They really helped the poor. They kissed them (think of St. Francis
and the leper). They lived with them. They built hospitals and
staffed them with dedicated men and women. But they did not pander
to the poor. They said, there are ten commandments and seven deadly
sins. Don't do them. You're a sinner, I'm a sinner, we're all
sinners, brother, sin is real, and don't you do it.

Now some of those sins Don would (probably) agree are sins: murder,
for example. Lying. Stealing. But maybe Don would not call others
sins. Among the seven deadly sins, for example, is gluttony. Many
people think one shouldn't call something a sin if it doesn't affect
other people (doesn't SEEM to affect other people, that is). The CC
calls gluttony a sin even if you don't get fat and need extra help
from your family or extra medical expenditures. Another one is
sloth, laziness. Now, if I come home from work and do nothing but
lie on the couch, who does it hurt? But the CC still calls it a sin.

What's the difference between calling something a sin and giving it
a secular, psychological cause? Because calling it a sin is more
respectful to the person. Calling it a sin says, this is something
you choose (wherever it started) and I respect you enough to believe
that you can un-choose it. Saying, this is not a sin, this is
genetic, this was caused by your father's neglect, this is a
physical illness, is like saying, you have no control over this. It
came from outside you, so the solution is outside you. That's
disrespectful. And plus if you've ever worked with an addict, that
is, a person who uses some substance sinfully, the one thing you
pray for, would pay big bucks for if you could just find it, is that
some force called choice kicks in from somewhere in the person, and
they reach out, and say, No, no I don't think I will do that. This
time. AND THEY CAN DO THAT. WE ARE NOT MACHINES. If you think we
humans can't, you don't really love us (gee, that explains
masturbation, doesn't it!)

But it's a real balancing act to put the love part and the sin part
together. Funny, the gospel today is about the Pharisees trashing
Jesus for hanging out with known sinners. Jesus did. But Jesus also
told those sinners that they were sinners and that they should stop.
He just continued to hang out with them, is all. He told the lady at
the well, who had mentioned that she had a husband, that, no, Sugar,
you've had five husbands (one of Jesus' best lines, in my opinion).
I will give you living water, but you must go and sin no more. He
told the woman caught in adultery the same thing, after he kept them
from stoning her.

I want to vote for a guy like that. I'd "clean house" for a guy like
that. I want a party that helps the poor, because sometimes
everybody needs help and for a variety of reasons not always of
their doing, their family is not around to help them. But I do not
want to vote for a party that simply gives this help without
establishing any standards, without recognizing any standards, that
simply gives to feed the beast, as another post said. I want a party
that delivers a great free system of public education--and that
kicks out people who simply will not do their homework and come for
the free lunch. I want a party that delivers medical care to all
people, but that does not mind telling an obese diabetic that not
only is their overeating unhealthy, it's wrong. I do not want a
party like Bill Clinton's who put pressure on the UN to make
prostitution a recognized job category: sex worker. But I don't mind
all kinds of programs that offer prostitutes other job
opportunities. Anymore than I want a party like George Bush's who
says he's against abortion but makes it hard for a woman to get help
paying for food for the living child.

The CC's (I figure if I abbreviate Catholic Church you won't stone
me for at least another paragraph) social welfare programs
historically, traditionally, delivered social services with this
difficult balance. They even still do, although as ravaged by
modernism (that's the "there is no sin, there are no sinners, it's
all good, groove on" school) in the trenches as everybody else. In
Mexico, as an example, the Church was formally charged
with "teaching the Indians not to be Indians" (I am not kidding at
all, look it up) and all their land and buildings were subsequently
seized by the state, and then the state proceeded to--abandon the
education of Indians! Nobody teaches them now! They beg, on the
corners. Get a modern educated young, urban, Mexican woman to go to
one of those miserable sun scorched pueblitas and teach those tiny
Indians! But you could have gotten a Dominican to go, or a Jesuit,
or a Franciscan. For a price. That price was the teaching of the ten
commandments and the seven deadly sins, maybe in Latin, and
Gregorian chant. Along with table manners and geometry. (I know some
modernist is going to leap to his feet now! To infer that the
Indigenous Peoples needed table manners! I say, listen, man, you
don't know any Indians, do you. They need table manners--just like
everybody else.)

So George, who're we gonna vote for? I had to go to confession about
not voting in the last election. It's a responsibility, says the
catechism, to participate in the society around you, and I feel that
means voting, even if I can't find the candidate I need. Well, at
least I know what I need (I think).

By the way, as I mentioned in the beginning, about a balanced
approach to the social problem of poverty, or space colonies,
either, being difficult for protestants or atheists to achieve,
protestants can't do this because their faith is based on everybody
defining for themselves just exactly what the bible means and what
they believe in, no authority, no "magisterium" as recognized by
Catholics, and that always leads to absolutely nothing having
credence. You need an authority. You hate it, human, but you need
it. The colony will need one. The Haight had one, but it was so
ingrained, so automatic, that it seemed to fall from the sky like
sunshine. Civil rights, mother love, sharing your stash. No, no,
no, those were social achievements, not "free" at all; rape,
torture, mayhem, those are the human defaults.

Don't you remember that sad line of Dylan's, "Are birds free of the
chains of the skyways?" What did you think it means? What I have
written is what I think it means. Nothing comes free. The price of a
civilized society, which includes love to the point of martyrdom for
the suffering and poor, is the practice of heroic virtue, and
somebody defines it, and we promote it without shame to rich and
poor alike. We'd kick the supports right out from under terrorism
if we'd just recognize this, and begin the reform.

Maybe I should name MY colony Heroic Virtue. Nobody wants to live
there, huh. But the benefits would be sweet. And Catholic is not
Puritan, either.

Love on this Sunday,
JB

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, cygonaut
>
> Excellent post, Jan.
>
> The corrupt yet preacher wannabe's we now have leading the nation
are, as
> the saying goes, neither moral nor the majority.
>
> Further, there's no Jesus in the "Christian" reich. With their
disdain for
> the poor and homeless and constant glorification of the rich, they
should be
> called "Paulians" or "AntiChristians".
>
> Thankfully, even with all the nonsense - Ann Coulter, FOX News,
700 Club,
> conservative talk radio, etc - the American people appear to be
buying it
> less as much these days and the approval polls for this wacky
president and
> GOP leadership are are still dropping into icky-icky land.
>
> This scum don't work and they don't pay the bills and they don't
even check
> on the president like they're required under law.
>
> Time to clean house.
>
> George
> cygo.com
>
> On 6/24/06, janet_baker76 wrote:
> >
> > Don wrote that his personal space colony would be "something
like
> > the Haight Ashbury idealistic movement" which is sure
interesting to
> > me, since I was there from 1965 to 1979,living on the Panhandle.
> > Maybe Don and I already know each other. I was the skinny English
> > major who dropped acid every day before class, got straight A's,
and
> > received her diploma in the San Francisco jail for demonstating
for
> > increased minority admissions to San Francisco State College, oh,
> > and who started topless lunchtime sunbathing among the girls.
(Now
> > do you remember me, Don?) The Haight sure was idealistic, but it
was
> > not hedonistic and it most certainly was not irreligious. In my
> > immediate circle of friends (most of whom came to San Francisco
with
> > me from Alabama where we had been working in the civil rights
> > movement; it was that migration of civil rights workers that was
the
> > first wave of hippies into the Haight) there was an ex-nun (me),
an
> > ex seminarian from Canada, two Quakers, a mormon, a Jewish couple
> > one of whom was black, and an assortment of black and white
fervent
> > southern protestants. The only person who would have called
himself
> > an atheist then is a lawyer now.
> >
> > The values we learned in our faiths in the religious fifties and
> > sixties in the US were the values the Haight functioned on,
albeit
> > rather creatively applied and perhaps ultimately misapplied. We
> > served the poor--the Black Panther Party was just a Franciscan
> > outpost, as far as I was concerned, and I was not alone. We made
> > love, not war, and lots of it--and that's not the same as either
> > masturbation or pornography or prostitution, and in fact all
those
> > sad substitutions for love were cheerly despised, as they should
be.
> > There were gays and they were discrete. We had lots of babies, at
> > home whenever possible, and named them for flowers, and none of
the
> > guys felt put upon by the responsibility and liked being fathers
and
> > putting in gardens and keeping the vw campers on the road--
families
> > were cool. We did a ton of business (or maybe I should say
business
> > by the ton, kilo by kilo) without benefit of police or government
> > oversight, because ripping off was uncool. Truth was valued. In
> > fact, the ten commandments were pretty well observed. The Haight
> > only got seedy when they were no longer observed, when we got so
> > stoned we forgot the faiths that formed us.
> >
> > I am arguing, in fact, that we go back to those values so we can
> > have the Haight again, on earth and in space. We've gotten lost.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "Don Davis"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "janet_baker76"
> > > wrote:
> > > > I said I am using the Catholic Church's
> > > > defintion of ideal sexual morality as enunciated in the
> > catechism
> > > > and calling this definition Christian. I certainly stand by
that
> > > > definition, and I'm allowed, since I was the person
discussing
> > an
> > > > ideal morality in the first place, one kinder and gentler to
> > women,
> > > > kids, and the world than the one promised by liberality.
> > >
> > > Alright, so you are a fan of Catholicism, that gives your
numerous
> > > extremist comments suitable context. I'm sure you will be
among the
> > > first in line when the Church of Rome takes applications for
its
> > > colony. If you think people who have a different view of
society
> > are
> > > morally inferior, whatever their religious world views, that is
> > your
> > > right and I hope you are able to find an ideal society to your
> > liking
> > > along with the myraids of others who will be filling space
colonies
> > > with their brands of like minded people.
> > > My space colony will be something like Burning Man
> > > (http://www.donaldedavis.com/PARTS/BMINTRO.html) before the
> > > harrassment by the BLM was commonplace and something like the
> > Haight
> > > Ashbury idealistic movement when people were open to new
ideas, new
> > > living patterns, new music and new states of consiousness.
There
> > will
> > > be no guns, not even for the cops, no snooping into our
bedrooms,
> > > bladders, and brains, no bigotry and especially no imposition
of
> > > restrictions based on religious values. Consenting adults can
do
> > what
> > > they wish among themselves without some athority figures
deciding
> > to
> > > try to make the private life of others their business.
> > > A strength of the space colony idea is that it offers hope to
> > those
> > > who yearn for living according to their ideals, too often
something
> > > being taken away by 'muddled majority rule' restrictions
enforced
> > by
> > > uniformed thugs with guns. This applies to liberals, John
Birchers,
> > > nudists, religious fanatics Christian or not, and 'Dick and
Jane'
> > > milktoast American ideal family groups. All deserve a chance to
> > create
> > > societies to their liking in independent enviornments. All
deserve
> > to
> > > be left alone by others.
> > > Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in ruling ranks of
> > society
> > > who take an unhealthy interest in what consenting adults do
among
> > each
> > > other, what they read and what kind of intoxicants and intimacy
> > they
> > > enjoy among themselves. They seek to wipe out such things that
> > they do
> > > not understand and think should not exist. They wish entire
groups
> > of
> > > otherwise functional people would dissappear.
> > > When governments try to regulate the reproductive lives of
people
> > > under their power, the results are often ugly. We have the
case of
> > > Nazi Germany, which outlawed abortion as soon as they got in
power,
> > > and generally disenfranchised women from the work force.
America
> > > encouraged women to work, and this was one of the deciding
factors
> > in
> > > our victory in World War II. More recently, we have pre
revolution
> > > Romania and present day China, one which monitored monthly
cycles
> > to
> > > register and force the completion of all pregnancies, the
latter
> > doing
> > > so to enforce abortions. Both are repungnant and contrary to
common
> > > decency, if there can be said to be such a thing in the
> > multicultural
> > > cacaphony that is the human Race.
> > > The idea that we have to compulsively abundantly breed is an
> > > ingrained product of ancient high death rate conditions, today
> > people
> > > are cared for so well compared to even 100 years ago that we
have
> > to
> > > ease up on the production rate in order to avoid having
> > enviornmental
> > > conditions get out of hand in order to maintain decent
standards of
> > > living for all these people. Women will try to limit the
number of
> > > children they have as they become aware of better lives they
can
> > have
> > > by rising above third world standards of living. Once mass
> > > communication is available, things people really want to learn
> > about
> > > are propagated and the resultd speak for themselves.
> > > Part of the very desire for Space Colonization is an excersize
of
> > > the world view given us by science and philosophy that we can
> > direct
> > > our own destiny as a species. It is a result of mass ability to
> > think
> > > about such things without relying on power figure in
government and
> > > clergy to do our thinking for us. it is a sign that 'We are as
Gods
> > > and we might asd well start getting good at it!'
> > > I can remember as a child, and I'm not quite old yet, a world
> > with
> > > only half the population of the world of today. That is a
> > terrifying
> > > thing to contemplete when you consider it took from the
beginning
> > of
> > > Humanity roughly up to a million years ago (by Human I mean
someone
> > > with sufficent genetic compatability to modern people to have
> > healthy
> > > children with) to the early 1800's for the population to reach
ONE
> > > BILLION. That number was added to our fragile Earth in the
last 12
> > > years!!! How much can we ask of poor Gaiea? If there is a mass
> > > realization of this state of affairs in the industrialized
workd it
> > > should be taken as a good sign. Even if the population
declines to
> > a
> > > fraction of that of today that should be seen as only a smooth
> > > progress to an ideal population level. The number of people
really
> > > required to keep the Human race going isn't really large at
all.
> > > It is suggested that the 'ignorant third world breeders' will
> > > ultimately take over the Earth because the industrialized world
> > will
> > > die out. Let me repeat that only a replacement level at a
level far
> > > less than today is really needed. If a few generations don't
quite
> > > replace themselves it will mean a less crowded richer society
that
> > > will be emulated by others made aware of why such places are so
> > > desirable. They created their reality for themselves and as
people
> > > become informed and elevated above third world status they will
> > also
> > > create better realities for themselves. Just as in Soviet
Russia,
> > > efforts to keep mass media away from young people will be
doomed to
> > > failure. Some day even Afghanistan will be filled with
televisions