Thought for the Day

Where does the anthem in sports events come from? Maybe it carried over from international competitions where this is how allegiances were specified. Or maybe for some sports that are seen as national past-times, such as nfl football, it sets the stage for the event.

For some, sporting events are seen as both individual competitions and also proxies for national ones. Even when they only involve domestic teams they express national pride, perhaps excessive.

Banning the anthem at sporting events evades the compulsory nature of the flag salute, but it doesn't resolve the issue of whether people should be permitted to protest in unconventional or unpopular ways for causes they believe in. It removes the immediacy of the issue, but the underlying question of how people can make their voices heard without facing retaliation would persist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Where does the anthem in sports events come from? Maybe it carried over from international competitions where this is how allegiances were specified. Or maybe for some sports that are seen as national past-times, such as nfl football, it sets the stage for the event.
For some, sporting events are seen as both individual competitions and also proxies for national ones. Even when they only involve domestic teams they express national pride, perhaps excessive.
Banning the anthem at sporting events evades the compulsory nature of the flag salute, but it doesn't resolve the issue of whether people should be permitted to protest in unconventional or unpopular ways for causes they believe in. It removes the immediacy of the issue, but the underlying question of how people can make their voices heard without facing retaliation would persist.

---

Thanks for this Broncofan, but what you have done is show how you Americans have created this mess by conflating national pride with free expression. I asked the question because in the UK in domestic team games, be it football (soccer), rugby, cricket and so on, the teams just come out onto the field and after shaking hands (which is a fairly recent invention too) get on with the business. So I don't understand why the anthem is played before every game, or why you have service personnel raising flags, and all that jazz. It is a football game, not a rally.

The interesting point in the Guardian article linked below, is how this was not a major issue before the President decided to make it one, Colin Kaepernick made his protest when Obama was in the White House. And, although it would be naive to separate sport from politics, it is just as evident in the UK as it is elsewhere, it is rather sad that what ought be an afternoon of skill, drama and entertainment is reduced to a 'culture war' provoked by a man who has no culture. Or maybe there is a deeper issue which concerns the changes taking place in American society which over the next 50 years is expected to see a decline in the proportion of 'white Americans' as the 'other Americans' become the numerical majority.

That aside, the US national anthem is one of the most interesting in a field where most anthems are an embarrassment with regard to both words and music.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/28/...on-of-slavery/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...al-protest-nfl

I always thought the anthem was sung before every game (that involved a ball) because Francis Scott Key wrote "Play Ball," as a coda to the Star Spangled Banner to be performed recitative by a second voice following the line "...home of the brave."

I have found this account which identifies a baseball game during the First World War (when US troops were in the field) but as a regular feature probably the Second World War.

I only found it because I googled Francis Scott Key and 'play ball' being mystified by (what appears to be) Trish's perceptive observation...

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/10/347100...tional-pastime

They play the anthem because they’re PAID to play the anthem. Also. Listen to the real reason behind Kaepernick’s protest STRAIGHT FROM HIS MOUTH, not a second hand source.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka0446tibig

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

What happened to the Israel of Judah Magnes and Martin Buber? Crucially, how can it be anti-semitic to condemn a worthless bigot like Naftali Bennet and his genocidal plea to 'Kill all Arabs' when Bennett is just one among others in government or the Knesset who would never have been elected in years gone

---

It can't be. But just because there are thousands of critical things that can be said about Israel that are not anti-semitic does not mean certain permutations that incidentally mention Israel are not. I know you disagreed with the article but one thing I sort of skimmed over the first time I read it is that it said Jews appearing on television should be labeled like rat poison.

BTW I agree with and appreciate your analysis.

It's just when I read the comments section of the Independent and other left wing outlets I am sometimes amazed at the fact that people think raising Israel will immunize an otherwise bigoted argument. I recall seeing a story about a Jewish kid having his head split open while waiting for the train because he was Jewish and the comments below could be divided into three categories. One: why is this being reported? Isn't it just the Zionists using this to defend Israel? The article did not mention Israel by the way. Two: Maybe the witnesses are lying about the anti-semitic nature of the attack. Three: nothing to do with the article just otherwise unbiased discussion of Israel. But what is the implication of an unbiased discussion of Israel in response to a random kid being attacked without any obvious segue?

When I hear discussion of anti-semitism in Labour I frequently hear as a platitude that anti-zionism and anti-semitism are not the same thing. That may be true, but then how would one characterize a lot of comments by people that bear no relation to Israel such as we need to stop offering protection for synagogues if Israel persists etc. ? Or Jews have big noses lol? Or we need to solve the Jewish question? Every once in a while a less astute person will not realize they're supposed to avoid being obvious and will say something like "the Zionists killed Jesus". Really shrewd people will notice the anachronism there. I realize that someone who has been subjected to these kinds of comments is not persecuted or severely harmed, but it does shift norms when these comments start to become a bit more indiscriminate.

But none of this has to do with anyone who criticizes Israeli policies or discusses the history in good faith as you do. But I do think earnest people maybe underestimate the tendency of dishonest people to exploit genuine criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I have found this account which identifies a baseball game during the First World War (when US troops were in the field) but as a regular feature probably the Second World War.

I only found it because I googled Francis Scott Key and 'play ball' being mystified by (what appears to be) Trish's perceptive observation...

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/10/347100...tional-pastime

---

Yes , here's more history of how the National Anthem and sports got tangled up together.
http://www.history.com/news/why-the-...porting-events

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It can't be. But just because there are thousands of critical things that can be said about Israel that are not anti-semitic does not mean certain permutations that incidentally mention Israel are not. I know you disagreed with the article but one thing I sort of skimmed over the first time I read it is that it said Jews appearing on television should be labeled like rat poison.
BTW I agree with and appreciate your analysis.
It's just when I read the comments section of the Independent and other left wing outlets I am sometimes amazed at the fact that people think raising Israel will immunize an otherwise bigoted argument. I recall seeing a story about a Jewish kid having his head split open while waiting for the train because he was Jewish and the comments below could be divided into three categories. One: why is this being reported? Isn't it just the Zionists using this to defend Israel? The article did not mention Israel by the way. Two: Maybe the witnesses are lying about the anti-semitic nature of the attack. Three: nothing to do with the article just otherwise unbiased discussion of Israel. But what is the implication of an unbiased discussion of Israel in response to a random kid being attacked without any obvious segue?
When I hear discussion of anti-semitism in Labour I frequently hear as a platitude that anti-zionism and anti-semitism are not the same thing. That may be true, but then how would one characterize a lot of comments by people that bear no relation to Israel such as we need to stop offering protection for synagogues if Israel persists etc. ? Or Jews have big noses lol? Or we need to solve the Jewish question? Every once in a while a less astute person will not realize they're supposed to avoid being obvious and will say something like "the Zionists killed Jesus". Really shrewd people will notice the anachronism there. I realize that someone who has been subjected to these kinds of comments is not persecuted or severely harmed, but it does shift norms when these comments start to become a bit more indiscriminate.
But none of this has to do with anyone who criticizes Israeli policies or discusses the history in good faith as you do. But I do think earnest people maybe underestimate the tendency of dishonest people to exploit genuine criticism.

---

There are parallel lines here, with informed comment going one way, and prejudice and bigotry another. What the 'comment is free' phenomenon in newspapers reveals is that bigots makes their comments without regard to truth or evidence, and it is just as ugly with regard to comments on Jews as it is on women, Black people, Arabs and of course Muslims, and no amount of critical comment will persuade them to change their views. In general I don't think there is anything one can do about it other than shut down the free comment sections, or ban the posters who just reappear with other names, or just accept their right to make fools of themselves. The problem is that such repetitive comment threatens to 'normalize' bigotry, or it reveals the extent to which it exists anyway and to shut it down would be to deny such people and views continue to exist.

In Labour's case, when I was in the party in London the two constituencies I was in both had fairly large Jewish communities and I would guess a third of each party's members were Jewish, and close to the Israeli Labour party edge of politics as far as Israel was concerned. In the late-70s-80s when I was active there was a tacit agreement not to raise Middle Eastern issues because it threatened to be divisive, but I do know that as Corbyn, Livingstone, John McDonnell and others sought their ascendancy around that time that they were 'pro-Palestinian' for their 'revolutionary' credentials and certainly when Livingstone was leader of the Greater London Council this became a more pronounced position.

There was always going to be a problem when some elements of Labour took sides in this conflict against Israel, what I don't know is how this positioning affected them in the later 1980s and 1990s when the left in the party was eclipsed by the more pragmatic centrists and then Blair's New Labour experiment -Blair, Gordon Brown and most leading labour people were all members of the Labour Friends of Israel group inside the party, so they were always more biased, and following in the traditions of earlier leaders like Harold Wilson, and as I have said before, in 1948 most of the Labour left was pro-Israeli. The Oslo Accords would have been a dilemma I think in the same way that the pseudo-Marxists supported Sinn Fein's campaign for a United Ireland only to see it bite the dust in 1998.

If there has been a more vocal anti-semitic trend among some in the Labour Party I wonder where it comes from. In one of the parties I was in there was also a growing number of Asians may of whom were Muslims from (by family origin) the Punjab and Kashmir, two areas that have been influenced by more radical Islamic ideas from within Pakistan (the Deobandi movement and the Taliban, for example) and also Saudi Arabia through its 'education' programmes. I am reluctant to suggest this is a source without any concrete evidence, but also feel there is still a 'radical chic' element in Labour which attaches greater value to some pseudo-Marxian view of Palestinians as revolutionaries fighting for their liberation against an Israel that is an outpost of US Imperialism in the Middle East. At the very least the party is divided over Middle Eastern issues in general, but at the constituency level these days is probably more pro-Palestinian and as a result Jewish membership of the party has declined, though it is also the case that in numerical terms the Jewish communities of the UK are in decline compared to the 20th century.

The latest incident came a few days ago at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference in Brighton. Fringe meetings are hugely popular because anyone can go, and in this one Miko Peled is alleged to have said people should be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened. An obvious solution would be to stop inviting people to meetings when it is known that they will be making inflammatory remarks, and it is not an issue of free speech since Peled and people like him are free to discuss their views in a variety of media. But it has been an issue Labour must deal with at some level. Unfortunately I think people deliberately create these situations because they know it will get publicity, upset people and so on, and Milo Yianopoulos is available to do the same at the Tory conference or anywhere else he would love to cause trouble in.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rks-miko-peled

I say alleged because I don't know precisely what he said, but if you are familiar with Peled's pedigree -his grand-father Avraham Katznelson was one of the men who signed Israel's Declaration of Independence in 1948- you will also see in him one of those vicious critics of Israel that only Israel can produce. I suspect that anti-semites latch on to this kind of critical view of Israel, not to make Israel a better place, which I assume is Peled's long term intentions, but just because they see it as an opportunity to knock Israel and the Jews in general. There is a similar problem with atheists who think that they can use their position to condemn all religions as a convenient way of blaming both Jews and Muslims for the problems in the Middle East, but who in some cases use it as their opportunity to condemn Jews and Muslims. In reality the issues are political, they relate to the way the modern state has emerged in the Middle East, be it Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Iraq, with religion being used as a hammer to destroy rather than build, and yet I think we have to avoid allowing this trend to become the cement that binds everything together, because there are solutions to all conflicts that can be reached in spite of all the hate that they generate.

The other question is the extent to which bigotry and prejudice are created by situations, such as poorly performing economies when one element of society blames another fr their problems, and the extent to which bigotry and prejudice inherited from previous generations is given space to breathe and express itself through the authority of political leadership, where the leaders we expect to calm things down and level the field of debate, instead fan the flames of hatred and themselves take sides in disputes making conflict worse. The foundations of prejudice and bigotry are flimsy, the arguments that claim Jews control banking and the media collapse as soon as they are investigated, as do claims Black people are less intelligent than white people. It seems we not only have to challenge this nonsense every generation, but every day of every generation, but it is worth the effort it takes, as we have seen and can see where the alternative takes us.

What a delightful read Stavros. Don't be embarrassed that I'm saying so and didn't think liking your post was enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If there has been a more vocal anti-semitic trend among some in the Labour Party I wonder where it comes from. In one of the parties I was in there was also a growing number of Asians may of whom were Muslims from (by family origin) the Punjab and Kashmir, two areas that have been influenced by more radical Islamic ideas from within Pakistan (the Deobandi movement and the Taliban, for example) and also Saudi Arabia through its 'education' programmes. I am reluctant to suggest this is a source without any concrete evidence, but also feel there is still a 'radical chic' element in Labour which attaches greater value to some pseudo-Marxian view of Palestinians as revolutionaries fighting for their liberation against an Israel that is an outpost of US Imperialism in the Middle East. At the very least the party is divided over Middle Eastern issues in general, but at the constituency level these days is probably more pro-Palestinian and as a result Jewish membership of the party has declined, though it is also the case that in numerical terms the Jewish communities of the UK are in decline compared to the 20th century.
.

---

I'm reluctant to respond because I think you covered the subject very well but my sense is that it less likely to be extremist Muslims than those adopting the "radical chic" position you've described. A couple of years ago I said that I thought many terrorist acts in Europe that targeted Jews were carried out by religious extremists. But the attacks have been at least carried out by people who had extreme views about violence in general and are rare. The over the top comments that seem oblivious to distinctions between Israel's government, Israeli's citizens, and Jews in general have mostly come from people who have been politically active and tend to support some fringe positions.

I think that while the basis for supporting revolutionary movements and opposing imperialists is strong in many cases, the formula sometimes suffers from a lack of rigor. Even when applied to other conflicts it often invokes bogeymen and unseen forces thwarting the national objectives of indigenous people. While this undoubtedly happens and may apply to Israel it is too easy to be vague about what those forces are, where they originate, and what the motives are of people who don't subscribe to this ideology. It's possible to be radical chic and not be antisemitic, but it's easy to not be aware that the themes about groups of people who represent moneyed interests and constitute a state within a state can echo some of the ways antisemitism has manifested.

I don't know what one can do given that unfortunately there are people on the right who will exploit any opportunity to say those on the left do not have the moral high ground. I think the best anyone can do is be very disciplined and objective about what they see, both when antisemitism is charged and it is a false charge, and when it exists but some find it politically inconvenient to admit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'm reluctant to respond because I think you covered the subject very well but my sense is that it less likely to be extremist Muslims than those adopting the "radical chic" position you've described. A couple of years ago I said that I thought many terrorist acts in Europe that targeted Jews were carried out by religious extremists. But the attacks have been at least carried out by people who had extreme views about violence in general and are rare. The over the top comments that seem oblivious to distinctions between Israel's government, Israeli's citizens, and Jews in general have mostly come from people who have been politically active and tend to support some fringe positions.
I think that while the basis for supporting revolutionary movements and opposing imperialists is strong in many cases, the formula sometimes suffers from a lack of rigor. Even when applied to other conflicts it often invokes bogeymen and unseen forces thwarting the national objectives of indigenous people. While this undoubtedly happens and may apply to Israel it is too easy to be vague about what those forces are, where they originate, and what the motives are of people who don't subscribe to this ideology. It's possible to be radical chic and not be antisemitic, but it's easy to not be aware that the themes about groups of people who represent moneyed interests and constitute a state within a state can echo some of the ways antisemitism has manifested.
I don't know what one can do given that unfortunately there are people on the right who will exploit any opportunity to say those on the left do not have the moral high ground. I think the best anyone can do is be very disciplined and objective about what they see, both when antisemitism is charged and it is a false charge, and when it exists but some find it politically inconvenient to admit.

---

I think we are dealing with parallel lines. On one line are people like most of us on this board who can think and analyse a situation and make a judgement based on facts as well as our opinions. On the other line there are people who have set views which no amount of persuasion of argument will change, and in many cases it may not matter, but I wonder what proportion of people on both lines are liable to be swayed by argument and change places when the time is ripe. People who voted Labour all their life voted for Mrs Thatcher in 1979 because they felt the country needed the kind of radical change she proposed -and they got what they voted for, even if in the long term they were not better off. Zionists who believed they were creating a secular, democratic and socialist Israel in 1948 now find the government dominated by intolerant, anti-Arab nationalists and religious extremists who barely existed in 1948 (and it doesn't mean the Orthodox Jews who perished in the Holocaust would have been 'natural' religious extremists had they survived to live in Israel or the Occupied Territories, these days some of the most extreme were born in the USA). At some point between 1948 and 1977 Israelis became disenchanted with the Labour Zionism of Ben-Gurion and his generation and turned toward the nationalism of Menachem Begin. We are still living with the consequences of that. But just as there are bigots in Israel, as Blackchubby pointed out in an earlier post, there are plenty of obnoxious people on the left who don't sound like they are going to change their views any time soon, we just have to live with extremists and hope they get tired and go away and do maybe mellow over the years.

But what has happened in Israel has happened elsewhere as people feel the 'system' they were born into no longer works to provide them with the financial security and opportunity they believe they or their parents had (even when this is not true), and believe the alternatives they are being offered will produce the goods. But it is a depressing thought that anyone in 2017 would question the reality of the Holocaust, it means that each generation must maintain the arguments it has to prevent them from decaying and becoming subject to criticism and abuse.

It is thus ironic that anyone who views history as a continuous stream of progress, would have to explain how something as phenomenal, and positive as the internet has become a global vehicle of hatred and lies. On the one hand it suggests that the gains that we have made since the 1960s are still being challenged, but it raises the question did 'we' ever manage to change 'their' minds on issues of race and gender to name just two issues relevant to HA? This apparent division in society, as evident in the UK as it is in the US, suggests that a core group of people will cling to their concept of the nation, their sense of belonging, and that at times of economic distress, blame others for their predicament without offering a sensible solution to the problem that does not refer the matter back to the State itself. Here, what we have seen since the end of the Cold War is that far from releasing formerly oppressed people into a new world of liberty, opposition to democracy and liberty has remained strong and actually grown in places where they were not supposed to, Russia and Turkey being two good examples, while the process that unravelled the Communist states has only briefly touched the state in the Middle East where democracy and liberty are still subject to the owners of the State.

The lowest point so far has not just been the blatant lies that were told in the UK during the EU Referendum campaign, but the ease with which elements in the US have revived a form of politics thought redundant, using a language that is crude and provocative, to take ownership of a space in the public discourse which most of us thought had been left behind, precisely because being crude and provocative does not tend to lead to sensible policy-making or, crucially, produce the end-result which is an improved standard of living for all, and a more hopeful vision of their future. What is supposed to be political change, threatens to become political destruction, or translates political change into a bonfire out of whose ashes a new phoenix will arise, which is great unless you are one of the people turned to ash in the process. A grim lexicon to use when one thinks of the time when people really were turned to ash so that others could build their brave new world. It would be easy to slip into despair but the challenge is to maintain the kind of politics 'we' want with the language it deserves and not become redundant and expand the spaces used by those who promise everything and deliver nothing.

More on the NFL story gives it a sadly all-too-believable edge, the grudge match of a man who never forgets, and plots his revenge years and years after the event:

Donald Trump’s ‘take a knee’ fight with the NFL may have its origins in a grudge he has held against the league since the 1980s, according to a writer who has spent years researching American football.

Author Jeff Pearlman said the US President’s current outbursts may stem from enduring resentment at how, more than 30 years ago, the National Football League refused to let him join its “ridiculously exclusive club” because he was viewed as a “scumbag huckster”.

Full article here-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7972281.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know...-and-tillerson

This made me smile a bit. In response to Tillerson calling him a moron, Trump said they can compare iq scores and mensa has offered to host a test. I don't believe in the validity of iq testing, but it does measure a set of skills and raw abilities Trump probably doesn't have in great supply. Would be hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This made me smile a bit. In response to Tillerson calling him a moron, Trump said they can compare iq scores and mensa has offered to host a test. I don't believe in the validity of iq testing, but it does measure a set of skills and raw abilities Trump probably doesn't have in great supply. Would be hilarious.

---

Prepare to read the tweet in which it is claimed the result was faked and Mensa over-run by politically correct Democrats. Apparently Tillerson's 'moron' also seems to believe he is responsible for using the word Fake in its current vogue. But I guess Tillerson will be gone soon anyway.

All the good people are abandoning the ship , all that's left is the former Eagle Scouts and the Generals.
The unraveling of the Trump presidency.
http://charlierose.com/videos/31051?autoplay=true

I have raised this before, but I am still amazed that in the US it can be legal for an 11-year old and a 16 year old to be married, in this programme in Florida and Idaho. One wonders what legislators think they are protecting when they protect child marriage rights, or why this has not become a national scandal. The link is from the BBC so might not be available in all countries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-u...y-child-brides

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I have raised this before, but I am still amazed that in the US it can be legal for an 11-year old and a 16 year old to be married, in this programme in Florida and Idaho. One wonders what legislators think they are protecting when they protect child marriage rights, or why this has not become a national scandal. The link is from the BBC so might not be available in all countries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-u...y-child-brides

---

What in the fucking macfuckery! :shock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAtwI2poXXg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I have raised this before, but I am still amazed that in the US it can be legal for an 11-year old and a 16 year old to be married, in this programme in Florida and Idaho. One wonders what legislators think they are protecting when they protect child marriage rights, or why this has not become a national scandal. The link is from the BBC so might not be available in all countries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-u...y-child-brides

---

It seems to be linked to freedom of religion claims. http://religionnews.com/2017/05/12/c...ting-religion/ Apparently, anything is okay in some quarters if it's done in the name of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

It seems to be linked to freedom of religion claims. http://religionnews.com/2017/05/12/c...ting-religion/ Apparently, anything is okay in some quarters if it's done in the name of religion.

---

The claim that child marriage takes place in the context of religious freedom cannot be verified. Between 2000 and 2010 there were 167,000 such marriages in 38 states, and since 2010 the figure has exceeded 200,000, how can you know which of those marriages were instructed for religious purposes, which for monetary gain, to absolve the girl (because it always the girl) of shame? And, given the cases where the girl, as the BBC link in my earlier post confirmed, was raped at the age of 11, which religion condones rape in itself, or rape as the cause of marriage? Does love ever enter the decision, and how does an 11-year make informed consent on marriage at any time, let alone after being repeatedly raped by the same man she is then forced to marry? What we see here, is an absence of religion, and thus not even a fig-leaf of respect for 'religious freedom', it is simply this: a man can do anything he wants, and claim religious freedom as cited in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution as the basis of his right. In any other situation, rape is a crime, when it leads to marriage, it is an endorsement of religious freedom -as clear a mockery of both the Constitution and the Law as you will ever find.

But do enough Americans care? Trish responded to the argument with a flippant, cynical dismissal of human rights with a trivial pop song intended to blame the victim, not the perpetrator of crime who is often neither a teenager nor in love. Says it all really.

At least there are some Americans trying to do something about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.21ccdbce35ae

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

But do enough Americans care? Trish responded to the argument with a flippant, cynical dismissal of human rights with a trivial pop song intended to blame the victim, not the perpetrator of crime who is often neither a teenager nor in love. Says it all really.

At least there are some Americans trying to do something about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.21ccdbce35ae

---

Flippant and cynical? Yes. A dismissal? No. Intent to blame? I’m leaving that to posters. Puppy Love also reminds of the line from another 50‘s songs, “Why must I be a teenager in love.” The idea behind these laments is that no one seems to recognize that young people fall in love just as intensely as anybody else and that their commitments to each other are just as legitimate. An sentiment as can sympathize with it but still not agree with. Obviously an eleven year old is not in a position to make those kind of commitments, even if in prior ages these sorts of commitments were considered normal. Sorry to have offended some readers.

I agree with Stavos that in the U.S. many of the families who petition the state to allow their underage daughters to marry do so because the daughter is pregnant and they wish to deflect any shame neighbors and family may direct toward them and their daughter. Outside the U.S., child marriage is used not only to deflect shame but also ostracism, beatings and death. This is also the case with some child marriages within the immigrant population of the U.S. ( https://nyti.ms/2kgW4th )

I would just like to point out the ‘shame’ be of being pregnant out of wedlock is a social construction whose origins are obscure, but which I suspect are not disconnected from religious moral instruction, past and present. Historically Mormonism encouraged the practice of child marriage and it still happens in rural compounds today.

Why do we allow the courts to make exceptions to laws against child marriage? Every once in a while it comes up and the House tables it. Why? One would think passing such a restriction would be an easy way to score brownie points among the morally straight. Do they choose not to get those brownie points because no one cares? Or do they table it because someone does? Do they table it because certain organizations frame it as a government intrusion on religious liberty?

Yes, men use religion as an excuse. What can we do about it? I suggest clicking the link that Stavros provides above.

What else can be done? If only somebody could declare that having sex out of wedlock isn’t a shameful Sin against God and society and have people believe it.
But wait, don’t we already believe that?
The people who do aren’t the ones forcing their children into marriages.
(It might also help to declare birth control isn't a Sin against God as well.)

As usual Trish you provide a compelling argument, but it is about the general issue of sexual morals be they interpreted by religion or by secular society. What seems to me to be a false contradiction that legislators ought to confront, is the fact that sexual intercourse with a minor -be that 18 or 16 years of age as it differs from state to state- is considered illegal, and therefore must be regardless of any appeal to the 'exercise of religion' as the 1st Amendment puts it. I don't see a single argument in religion that allows a marriage where there is no consent from either partner, where there is no demonstrable love, not least because in many cases the bride has note even met the father. Looked at in detail, there is to my mind no basis in religion for marriage between a child and an older person or even between a child and another child, because that is what being a minor means. As there is no basis for it in religion, there can be no basis for it in law, there is no contradiction between child abuse outside religion and child abuse within it, because it is illegal, it is always illegal, and society has, justifiably in my view, argued that it is illegal owing to the lack of emotional and intellectual maturity of the child, and the potential physical damage that may be caused to a young girl having sexual intercourse at the age of 11 or 12.

I continue to wonder how it is that the USA manages to combine the best of this world, with the worst of it. From phenomenal achievements in science and engineering, in physics and chemistry, in computing and communication, in poetry, music, film, literature and dance, while offering as a contrast legally sanctioned behaviour that is not an expression of freedom, but just depraved, immoral, and offensive to decent people. I am not a moral conservative, but I do wonder about some of the so-called 'freedoms' in the US which to me look like they damage other people's lives, and that is not freedom.

Certainly theologians have constructed and expounded upon a great many complex arguments over the centuries. But if one had to judge from what laymen are exposed to (mostly sermons and Bible verses) religion has less to do with arguments and more to do with declarations, pronouncements, commandments and parables.

What we hear from the pulpit is that it’s a sin to have sex out of wedlock and that wives should obey their husbands. What we read from the sacred texts is that Abraham offered the favors of his own daughters to a group of strange men, that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old, and that Mary was essentially told she would be conceiving and bearing God’s Son (although there is a line where she concedes, “...be it unto me according to thy word”).

I am unaware of any argument (argument being distinct from a lesson, a parable or a divine command) from religion, one way or the other, on the issue of sexual consent (within or without marriage) or what the age of consent should be.

Fortunately, most people (I think) would agree that sex should require the consent (in one form or another) of all directly involved parties. In the U.S. this is just part and parcel of the individual freedoms we are all expected to afford one another. Nobody likes to be coerced. For me the tricky part is determining the age of consent.

Most of us agree, I agree, that thirteen years old is way too young. However we should guard against the tendency to think this is a trivial matter. There are thirteen year old children who know they are not the gender that most adults presume them to be. One cannot automatically decide, because of their age, that they are not competent to know this about themselves. Their futures depend on them being able to convince some open minded adult with some authority over them that they are indeed who they say they are.

I know of an 18 year old boy who has been given the same sentence as a hardened pedophile for having fallen in love with and consensually made love to a 16 year old. For the rest of his life, where ever he chooses to live, he has to knock on the neighbor’s doors and announce that he’s a sex offender. This just doesn’t seem humane to me, let alone just.

These are tricky issues. We need to depend upon our common sense and our common humanity when we consider individual cases. There may be a sort of religious temperament that can be brought to bear here; but not one that makes people ashamed of themselves and labels them sinful in the eyes of a God whose keeping count.

I’m pretty sure these are not the sort of examples that scare Congressmen into tabling proposals that would disallow exceptions to the underage marriage laws. Rightly or not (I think not), Congress is largely persuaded by First Amendment ‘Argument’ alluded to in my prior post.

Personally I’m glad it’s not my task to codify any of this into law.

A few comments on your post, Trish -

1) The age of consent is not the same in all of the states in your Union, and the application of the law is also different. The age of consent is 16 in some states so the case you cited may criminalize a male having sex with a 16 year old that is legal in another state. Bear in mind also that the age of consent is not the same as the age of marriage -the age of consent in Kentucky is 16, but it is not legal to marry until 18. It is legal for 16 year olds to marry in the UK but in England they need the consent of their parents but not in Scotland where it is permitted without the need for parental consent.

I believe in some States (it is the case in most of the UK) some leniency is shown when sexual relations take place between a minor and a male who is not much older than she and whom she may have known for some time, whereas, as in the UK if the girl is 16 (the age of consent here) and the man is 44 the law steps in. This means again that you can find legal situations in one state that are illegal in others, but while this might be an example of 'States rights' the issue is in fact marriage not sexual intercourse, so it would be -probably ought to be- possible for states to show leniency if a relationship can be proven between two people of comparable age, where the real issue is of men taking advantage of underage girls, with or without their parent(s) approval and marrying them, or manipulating the parent(s) with money or other inducements to obtain their possession of an underage girl.

2) Muhammad's 'child bride' Ayesha is bogus, as over the years I have seen her age fall from 9 to 6, but only one Hadith among thousands claiming Ayesha was nine when they married and most others suggesting she was at least 18 so you should regard the 'paedophile Prophet' as an historic distortion intended to smear the reputation of 'God's Messenger', this has been taking place since the Middle Ages and was not invented by Breitbart though nobody takes them seriously anyway.
But if the Hadith are to be taken as some form of Holy Writ or the basis for the definition of Shari'a law, and to some extremists they are, then religious law rather than custom dictates how long a man's beard must be, the length of his robe, where he puts his hands during prayer though in this it is confusing because is it hands crossed above or below the navel, and is it wrong to hold them by one's side instead? What happens if a believer is in a wheelchair and cannot kneel? On this basis, any religion can pluck an example from its 'holy' scripture and transform it into a legal obligation on the believer, whatever nonsense it is -does the example of Jesus prove that Christians should either be completely vegetarian or vegetarian but allowed to eat fish? Did you ever hear of Jesus eating steak or chicken wings?

When the 1st Amendment provides for the 'exercise of religion' does it not mean that anyone can create a religion -which in the US they can, as with the commercial enterprise masquerading as a religion known as 'Scientology'- and that there is nothing to stop such a religion from providing the authorities in their state with the documentations, written by God of course, or one of his angels, that permits an adult male to marry and have carnal relations with a girl once she begins menstruating, if not before (but that can be arranged). Do you really think state authorities can be duped in this way?

A legislator should ask for documentation or proof that the underage girl has consented to marry and that she is doing so without the advice or from any pressure applied by parents or anyone else, but must also be provided with the legally valid proof that the religion permits underage children to marry. I don't see this is difficult at all. If your religion says it is permissible, prove it!

3) The example of the transgendered child is a difficult one for reasons most of us know on this board, but the issue is not gender identity or even consensual sex, and while I accept that many children aged 12 or 13 are interested in it, keen to have it, and may even be experienced in it, that doesn't make it legal and the issue here is not getting laid, but getting married.

4) the point is that in the modern age I do not know of any religion in which marriage between a male and underage girl is permitted, and that includes arranged marriages even if the couple have not even seen each other, where the arrangement is probably a mixture of the financial and 'communal' or 'inter-communal' 'values and customs' in nature.

Child abuse has been smuggled into the law on religious freedom, that is the core issue here. Child marriage must be abolished, made illegal in all circumstances.

Nicely reasoned. Thank you.

I did realize the distinctions between consent to marriage, consent to have sex and consent to gender transitioning render my examples somewhat suspect. I was only hoping readers would realize that youth doesn’t automatically render mute one’s personal insights and desires and also that some laws (bearing on the issue of consent) might work best if some flexibility were built into them. You write convincingly that child marriage is not one of them.

Having just written the above I realize ‘consent’ is rather a strange thing to ask of someone entering a marriage, or of someone about to have sex or especially of someone about to undergo a gender transition. Mere consent seems a rather low bar!

As to your question, “Do you really think state authorities can be duped in this way?” (referring to faked religions taking advantage of First Amendment protections in order to sexually abuse children). I don’t know. I’m not sure it matters whether or not representative so-and-so is duped by the First Amendment ruse. What matters is whether the electorate is duped. The mentality that is most susceptible to this sort of misdirection tends to be the get-big-government-out-of-my-private-life mentality that has always been a thorn in the side of American politics. What irks me is legislators, sworn to uphold the Constitution, worry more about getting re-elected than about doing their job and protecting children from the abuses of predators posing (or not) as religious leaders.

The problem with providing any exceptions for religious practices is that they can only be justified by reference to the scripture or by the practices of the adherents. Bonafide religious beliefs can be ridiculed as fraud the more outlandish they seem, even when they may not be fraud but delusion. This is not meant to be pejorative but to raise the question for non-believers; does it matter whether it's fraud or delusion?

There seems to be a problem that runs through the entire enterprise of making exceptions for religious practices based purely on the sincerity of the beliefs of the believer. Does a religion need to be ancient in order to be recognized as bona fide? Does it need a lot of adherents? Or just a few people who are certain about the origin of the universe and the will of God who will not yield to any state-based authority? If this seems like a strawman it's only because modern states have worked their way around the problem to minimize any actual conflict with the most established brands and the most established brands have been interpreted in ways to minimize conflict with secular institutions as they've begun to divorce themselves from the church.

It's true that many attacks on Aisha are based on animosity towards Islam but maybe the best interpretation to this reference in the Hadith is that religion has often perpetuated the norms of the status quo. It doesn't overturn power structures but privileges groups of people, even if apparently based on merit for how devout they seem. These are systems that aren't based on anything empirical, that depend on authorities to dictate their rules and priests to divine the will of supernatural beings.

I will point out that if one criticizes religion by pointing to the text they are told they are interpreting religion like a fundamentalist. If one points to the practice of an adherent or a group of adherents, then the critic is told that group of people have a rogue interpretation that exists nowhere in the text.

So religion has opened itself up to groups of people who use its lack of objective verification to promote their own interests? Can we be sure it didn't start out that way? And yes the practice of pedophilia is odious and would exist without religion...but why is religion a convenient way to insulate the practice?

Lot’s of good points. Thanks for the post, Broncofan.

Another problem with the State making exceptions for certain religious practices is that it puts the State in the position of having to recognize some religions and not others. Some churches don’t have to pay taxes because the state recognizes the associated religion. Other churches are not so regarded by the state. Mormonism counts as a religion, Rastafarianism does not. This may not directly contradict the non-establishment clause, but to my mind it’s pretty close to the state ‘establishing’ some religions over others. The State effectively gets to decide what is a religion and what is not. This has always been my primary argument against exempting churches from taxation; but it works not only for taxation but anytime the State is asked to make an exception for a religious entity simply because it’s a religious entity. Child marriage being the case in point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Lot’s of good points. Thanks for the post, Broncofan.

Another problem with the State making exceptions for certain religious practices is that it puts the State in the position of having to recognize some religions and not others. Some churches don’t have to pay taxes because the state recognizes the associated religion. Other churches are not so regarded by the state. Mormonism counts as a religion, Rastafarianism does not. This may not directly contradict the non-establishment clause, but to my mind it’s pretty close to the state ‘establishing’ some religions over others. The State effectively gets to decide what is a religion and what is not. This has always been my primary argument against exempting churches from taxation; but it works not only for taxation but anytime the State is asked to make an exception for a religious entity simply because it’s a religious entity. Child marriage being the case in point.

---

I agree with what you're saying about establishing religion, whether it's viewed that way or not, recognizing one and not another privileges some sincerely held beliefs over others.

There is also an issue with how the free exercise clause is interpreted; if the free exercise clause cannot be used to strike down any neutrally applied law that only targets a practice and not a religion, it might be superfluous.

For instance, to violate this interpretation of the free exercise clause a law might prohibit the use of peyote in religious ceremonies but not for recreational use. But if it did that it might also violate the equal protection clause because it would discriminate against an insular group without a sufficient justification. It would not prohibit peyote use based on health justifications but based on the identity of the group in question.

But any broader interpretation of the free exercise clause yields legislative authority to the religious entity. If a law that is intended to prohibit a practice and not impinge on a particular group is barred by the first amendment, then beliefs sincerely held by one group can permit an exception to the rule of law or bar that rule by veto.

We've talked about the monopoly of the state to use violence but what about the monopoly of the state for rule-making?

I know the objection to all of the above might be that the practices might be based on the abuse of religion rather than religion itself. But the abuse stems from how religion tends to be administered, how it distributes power through its institutions, and how the religion itself makes claims. Religion is usually hierarchical internally, insular with respect to the outside world, reluctant to cede power to any authority not divinely ordained and impervious to any argument that does not cite its doctrine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

if the free exercise clause cannot be used to strike down any neutrally applied law that only targets a practice and not a religion, it might be superfluous.
.

---

This is unclear because I tried to state it as a negation. An interpretation of the free exercise clause that only bars laws directed at a practice when it is engaged in by a religious group is probably superfluous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

We've talked about the monopoly of the state to use violence but what about the monopoly of the state for rule-making?
I know the objection to all of the above might be that the practices might be based on the abuse of religion rather than religion itself. But the abuse stems from how religion tends to be administered, how it distributes power through its institutions, and how the religion itself makes claims. Religion is usually hierarchical internally, insular with respect to the outside world, reluctant to cede power to any authority not divinely ordained and impervious to any argument that does not cite its doctrine.

---

There is an important issue here, because in Europe at one time there were Ecclesiastical Courts that dealt with religious law separate from the State, and they still exist, not as a parallel legal system to try heretics and/or apostates, but mostly to deal with 'in-house' issues among their clergy, with the exception that I believe the Roman Catholic Church in the USA retains the power to officially ex-communicate a believer, and I assume this is also possible through the Beth Din for Jews.

The Beth Din is a good example of how what Chris Christie has defended as 'Religious Custom' -note he did not use the term 'Religious belief'- can shape people's lives. Here in the UK there have been numerous complaints that in cases of family law, primarily divorce, an observant Jew who has been granted a divorce by the Court, has then found the Beth Din refusing to recognize the judgement. The women concerned have complained that the judgement tends to reflect the arguments of their former husband who may oppose the divorce out of spite rather than for any other reason. This matters to them because as observant Jews they feel they cannot marry again unless the Beth Din has recognized the judgement of the court, as well as the obvious fact that the marriage has broken down. There is a similar problem for those Muslim women in the UK who seek the endorsement of a Shari'a court in matters of divorce and child custody, where the 'religious custom' may in fact reflect the cultural bias of the Imam who was born and bred in say, a small town in Pakistan rather than in London.

So the issue of the 'monopoly' of the law appears to be simple on one level: the law as passed by and administered by the State is the sole source of authority, but on another level, there are people for whom religion is the essential ingredient of their lives who need their faith to endorse what the law has decided, or for that matter, to oppose it, if only within the context of the faith. Most of these issues, perhaps all of them, relate to family law with regard to divorce and the custody of children. I don't know how the State can deal with the emotional, or spiritual impact of a secular decision, but I venture to suggest that Courts do in fact try to address these issues when they are before them but that the decisions cannot always be satisfactory to the people involved, as happens in a lot of other cases.

A clear distinction is also not made when the Courts are persuaded to make a judgement on the basis of religious law in order to reach a conclusion -it has been argued by some, I think for mischievous reasons, that US courts are 'bowing' to Shari'a law when passing judgements in family law that affect Muslims or have even 'incorporated' Shari'a law into the legal system of the US, as if it were some 'take over' -when it may also be the case that Courts bear in mind the Christian faith or the Jewish faith or the whatever faith when dealing with those cases. A court being sensitive to a person's faith may not be replacing secular law with religious law.

The key issue for me here is that what Christie is calling 'Religious custom' makes no attempt to look in detail at what this means with regard to the law or even the religion itself, and begs the question, if 'child marriage' is acceptable because it is part of 'religious custom' or even belief, and I dispute this, why does child marriage rather than many other aspects of that 'religious custom' take place as many times as it does?
A good example would be the claim that in Jewish law, the penalty for adultery is death by stoning, something which I believe has not happened in the US, indeed, I don't know if anyone in any religion in the US has been stoned to death. Is incest permitted in Jewish law because Abraham had sex with his daughters (assuming this to be true, much of the Bible is written in metaphor and we know that the original texts have often been mis-translated and retain these errors in the most commonly available versions in English)?

It comes down mostly to sex, that Child Marriage is being allowed because of a 'pick 'n mix' approach to religion which the Courts should recognize to be pernicious precisely because so much else in the religion is banned or not even considered acceptable in the 21st century. It seems always to be related to the female sex, be it sex, or marriage or family issues notably divorce, and seems almost always to result in decisions that are biased towards men and against women.

The right of women to be treated equally before the law is already contested in the US with regular attempts by religious fanatics to deny women the sole authority over their own bodies, and here is an example of the law denying children the right to be treated equally as other children on the basis of what their parents claim is best for them on the grounds of 'religious custom'. No, it is wrong, and is not even supported by the religion, and it is time for States to re-write their laws to protect children who should at the ages of 11, 12, 13 and 14 be focused on their education not their (often unwanted) babies.

Sensitivity towards religious beliefs and an attempt to consider religious custom in settling personal and family matters is useful and is not something I see as pernicious. I'm sure most people don't mind people arranging their affairs in a way that assuages their conscience, and asking for some leeway or accommodation from the state to do so in such matters seems reasonable.

One example of an objection I would have is to the movement in the United States for religious people to exempt themselves from anti-discrimination mandates against gay men and women. These don't touch a religious practice, but those who claim religious interests might say the desire not to "participate in sin" is at least based on their view that gay sex is sinful. After many hard-fought battles, it seems the state should be able to say it is worthwhile to require businesses to serve lgbt members whether the owners approve of gay marriage or not. This should be so even if they feel the state is compelling them to participate in sin and they believe so sincerely.

I agree with everything in your last paragraph and most of your post which provides a useful context for the role of the state to accommodate religious customs and beliefs. The meme of "creeping sharia" is a right wing scare tactic as you indicate.

But I think the example you gave in Judaism of incest is probably instructive in the same way the single mention of Aisha is. It may not be an instruction to followers of how they should behave or anything more from the historian or scrivener than a biographical fact. But is it possible that whoever codified the doctrine did not for instance wonder whether the reader might view the practice as somehow incompatible with a moral life or as behavior unbecoming of a prophet? If they did, perhaps an explanatory footnote was in order? Maybe the format of the presentation doesn't permit a footnote because it would be like breaking the fourth wall? But it cannot do anything but detract from the credibility of the doctrine as a scheme endorsed by God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Sensitivity towards religious beliefs and an attempt to consider religious custom in settling personal and family matters is useful and is not something I see as pernicious. I'm sure most people don't mind people arranging their affairs in a way that assuages their conscience, and asking for some leeway or accommodation from the state to do so in such matters seems reasonable.

One example of an objection I would have is to the movement in the United States for religious people to exempt themselves from anti-discrimination mandates against gay men and women. These don't touch a religious practice, but those who claim religious interests might say the desire not to "participate in sin" is at least based on their view that gay sex is sinful. After many hard-fought battles, it seems the state should be able to say it is worthwhile to require businesses to serve lgbt members whether the owners approve of gay marriage or not. This should be so even if they feel the state is compelling them to participate in sin and they believe so sincerely.

I agree with everything in your last paragraph and most of your post which provides a useful context for the role of the state to accommodate religious customs and beliefs. The meme of "creeping sharia" is a right wing scare tactic as you indicate.

But I think the example you gave in Judaism of incest is probably instructive in the same way the single mention of Aisha is. It may not be an instruction to followers of how they should behave or anything more from the historian or scrivener than a biographical fact. But is it possible that whoever codified the doctrine did not for instance wonder whether the reader might view the practice as somehow incompatible with a moral life or as behavior unbecoming of a prophet? If they did, perhaps an explanatory footnote was in order? Maybe the format of the presentation doesn't permit a footnote because it would be like breaking the fourth wall? But it cannot do anything but detract from the credibility of the doctrine as a scheme endorsed by God.

---

The phrase 'endorsed by God' is a gripping one that sets up all sorts of confusing claims and counter-claims that a court of law may struggle to reconcile. The core problem for me is Child Marriage because it is quite a different issue from discrimination because marriage in most religions should be for life without divorce, and is therefore a momentous decision that cannot and should not be imposed on a 12 year old girl, quite apart from the sexual abuse of that child that then takes place -and may have taken place before it.

Discrimination has thrown up an interesting twist with regard to 'religious custom' or belief and the law. You may or may not know of a case in Northern Ireland where a bakery run by two Christians refused to bake a cake for two gay men with the legend 'Support Gay Marriage'. The case went to court and the gay men won, but the point of interest is that the campaigner for gay rights in the UK, Peter Tatchell, having initially supported the men as a case of discrimination in a province notorious for its reluctance to extend rights to all, subsequently retracted and defended the bakers.

He did so on the grounds that the bakers were not objecting to the couple being gay, but objected to the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage' -in other words, they objected to an idea, and were thus not discriminating against the men themselves, and Tatchell realised they needed to have their right to express their religious beliefs protected without themselves being discriminated against. One could also argue that if a bakery refused to put those words on a cake, then the couple could have chosen another that agreed to it, but the principle here is that freedom of expression works both ways, and is probably less controversial than it at first seems. Tatchell explains his position here-
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ience-religion

I think that is different from refusing to serve gay people in a cafe, that would be little different from denying it to Black people, Jews, or Republicans.

Where 'religious custom' outside of the Child Marriage issue I have raised becomes problematic, is in two areas of current interest, namely Kosher and Halal butchery, and so-called 'Islamic dress' -where this only seems to apply to women. In the UK there has been a campaign, mostly in newspapers and social media to demonize Halal butchery as cruel and unnecessary, though when you trace the sources you end up with the usual suspects on the fringes of politics who when asked, 'would you also ban Kosher butchery' respond with a gleeful 'yes!' which pretty well sums up their heritage. But it does not resolve the issue, where there are claims that the methods used in Kosher and Halal butchery cause less distress to the animal than secular methods, an issue on which I don't think there can be any consensus unless one can prove that the animal is never hurt or distressed, which cannot be the case when most animals want to be left alone in a field to munch grass and don't like the smell of abattoirs.

As for dress, New Jersey provides two examples of Islamic dress being allowed in one case and not allowed in another -a woman in a shopping mall was asked to remove her face covering by a security guard who was then sacked from his post, but a woman working for a Camden County jail was sacked for refusing to remove hers at work. There appears to be some confusion over what is permitted as part of 'religious custom' where this conflicts with secular custom and law, but I doubt legislators will address this -not for fear of offending people, but because it opens up all the other issues we have discussed, but where in the case of Child Marriage there is enough evidence of harm to act to prevent it. The two different cases in New Jersey are in these links:

http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf...all_guard.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...carf/96745940/

my thought for the day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGGKawnNhos

I wonder whether the message from the U.S' inability to ban alcohol is that it is too difficult to ban toxic substances, whether the difficulty is directly proportional to the popularity of the substance, or whether there is something special about alcohol and the history of its use that made it difficult to ban. I think it's a bit of the second two. Alcohol is extremely popular and it's also been around in both western and eastern cultures for thousands of years. The history of its use as a recreational substance of choice can be seen in the fact that there are significant differences in the ability of different populations to metabolize alcohol that are either a product of its use or might dictate propensities for use.

What would happen if we banned tobacco products? We know chewing tobacco causes mouth cancer and esophogeal cancer, smoked tobacco causes lung cancer, emphysema, copd and probably a zillion other terrible conditions. But would it be as tough to ban as alcohol? Its use in the U.S. and most western countries is pretty broad, but as Fred said in the other thread, it's a stimulant with some other properties (at higher doses its stimulant effects do not ramp up linearly and it can be anxiolytic). But it has a substitute in caffeine, which is a mild stimulant, although most smokers would probably laugh at someone calling it anything of an adequate substitute.

I think alcohol is also kind of unique because it's an intoxicant and nicotine isn't. It produces delirium and amnesia and people drink to wind down or forget or relax or change perspective. I'm not sure there's any other legal substance that plays that role. Anyway I've exhausted what I know about the subject...just curious if anyone wants to weigh in about tobacco bans, marijuana bans etc...substances that are broadly use but might be prohibited. I think it is probably too popular to ban but not quite as difficult as alcohol.

Humans are social animals, many of which are introverted to a degree, and as such will probably always need something to help ease inhibitions and make it easier to interact. Coupled with that fact, and the fact that alcohol is already deeply ingrained in many cultures, it would be almost impossible to ban it. Marijuana does the same thing in almost a cleaner and less harmful way, but it has been demonized in such a way over the past few decades that I still know tons of people that see nothing wrong with alcohol, but put weed in almost the same category as heroin...which is, of course, ridiculous.
I would love for it to be illegal for a company to produce and market cigarettes, but one of the problems would be the huge amount of people that continue to smoke around the globe. It would be impossible. That isn't to say that I believe a ban on every vice carries the same weight as many people now believe. I'm perfectly happy to live in a gray area when it comes to many of my beliefs. For instance...I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but I wouldn't agree to the same for heroin.
There was a time in my life when I abused most available drugs to a degree with the exception of heroin and crack...and smoked two and a half packs of cigarettes a day. I can honestly say, out of all those things cigarettes were both the most useless and unhealthy of the lot. I have no problem with some of the bans that are now in place in many large cities in regards to cigarettes. Interestingly enough I do think it's a bit ridiculous to not allow smoking in many mental hospitals...what else does a schizophrenic have to do to pass the time?But other than that...fuck it.

P.S...Caffeine serves a purpose..it can create alertness and helps in concentration and combined with a workout routine can help to burn calories. Cigarettes can help with some things but the negatives far, far outweigh the positives.

One man's cofffee's another mans' heroin.
Where do you draw the line?
Should you draw the line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Humans are social animals, many of which are introverted to a degree, and as such will probably always need something to help ease inhibitions and make it easier to interact. Coupled with that fact, and the fact that alcohol is already deeply ingrained in many cultures, it would be almost impossible to ban it. Marijuana does the same thing in almost a cleaner and less harmful way, but it has been demonized in such a way over the past few decades that I still know tons of people that see nothing wrong with alcohol, but put weed in almost the same category as heroin...which is, of course, ridiculous.
I would love for it to be illegal for a company to produce and market cigarettes, but one of the problems would be the huge amount of people that continue to smoke around the globe. It would be impossible. That isn't to say that I believe a ban on every vice carries the same weight as many people now believe. I'm perfectly happy to live in a gray area when it comes to many of my beliefs. For instance...I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but I wouldn't agree to the same for heroin.
There was a time in my life when I abused most available drugs to a degree with the exception of heroin and crack...and smoked two and a half packs of cigarettes a day. I can honestly say, out of all those things cigarettes were both the most useless and unhealthy of the lot. I have no problem with some of the bans that are now in place in many large cities in regards to cigarettes. Interestingly enough I do think it's a bit ridiculous to not allow smoking in many mental hospitals...what else does a schizophrenic have to do to pass the time?But other than that...fuck it.
P.S...Caffeine serves a purpose..it can create alertness and helps in concentration and combined with a workout routine can help to burn calories. Cigarettes can help with some things but the negatives far, far outweigh the positives.

---

A number of points to make here:

the first is that Heroin is, in a sense, already a legal substance, when it is used in medicine. The 'war on drugs' has been a total failure, with legalization and our old friend, regulation the only alternative left to try. It doesn't happen in places like the US for cultural and political rather than medical reasons.

While tobaccosis is a global problem, the trend in the UK over the last 50 years has with a few blips been all one way, to a significant reduction of smokers-
The statistics show that, bar two small blips, smoking prevalence has declined continuously and dramatically over the past 50 years by about two-thirds. In 1974, over 50% of men in Britain were smokers; that had fallen to just 19.1% in England in 2015. Similarly, just over 40% of women smoked back then; last year it was only 14.9%.
Health campaigners said that smoking’s continuing fall in popularity is due to a combination of tough measures, such as price rises and the introduction of plain packaging, and mass media campaigns urging people to quit
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...o-lowest-level

One of the curious aspects of all this is the extent to which humans appear to need, or enjoy stimulants which are derived from natural products, so one assumes in the distant past humans discovered what happens when you chew long enough on a tobacco leaf or a coca leaf. And leaves are also the main ingredient in tea, which gives me exquisite pleasure, especially first thing in the morning. Most drugs transformed into pills or liquids started out as leaves or plants, but one of the really interesting diversions, is into Plato's discussion of pharmacology and the way in which the root word, pharmakon can mean remedy or poison, and thus good/bad; it can also be used to mean charm, spell, recipe, and so on.
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/pmahon/pharmakon.html

It begs the question: do humans need stimulants to cope with the stress of everyday life? Is alcohol a burden or a liberation, or both depending on the volume consumed? Does the State legislate the consumption of substances for psychological reasons, or is it the fact that in most cases, it is done through taxation to raise revenues? You pay the producers to make the stuff, and pay the state to receive permission to smoke it.

I think an important initial argument to make is that there are some substances that should be prohibited. A good place to start is with the opiates, which exist in natural form and have probably been consumed for centuries for their analgesic properties and which now have synthetic analogues that hit the same brain receptors and are many times stronger. Even where their use is possibly beneficial, they should be carefully regulated with an eye towards their hazards.

The libertarian argument for not banning substances is that each individual has a unique set of values and preferences. It would follow that the person who uses a drug that harms his long-term health values present pleasure over future consequences. As a libertarian professor of mine put it, he has a very steep discount rate for future experience. As a result, there is no basis for assuming his decision to take something that eventually kills him is not rational. Of course, this is tautological nonsense and there is no basis for heeding this view.

I've watched a couple of documentaries about the opioid crisis and the most striking thing you hear from people who are stuck in the throes of addiction is that they wish they never touched the substance. The libertarian riposte would be that they say this only after they've received the pleasurable effects and are at a new set point where their only goal is to avoid the consequences. But the truth is that they had no way of valuing the consequences in advance, they had no way of anticipating the misery, and most importantly no way to anticipate the way the substance would hijack the parts of their brain involved in self-regulation. The person assumes they will be the same person in the throes of addiction that they were previously but the drug has attacked an intergral part of their "self".

Anyhow, if you allow widespread use of opioids, synthetic and natural, into a population based on a misconception of their hazards or possible beneficial use, you will see an epidemic. By the time you see the consequences across a population you know people have not made a rational choice, whatever their very personal values are.

I agree that people want to use stimulants and they can benefit people in the short-run but the body's need for rest eventually neutralizes a lot of their benefits. But when they're mild like caffeine people can get some use from them. The history of cocaine and amphetamine as performance enhancers though indicates that the drugs are better at producing euphoria than enhancing performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

One man's cofffee's another mans' heroin.
Where do you draw the line?
Should you draw the line?

---

depends: is this a line of heroin or coke?

i realized my previous thought was not political, but should it? that's the thought i had and looking back, it was an amazing thought.

then i had another thought and it wasn't a good one. and it had to do with this. your thoughts?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNEFpj-W4AIQrUm.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I've watched a couple of documentaries about the opioid crisis and the most striking thing you hear from people who are stuck in the throes of addiction is that they wish they never touched the substance. The libertarian riposte would be that they say this only after they've received the pleasurable effects and are at a new set point where their only goal is to avoid the consequences. But the truth is that they had no way of valuing the consequences in advance, they had no way of anticipating the misery, and most importantly no way to anticipate the way the substance would hijack the parts of their brain involved in self-regulation. The person assumes they will be the same person in the throes of addiction that they were previously but the drug has attacked an intergral part of their "self".

---

The view in the UK is that the opioid crisis in the US while not unique to the country has its roots in a mixture of poor training among doctors -until recently medical students had little or no training in pain management-; the pill-obsessed medical culture that makes it convenient for a doctor to prescribe opioids when they may not be necessary; the money pumped into the health industry by drug companies directly targeting doctors persuading them to prescribe their product, and through tv adverts so their patients assume the best remedy for their pain is a pill when it might be some other form of therapy, probably of the kind their insurance won't cover.

The BBC has a useful view on the link below. I think the opioid issue is different from that of recreational drugs, where the exclusion of some makes them appear exciting even if dangerous (Ketamine, for example) and is crucial for the illegal sales that maintain syndicates of organized crime. Legalising and then regulating and controlling substances is the best way to reduce the crime associated with them, but it takes a politician of courage these days to declare the 'war on drugs' a failure and to promote alternatives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41701718