Blacks and the Priesthood redux, ala David O. Mckay

[MikeWaters]

I don't put much stock in the quote attributed to HBL, because I don't think it matters much.

It tries to add the patina of self-made tragedy to him, but in my mind HBL was only one small cog in a huge wheel.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by K-dog

That seems like an accurate restatement of the law in this area with the noted difference that lies in the standard required from group to group. Not all racial groups are looked at the same by the law.

I disagree. All classifications based on race are suspect and subject to strictest scrutiny. There is something less than the highest level of strict scrutiny for gender based differences, for example. But I'm not aware the court applies different standards between races. When you think about it, such a distinction would be patently absurd in that the Court would be engaging in the very kind of discrimination that it has called unconstitutional.

I guess it may depend on how you define race. For example, maybe the Court would distinguish between profiling blacks and profiling Arab Muslims. I'm not aware of a case where such a disiction has been upheld; maybe it has, maybe it's yet to be decided. But obviously any such distinction wouldn't be strictly based on race in any event.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Whenever I feel my moral compass needs some re-calibrating, I simply ponder the story of Oedipus....or was it Electra?....

Oedipus was an example of what NOT to do. His (unwitting) actions caused a dire plague in Thebes.

And SU said Greek philosophy - not myth. You should read some; you might learn something.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I disagree. All classifications based on race are suspect and subject to strictest scrutiny. There is something less than the highest level of strict scrutiny for gender based differences, for example. But I'm not aware the court applies different standards between races. When you think about it, such a distinction would be patently absurd in that the Court would be engaging in the very kind of discrimination that it has called unconstitutional.

I guess it may depend on how you define race. For example, maybe the Court would distinguish between profiling blacks and profiling Arab Muslims. I'm not aware of a case where such a disiction has been upheld; maybe it has, maybe it's yet to be decided. But obviously any such distinction wouldn't be strictly based on race in any event.

I don't practice this type of law but I recall that there was a standard for minority versus majority groups which was then changed to "disadvantaged" groups. It allowed for disadvantaging the majority group or advantaged group in order to assist the disadvantaged group. If I feel like wasting time I'll look into my lawschool bookshelf and see what is there. Of course, I may be misremembering it.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Solon

Oedipus was an example of what NOT to do. His (unwitting) actions caused a dire plague in Thebes.

And SU said Greek philosophy - not myth. You should read some; you might learn something.

Philosophy is myth, told in the first person. Myth, by definition, is neither true or untrue, no? Sounds a lot like philosophy to me.

Your comment was unclear. Are you admonishing me to read philosophy or myth?

By the way, if Oedipus was an example of what not to do, did we really need a lesson about unwittingly committing incest and killing your father? or was it more to warn of the dangers of gouging ones eyeballs?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Philosophy is myth, told in the first person. Myth, by definition, is neither true or untrue, no? Sounds a lot like philosophy to me.

Your comment was unclear. Are you admonishing me to read philosophy or myth?

By the way, if Oedipus was an example of what not to do, did we really need a lesson about unwittingly committing incest and killing your father? or was it more to warn of the dangers of gouging ones eyeballs?

what about Michael Jackson stuff?

While the love of women is a physical necessity, the love of boys is a product of high culture and an adjunct of philosophy. Paiderastia may be either vulgar or celestial; the second will be sought by men of liberal education and good manners.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/lgbt/pge/pge18.htm

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

what about Michael Jackson stuff?



http://www.sacred-texts.com/lgbt/pge/pge18.htm

You should ask Solon about this branch of philosophy. He is very well read in this field and has learned a few things....

[Solon]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Your comment was unclear. Are you admonishing me to read philosophy or myth?

By the way, if Oedipus was an example of what not to do, did we really need a lesson about unwittingly committing incest and killing your father? or was it more to warn of the dangers of gouging ones eyeballs?

Both.

Since you asked, the Greeks looked at Oedipus with a horrified fascination of the power of Fate. Although he was big, strong, and an able and noble ruler, he was ultimately unable to escape the destiny that Fate had laid out for him. Our accomplishments are ultimately unable to shield us from superhuman forces; indeed, even the gods are bound by Fate.

As for the most famous incarnation of the Oedipus myth, Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus, its date (429) is just as important as its content. Athens was itself suffering from the effects of a horrific plague. Overcrowded and stifling from the influx of Peloponnesian War refugees, Sophocles' play examines the misfortune that might befall a city if it is ruled by an impure or polluted leader. Pericles, Athens' "first citizen," belonged to the prominent Alcmaeonid family - a family cursed for sacrilegiously murdering suppliants after an attempted coup ca. 632 BCE.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

You should ask Solon about this branch of philosophy. He is very well read in this field and has learned a few things....

Good one. . .

What's next, mom jokes?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Solon

Our accomplishments are ultimately unable to shield us from superhuman forces

Are there any other philosophies that you can summarize regarding other equally self-evident truths?