It might be a good idea to reflect further on the idea of communism and Early Christianity as Brian Capper suggests that “Although Luke describes the community of goods of Acts 2-6 with remarkable enthusiasm, the later chapters of Acts do not suggest that he wished his readers to institute formal property-sharing arrangements. Rather, his model becomes almsgiving. The connection of community of goods with paradisal beginnings in Graeco-Roman literature suggests that Luke sought to underline that a new beginning was made for humanity through the birth of the Christian Church. His employment of proverbs of friendship, and the link in his Gospel between meal-fellowship and the inappropriateness of giving for a return after the model of Hellenistic friendship, suggest that he required the rich to transcend the conventions of reciprocity and eradicate poverty by entertaining the poor in their homes.” It is so easy to interpret mystical writings in any way one wishes.  Other sources for the intention of Luke in these Acts passages may be found in “The Social Function of Friendship in Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-37,” Alan C. Mitchell, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 111, No. 2. (Summer, 1992), pp. 255-272.

Folks, these are some great posts on what I had considered a “filler” topic here on TD. When so many topics here devolve into pissing contests you have all done this forum proud. For what it’s worth, well done one and all.

Cyrena, you and I have a displaced friend in common. Thanks for the Texas “blue laws” story; we still have vestigial “blue laws” here in the much more liberal precincts of New Jersey.

Well, I’m delighted to find this topic covered by Truthdig!!!

Just to show how ‘privileged’ I am this article (at least the one published in the LA Times) was handed out at the beginning of my regular course lecture on International Law Thursday evening. (by the eminent Prof. Falk).

At first glance, it would seem to have nothing to do with International Law, but that was the ‘exercise’. We needed to compare it to some issues that are most important in determining when International Law is effective, and when it isn’t.

But, here’s a clue…the article that we discussed (on this same news) was entitled: “A British law is no longer sacred.” Then it has a ‘lead in’ of sorts (as well as a photo of anger in Khartoum, about the teddy bear incident)

• “After a teddy bear incident and much debate, the House of Lords votes to end the statute on blasphemy”.

One of the issues addressed here, (if not spelled out) is the foundation of what makes IL work…RECIPROCITY.

Here’s more from the LA Times piece:

• “It is crystal-clear that the offenses of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are UNWORKABLE (emphasis mine) in today’s society”. (this quote from Kay Andrews, in introducing the government backed amendment), adding that, “as long as this law remains on the statute books, it hinders the UK’s ability to challenge oppressive blasphemy laws in other jurisdictions.’

There you have it. Reciprocity. Too many folks still don’t get that. This is why there are universal laws against Torture, that nearly all the world has agreed to accept. We want to know that if there is a war, (no matter how many procedures have been put into place to prevent recourse to war) if the agreements are already in place, that nobody is gonna torture THEIR POW’s, as long as they stick to the agreement not to torture any other POW’S, then hey…that’s what saves our own. It’s reciprocity, and it’s one of the foundations of how the systems works. It doesn’t allow for hypocrisy, which is what Empire’s law is about. Empire’s Law says that we make law, and we exempt ourselves from it.

Moving along, the other foundational concept this encompasses is intertemporal. Although the term is generally associated with economic theories, it’s also used for a much simpler legalistic concept, which is simply “adjusting law to changing environments or social conditions.”

In short, the basis of much of common law, (adopted from the English common law) is simply not prudent or useful to the changes that occur over time.

Texas “blue law” is an example. When I first moved there many years ago, I was astonished by such laws that prevented one from purchasing non-edible products on a Sunday. I’d attempted to purchase a pair of pantyhose since I needed to work my afternoon shift that day, and I would have been sent home had I appeared barelegged in uniform. I was shocked when I had to ‘negotiate’ with the cashier at the market, in order to buy those pantyhose along with my groceries.

Now, had I attempted to use such a ‘law’ for my absence at work on ANY Sunday, I would of course have been summarily fired, and I wouldn’t have needed the damn panty hose. But, I still needed to eat, so that’s why I did the begging and the pleading, to be allowed to purchase those pantyhose, even though it was a Sunday.

And so it is….

(and that’s ANOTHER reason for escaping that place called Texas).

Speaking of which, a friend has recently advised me that she too, will be getting out of dodge, and she only lasted 8 months. She said if one more person on the job asked her ‘which church she attended’ she was likely to strangle them. Best she just leave, and get back to a place where nobody much CARES which church one attends, or even if they ‘attend’ at all.

Besides, it’s definitely better than strangling a co-worker.

Good work for the UK parliament. Wonder if we’ll ever get back to such reason and logic regarding the laws of the land?

Blasphemy is a common law offence with an unlimited penalty....

The issue of freedom of speech versus blasphemy cannot be seen in isolation from the role of religion as a source of political power in some societies.... to blaspheme is to threaten not only a religion, but also the entire political power order of the society… the official punishments (and popular responses to blasphemy) tend to be more severe and violent..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_versus_ blasphemy

In other words, ‘blasphemy’ had little to do with God but the state religion as it once was and was a method of controlling and demanding respect for those in heirarchical positions controlling the administration of the law, the country and, of course, the state’s own permitted religion.

That is, you were ‘guilty’ if they said you were guilty. The ‘offence’ was what they said was an offence. The reason then must also have been whatever they said was the reason.

Law is based not on reason but on delineating “punishable offences”. Whatever that constitutes in the minds of the judiciary or the general populace is what determines what is deemed to be an offence and what kind of punishment is used. ‘Reason’ is then hypocritically applied in retrospect in order to make the process seem fair.

These days, the ‘state religion’ can be Communism or some such ideology as much as an ideology based on a belief in some particular view of some deity, real or fanciful. In other words, the religion and the crimes of transgression against it were all forms of mind-control as applied individually and to the masses under the heel of whichever kind of ‘authority’ ran the country, whether secular or theological.

Again, it was the “old testament” of the Jews that taught the right to punish those who blasphemed:-

In the third book of the Old Testament, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy “shall surely be put to death"…

Hold to forgiveness, command what is right; but turn away from the ignorant......  if they repent, it will be best for them, but if they turn back, Allah will punish them.”

- again, not essentially a ‘law’ of man but a description of Karma as it affects those who refuse the concept of a Creator.

Note that English law was based as much on Islamic law as any domestic constructs.......

Several fundamental common law instutitions may have been adapted from similar legal instututions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the conquest of England by the Normans, whoinherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily, and also by Crusaders......

Other English legal institutions such as “the scholastic method, the license to teach,” the “law schools known as Inns of Court in England and Madrasas in Islam” and the “European commenda” may have also originated from Islamic law...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Wow...in one fell swoop....they just took all the fun out of it.  Next they’ll be telling us sex isn’t dirty those filthy ingrates.

I’ll say it’s a little late.  Imagine if they had done this 250 years ago.  There probably would be no United States!

Holy Christ on a cracker, it’s about goddamn f*cking time! God shave the Queen!

Lighten up folks, it’s not like your own rebelious little minds were’nt conjuring up similar wise-cracks. It’s a slow father f*ckin’ news day.