The Attack of the Monkey God

[DarKnyht]

The Paranormal Pastor shares a tale related by missionaries in Thailand that tells of a terrible cost exacted in The Attack of the Monkey God

Is it true or just a good campfire tale?

[Doctor Boggs]

Well, real or not, that's one heck of a story!

[Eilonwy Solstice]

Well, real or not, that's one heck of a story!

Agreed.

But if it is true, it’d be nice to know what the defense had been . . . another spirit, actually benevolent? Did the parents have powers they did not know about? Or just simply praying in a holy place.

And if it’s not true, it begs the question as what the original inspiration had been.

[DarKnyht]

There is that family in Mexico that grows hair all over their body. Perhaps a man with that problem?

[Eilonwy Solstice]

There is that family in Mexico that grows hair all over their body. Perhaps a man with that problem?

They were able to cure the man in Mexico as well?

[DarKnyht]

No, I mean the genetic condition that causes the family in Mexico to grow hair all over their body and look like the wolfman might be the same one behind the legend of the Monkey Man. A shaman with that condition living in the woods.

But it doesn't explain the events happening to the little girl at all. Which would mean that part of the story is a myth/story built upon the original truth (a hairy man living in the woods that looks like a monkey and helps people).

Again, this is a just a speculation of what could be the original truth behind what may or may not be legend.

[Doctor Boggs]

Well now, let's keep in mind, until we've seen (or hear from someone we trust who's seen) something genuine there the best explanation is till good old fashioned hysteria.

Although to be honest I kinda don't want to believe that myself, too good a story and the monkey man thing is just so well known... I'd be tempted to go for a look m'self but I'm just not up for an overseas trip.

I hope we hear more though, great story.

[Eilonwy Solstice]

I understand what you’re saying now, Erik. And that’s a very conceivable point. And I don’t think it would be odd at all to “add” a legend of a girl turning into a monkey in “payment” for his services. A girl gone missing in the area of just such a sighting as you described (that is, of a hairy man living in the jungle) would spark those kinds of stories without any aid.

[DarKnyht]

I sometimes wonder how much other stuff is born out of the desire to make sense out of facts people don't understand.

[Last Moon]

The large number of anthropomorphic animal deities and shape shifting deities in human mythology lead me to theorize that in ancient times Therians often used their abilities to attain positions of power over human society. A trend that has continued to this day with Therians infiltrating power structures disguised as normal humans.

[Nemesis]

What you call infiltration, others might call participation. And what you call disguise, others would call a natural form.

[Grace]

You know I never thought of it like that before.

[Last Moon]

Participation assumes they have the legal status to do so. If the president can be threatened with removal from office over the circumstance of his birth, should not another being who has lied about such a basic fact of their existence also be disqualified?

How many who voted for their representatives would have changed their vote had the truth been known?

[Cybermancer]

Where on a birth certificate do you identify as a Therian?

[Last Moon]

Where in the constitution does it specify that citizenship, a prerequisite for holding office, extends past 'mankind'?

[Cybermancer]

Where in the constitution does it specify that citizenship, a prerequisite for holding office, extends past 'mankind'?

You haven't answered my question. Instead you have elected to engage in a semantic argument.

First, not all of us are American so don't assume we view the American Constitution as the be all and end all or even applicable in all legal matters.

Furthermore, the authorities do not currently recognize the existence of forms of intelligence that are not human. It is inherently impossible to identify as something that is not accepted to exist. Therefore no law is going to be worded in a way to acknowledges that which is not believed to exist. Though some nations do use words like 'people' in place of mankind.

Bottom line is that Cynthia has raised a valid point. "They live amongst us" does not equal "They are hiding from us and infiltrating our institutions of power". That isn't to say some Therians aren't infiltrating our institutions with nefarious intent. However the assumption that because we can't immediately identify them as being different means they are all up to something is extremely problematic.

And quite unscientific.

[Last Moon]

I have more specific proofs of intent, but I will not discuss them here for reasons of personal safety.

[Cybermancer]

You may have proofs of intent on individuals and even sub-groups but I am skeptical that you have specfic proofs of a species wide conspiracy.

However, I would be willing to review any proofs you'd like to present.

[Hannah]

Last Moon,

You seem to be distinguishing between being human and being a person. There is a difference. Not every person I've met was human.

Hannah

[Technocrat]

Where in the constitution does it specify that citizenship, a prerequisite for holding office, extends past 'mankind'?

The only place the word "Mankind" or "Humanity" appear are in the Declaration of Independence, the sole role of which was to grant the Founding Fathers permission to leave the British Empire.

As for the requirements for Citizenship for the United States, the Bill of rights says:

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You'll not the distinct lack of the words "Mankind" or "Human" or "Humanity" in the definition of citizenship. All that is required that an entity be a person, and that they be born in or naturalized in the United States.

The use of the words "Mankind" and "Humanity" in the opening of the Declaration of Independence are not used as definitions. They are there to put a historical context to the declaration.

Throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the phrase used over and over again is not Mankind or Humanity. It is People. We the PEOPLE...

Sorry, but your Constitution doesn't restrict citizenship to humanity but only to people. It's right there in Amendment XIV. This supersedes all previous wording, being an amendment.

So now that your question has been answered, you could answer the question put to you? Where on a birth certificate does a person identify as being other than human? The fact is that the law doesn't care if you're human. It applies to all people. Don't believe me? Refer to that amendment again. See where it says people and persons? Great.

Fun fact, the law doesn't care if you think a person is actually a person or not.

As for holding office, voting or otherwise participating in the government of the United States, the words used are People or Citizen (see above definition of what makes a citizen).

The only thing any entity would have to prove in order to have the full protection of the constitution is that they are a person. A person need not inherently be human.

I love the law and it's myriad of technicalities.

Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425:

"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. para 1."

In his book Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, tax attorney Jeffrey Dickstein included the transcript of the tax trial U.S. v. Carl Beery, Case A87-43CR Vol. III transcript. On page 296 of the book, you will read where the IRS claims that "an individual is somebody with a social security number."

[Last Moon]

Technocrat,

you bring up an excellent, point, but what is a person in the legal sense of the word?

Well, let’s take a look.

You quoted

Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425:

"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. para 1."

A very nice place to start, yes some non-human entities have been granted the legal status of ‘person.’ Let’s take a look at the list provided by 1, U.S.C. Para 1:

Corporations
Companies
Associations
Firms
Partnerships
Societies
Joint stock companies

Hmmm, interesting bunch. They all seem to be groups created by human beings through some form of contract.

Why were these things given the status of personhood? It’s pretty simple, it gives them the ability to sue and be sued. Their personhood does not make them citizens. In other words, Microsoft can’t vote and IBM can’t run for Congress.

However, there is a more salient section of law:

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. 1 U.S.C. § 8

The link between person, human being and homo sapiens is definitively made there. But that’s not the only such statute. For example, let’s check out this one.

… with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation is guilty of voluntary manslaughter … 10 USC § 919 - Art. 119

In regards to living non-human persons in the United States, despite attempts to grant the status of personhood and certain rights to Great Apes, so far no animals other than humans have been legally recognized in this country. In fact, if you got a social security number for your pet Chimpanzee and claimed it was a person and arranged for it to vote, you would be sited for electoral fraud.

So for now, the only non-humans with recognized legal personhood in this country are legal entities created by humans. Until the law changes, this group of Therians have illegally infiltrated our Government for an end that as of yet remains unknown.

[Technocrat]

Nothing you've said actually nullifies my argument but nice try.

Personhood is granted to all the entities you mentioned but it is not stated as being exclusively their domain. Personhood is explicitedly granted to humans but not explicitedly denied other sentients. Again, the section you quote lists persons seperately from homo sapiens, which continues to support my point.

And attempting to compare Therians to Great Apes is laughable in ways you don't even begin to understand.

But hey thanks for the free information. Your bias is now known. You see only the animal side of a Therian. Suggests to me some trauma in your past. Wanna talk about? I always listen for free.

[Ron Caliburn]

Civics lessons aside, Last Moon is alleging that at least some werebeasts are trying to take control of our government. That's a pretty specific issue.

I want more on this so we can confirm if it's happening and take the measures to stop it.

[Technocrat]

If I were you I would probably be far more concerned about the Powers of the Earth that were invoked at the founding of your nation. But since there is little you can do about that, you may as well concern yourself with the antics of a few were-beasts who think they are more dangerous than they really are.

[Hannah]

Perhaps Last Moon and Technocrat could also discuss this in another thread, seeing as this one is about this monkey spirit that the Paranormal Pastor wrote about.

Hannah

[Ken]

This must be where Cynthia got the idea for her Civics ISP.

[Hannah]

Hi Ken,

I'm Cynthia's sister.

I heard about that. I think our father's opinions might have something to do with it too.

Hannah

PS: Saw about your folks, very strange, will discuss it more over in the proper thread.

[Last Moon]

Hannah, Mr. Caliburn,

I would happily leave this and move on but I wish to exercise a Point of Personal Privilege to answer Technocrat's accusations on my character and his or her arguments.

In regards to the arguments, there is an important piece fo the puzzle you are forgetting Technocrat. History. In America the universal rights of personhood are not granted automatically. Instead each group had to earn it. Corporations and similar earned their limited version of personhood in the 1800s. Non-whites and women received it in incremental stages in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We currently are still debating the granting of full and equal rights for human beings of various sexual orientations.

Like it or not, the fact of the matter is that personhood in this country is earned on a group level by specific inclusion through a court decision or change to the laws. Were a Therian to 'come out of the closet' today, their personhood would not be confirmed without a legal challenge or a change to the laws. Those Therians that are masquerading as humans in order to be involved in our governmental system are doing so in full knowledge that were they to proclaim themselves as what they really are, they would be unable to hold office without significant legal wrangling. The fact that they continue on the path they have chosen rather than the path of free and open discussion of their desire for legal personhood is a strong indicator that they do not care for the legal requirements and instead are seeking their own aims.

In regards to my bias.

Did you perhaps explore the document I linked to on the Great Apes? It discusses many traits that the Great Apes have:

Rationality and self-awareness.
Self-control.
A sense of the future.
A sense of the past.
Capacity to relate to others.
Concern for others.
Curiosity.
Communication.

These are very compelling characteristics for consideration as a person in the philosophical sense and, having worked with Great Apes personally on several occasions as a part of my research into Cryptozoology prior to my awareness of Therians, I am wholeheartedly convinced that they are indeed, persons, even if they are not legally recognized as such.

Which brings us back to the Therians. While each species of Therian differs in the amounts of those previously mentioned trait they display, and there is further room for individual variations of those traits within a species, Therians do indeed possess those same traits. I do not deny Therians are sentient and while I am not religiously inclined, if there is such a thing as a Soul, I believe that Therians are as equally gifted with ones as Humans are. In short, in everything but the legal sense of the word, I do believe that Therians are persons and have faith that if they were not hiding their true natures, they would eventually be eligible for the full legal rights of such.

My argument is merely that they do not have those specific legal rights right now and will not until such time as an appropriate court case or change in legislation explicitly grants it to them. They are aware of such and the fact that they do not pursue such while still seeking political power is troubling to me.

Now, if you wish to discuss this further with me, I suggest that we do so via the private messaging system of these boards or find an alternate thread that is more appropriate as Hannah and Mr. Caliburn are correct in that we have taken this thread far, far off topic.

To DarKnyt, my sincere apologies.

[Technocrat]

As I don't have a pony in this race, I don't see much point in continuing as I have what I set out to get.

But you're still wrong. The effort to prove it would be better spent on more profitable matters. So you can continue with your unproven theories. But the fact is, your view is based entirely on speculation, not proof. Which doesn't make it the fact you think it is. And there are some very important elements that you've either missed or are blind to. Surprising as some of your comments in other threads suggest you should know better. Three little letters end all thought of excluding Therians from having personhood. Can you guess what they are? You should be able to.

So until a Therian outs themself, you can speculate on their legal identity all you want.

But you're still wrong.

And I'm not much concerned about 'derailing' a thread that was dead for a period of over four years before a bit of threadomancy brought it back.