Home > Archive > Cobol > May 2005 > OT - "lie" vs "error"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT - "lie" vs "error"
|
|
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-24, 8:55 pm |
| In article <d4bgnf$t0v$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d4be05$4fo$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>
>For once I restrain myself from crying out "Resist! Resist!".
>
>
>Of course. That ties right into "right, humane and dignified." Is it not
>ever so?
As the Germans say, Mr Stevens... plus ca change, plus c'est la meme
chose.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-24, 8:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d4bf84$3r1$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 22-Apr-2005, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
conform to[color=darkred]
system?[color=darkred]
>
> Only if we aren't part of the problem.
>
>
> The real problem in this world is all the greedy selfish people who don't
give
> me everything I want.
>
I know... :-)
I found this thread quite frightening.
I sincerely hope that CLC is not representative of the views of the average
American citizen.
If it is, and they succeed in imposing the Church onto the State, I see
little hope for any of us, irrespective of our religious beliefs...
Pete.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-25, 8:55 am |
| In article <L929e.9009$5f.7019@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if
>I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common
>sense." --Buddha
What I know of my own reason and common sense has changed so much over
time - of *course* heavier things fall faster than lighter ones! - that I
have trouble believing this.
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-25, 8:55 am |
| In article <34f0f$42646629$45491f85$23624@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Chuck Stevens wrote:
[snip]
>
>Well, these religions are being hypocritical on the issue, then. If
>they feel it's wrong, why is it wrong? (One would assume, "because it
>takes innocent life".) So, they're not interested in the government
>preserving innocent life? What's the point of having the belief if
>you're not going to act on it?
It is one thing to act on belief, quite another to try to have those
beliefs be made the law of the land; the logical conclusion of the 'acting
on it' you posit above is a theocracy.
Not in *my* United States of America, thank you.
[snip]
>
>You're right - I don't want those reprobates to have *any* rights, until
>they learn where that penis is *supposed* to go...
>
>(You wouldn't have any problem believing I was serious when I wrote the
>above, would you? You just don't understand my position, and from your
>responses to my questions, you don't seem to want to. For the record,
>the above was a joke.)
Interesting how I cannot recall you making any jokes about the way folks
insist on creating more useless eaters to consume natural resources.
DD
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 22-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to be immune to this problem.
> How often do the 9th and 10th amendments get ignored in favor of some implied
> right that they want to see made more solid?
>
> Better them than letting the other branches decide though.
And that's where we disagree. Not a Federal law? Either have the
legislature create one, or leave it to the states. The other branches
are *far* better at determining the will of the people that
appointed-for-life judges who have little to no accountability. The
judiciary's role is to say whether the "will of the people" (duly
enacted through legislature action and signed by the executive) directly
conflicts with the Constitution or not.
We have three branches for a reason - and I'm most distrustful of the
judiciary.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Rick Smith wrote:
[snip]
>
> I have a bit more than two years to pursue other avenues.
And I wish you the best in finding success - thanks for answering my
question.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <76ccf$42685510$45491db9$15115@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Evil can be caused by action as well as inaction... but it shows much that
> you respond to allowing 'adult human beings both to make their own choices
> and be responsible for them' with a bromide about 'evil'.
Yes, and the choices adult human beings make are quite often evil.
There are an overabundance of examples of such people - not all of them
make the news, but who of us has never wronged (done evil) toward
another person? (And, are you the only one who can back up your
arguments with popular quips and quotes?)
>
> The Supreme Court of the United States of America seems to disagree with
> you... but what do *they* know about the Constitution, anyway?
They found something that isn't there. Nowhere does it say that people
have freedom *from* religion, and nowhere does it say that "government
shall make no policy that makes even one person uncomfortable". Same
with the right to not be offended.
Why does this matter? Because "live and let live" only applies to one
side of the equation. The other side is not allowed to live without
constant attempts to purge their lives of any semblance of any thing
that might happen to reference God. References to God are found
throughout our founding documents - in fact, the Constitution has such a
reference! How long 'til Michael Newdow appeals to the Supreme Court on
the basis that the Constitution is un-Constitutional?
I really don't think that a Christmas tree offends others *nearly* as
much as a "holiday tree" offends me. But, all of a sudden, this right
not to be offended that we've found in the Constitution doesn't apply to me!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <405b1$42685021$45491db9$26469@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> You, and other citizens, are working to make the laws of the United States
> conform more with a particular religion?
No, the context of that statement is Mr. Smith's postulate regarding the
rights of the unborn.
Are you this derisive of those who campaign for animals to have rights
similar to the ones we have?
>
> Ummmm... you just mentioned your rights a moment ago as being the basis
> for *changing* the status quo to something that seems to more closely
> reflect your religious beliefs. How is this sauce for your goose unfit
> for their gander?
Until the question of the person-hood of a preborn human is established
in its proper terms, I can see how you'd see it that way.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Jeff York wrote:
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm sorry to say this, and I'm sure that those involved with this
> scheme are motivated with the best of intentions but... This looks to
> me to be almost indistinguishable from the "initiation and processing"
> (ie brainwashing) of potential members indulged in by some of the
> highly dubious cults that are found around the world.
The cult of life - it's catching on! Over a billion and climbing! :)
Having been in the office, and having read through the training
materials that volunteers receive, I can assure you that this is not a
brainwashing center.
> The title "crisis pregnancy centre" appears almost designed to
> mislead, sited as it is opposite an abortion clinic.
*Former* abortion clinic...
> Also, there's
> "councelling" and there's "Councelling!". I've heard of "rough
> kindness" - what sort of "councelling" and phsychological pressure are
> the women who find themselves there subjected to?
As Joe Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am". They are shown all
options they have regarding the life inside them, even shown an actual
ultrasound of it if they're interested. If choosing life, they're shown
support, parenting preparation, baby clothes, etc. The only pressure is
from their own conscience.
> What right do groups, religious or otherwise, have to arrogate to
> themselves the power to pressure grown adults into "making the best
> choice" ie *our* choice?
No one is forced to go there, and having gone there, no one is forced to
sit and listen - they don't have to stay. As a voluntary activity, what
right do we *not* have to set up a shop offering a different perspective
than the popular culture? What right do we *not* have to help support
those who choose life over death?
> I live in the UK and therefore suffer at the hands of "Nanny State".
> I find the concept of "Nanny Church" even more repellent.
Good thing this isn't one of those... :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <9cf77$4268586a$45491db9$1545@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> It was intended to take money from some people under threat of force and
> redistribute it to other people who did nothing to earn it but ask.
I thought you *liked* Social Security and other social programs, talking
about how good they are for our society as a whole. Are you now saying
that you don't think Medicaid should cover pregnancy and childbirth?
Talk about your "pro-choice"...
>
> Just because someone makes a bad decision, a bad choice or has bad luck
> does not give them any claim on the monies earned by those who disagree
> with them.
You know, I do take some satisfaction that you've come around to seeing
my point on these topics that were discussed a while back. Maybe this
has given you some perspective?
>
> What are your current efforts to change this? Seems like more people make
> use of this non-Constitutional bit of government than anything else.
I vote for people who will do their best, in my opinion, to remedy some
of these problems. I vote for people who will not constrict people who
want to help others simply because they have religious beliefs.
>
> The onus probandi lies on the one making the assertion... but I'll give
> you a hint: if all that Planned Parenthood wanted to do was to, as you
> assert, 'whip up the emotions about their rights, and get them to kill
> that child' then they might wait until it was a child, not a fetus... and
> they might not give out information about contraception, which decreases
> the possibility that a fetus can develop... and they might not have, on
> their website, information about infertility, prenatal care and adoption.
>
> That seems to be a pretty broad offering of choices.
Okay - on their website (http://www.plannedparenthood.com), the top
story is "The March for Women's Lives - A Year in Review" - as part of
that, the top link on the story is "take action!" Digging into their
adoption information, clicking on the "What If I'm Pregnant" link (the
second one), this is at the bottom of the introduction...
quote follows...
Beware of so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that are anti-abortion.
Some of these centers advertise free pregnancy testing.
* They may perform your pregnancy tests without medical supervision.
* They won't give you complete and correct information about all
options.
* They will try to frighten you with films that are designed to
keep you from choosing abortion.
* They will lie to you about the medical and emotional effects of
abortion.
* They may tell you that you are not pregnant even if you are, to
fool you into continuing your pregnancy without knowing. The delay would
make abortion more risky and keep you from getting prenatal care.
* They will discourage you from using the most reliable methods of
birth control.
....end quote
Two paragraphs down...
quote follows...
f you are considering abortion — you should make your decision as soon
as possible. Abortion is very safe, but the risks increase the longer a
pregnancy goes on.
....end quote
"Abortion is very safe" is a flat-out LIE. Notwithstanding the loss of
human life, the effects on the mother can be traumatic - from emotional
/ mental afflictions such as PTSD, to physical afflictions such as the
inability to conceive again due to scar tissue, and an increased risk of
breast cancer.
I could go on, but this isn't a book report on their website. They are
a pro-abortion organization, who can't resist pushing abortion even on
their informational pages about adoption.
>
> A child cannot be targeted for abortion...
But a child *can* be once-targeted-for-abortion... PLEASE stop this
line of the argument - I don't agree and I never will.
> Let me take this a step further: given that a 'fact' is a 'done thing'
> (factum = deed) and that things are being done at all times... 'all the
> facts' are available only when all things have been done. The Patent
> Office hasn't been shut down yet.
Okay - make that "all available information" (which the term
ill-informed, which I used, suggests is lacking). Of course people are
still doing things... What kind of argument is this - ridiculum absurdum?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d4c8i4$s9g$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>
> average
>
>
> I am not easily intimidated.
>
> I saw your view (which I heartly endorse - but I think you know that) as
> being definitely the minority.
>
> THAT is what I find frightening.
Don't think I'm in the majority just because I've that the majority of
posts... I feel as though *my* views are highly in the minority.
> I'm getting frightened again... need a beer...:-)
heh - have one for me, just to show I'm a good sport. ;) Besides, I
can't spare the calories. Got my next fitness test in the morning, and
an O-5 is quite interested in my results - gotta make 'em good!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-26, 3:55 am |
| In article <c3174$426d92e7$45491c57$29869@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>No, the context of that statement is Mr. Smith's postulate regarding the
>rights of the unborn.
Mr Smith made an assertion about a fetus' not being a citizen; being a
citizen - and having the rights appertaining thereunto - is, last I
looked, a matter of law.
>
>Are you this derisive of those who campaign for animals to have rights
>similar to the ones we have?
To ask a question about what you, and other citizens, are working to do is
a request for information; if you see this as derision it speaks more of
your knowledge of your view than anything else.
>
>
>Until the question of the person-hood of a preborn human is established
>in its proper terms, I can see how you'd see it that way.
Leaving aside who is the arbiter of propriety... I did not ask if you
could see how I saw something, I asked you then - and make a second
request, now - 'How is this sauce for your goose unfit for their gander?'
(There is, at this point, little question... excepting for purposes of
receiving handouts under a particular Federal insurance program to speak
of the 'person-hood of a preborn human' is like speaking of the 'voting
status of a 13-year-old in national elections'... it does not exist.)
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-26, 3:55 am |
| In article <8e476$426d98e2$45491c57$30907@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I thought you *liked* Social Security and other social programs, talking
>about how good they are for our society as a whole.
What I like and don't like does not change the facts of taxation... and
please be so kind as to document where I said anything about how I
'*liked* Social Security and other social programs' or 'talked about how
good they are for our society as a whole.
>Are you now saying
>that you don't think Medicaid should cover pregnancy and childbirth?
I have questions about taking money from people under duress and giving it
to others because of choices they made voluntarily
>Talk about your "pro-choice"...
I try not to choose duress and coercion, yes... seems that you are doing
otherwise.
>
>
>You know, I do take some satisfaction that you've come around to seeing
>my point on these topics that were discussed a while back. Maybe this
>has given you some perspective?
Some people take satisfaction at not being shown as behaving
hypocritically... others take it in other places.
>
>
>I vote for people who will do their best, in my opinion, to remedy some
>of these problems. I vote for people who will not constrict people who
>want to help others simply because they have religious beliefs.
So for one thing you merely cast ballots... and for another you volunteer
your time and experience. Interesting priorities.
>
>
>Okay - on their website (http://www.plannedparenthood.com), the top
>story is "The March for Women's Lives - A Year in Review" - as part of
>that, the top link on the story is "take action!" Digging into their
>adoption information, clicking on the "What If I'm Pregnant" link (the
>second one), this is at the bottom of the introduction...
[snip]
>f you are considering abortion — you should make your decision as soon
>as possible. Abortion is very safe, but the risks increase the longer a
>pregnancy goes on.
>
>...end quote
>
>"Abortion is very safe" is a flat-out LIE. Notwithstanding the loss of
>human life, the effects on the mother can be traumatic - from emotional
>/ mental afflictions such as PTSD, to physical afflictions such as the
>inability to conceive again due to scar tissue, and an increased risk of
>breast cancer.
The loss of a fetus is not the loss of a human life, remember? You might
want to do a bit of research on the risks associated with abortion and the
risks associated with childbirth.
>
>I could go on, but this isn't a book report on their website. They are
>a pro-abortion organization, who can't resist pushing abortion even on
>their informational pages about adoption.
They mention adoption as a viable alternative and warn against listening
to those who would sway emotionally... this might be a reason for your
hating them so.
>
>
>But a child *can* be once-targeted-for-abortion... PLEASE stop this
>line of the argument - I don't agree and I never will.
No matter how often you call a tail a leg it is still a tail... that you
do not agree does not change what is and is not, by law, a child and that
a child cannot be targeted for abortion.
>
>
>Okay - make that "all available information" (which the term
>ill-informed, which I used, suggests is lacking). Of course people are
>still doing things... What kind of argument is this - ridiculum absurdum?
It is an argument which attempts to pay careful attention to demonstrable
situations and use of language; my apologies if such things are alien to
you or make you uncomfortable.
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-26, 3:55 am |
| In article <3910e$426d924e$45491c57$29869@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Yes, and the choices adult human beings make are quite often evil.
I think you might be confusing 'bad' with 'evil'.
>There are an overabundance of examples of such people - not all of them
>make the news, but who of us has never wronged (done evil) toward
>another person?
To wrong is not necessarily to do evil.
>(And, are you the only one who can back up your
>arguments with popular quips and quotes?)
I don't believe I set the rules on that.
>
>
>They found something that isn't there.
They seem to disagree with you... but what do *they* know about the
Constitution, anyway?
>Nowhere does it say that people
>have freedom *from* religion, and nowhere does it say that "government
>shall make no policy that makes even one person uncomfortable".
The question was not one of discomfort, it was one of freedom from
religion... which the Supreme Court has found.
>Same
>with the right to not be offended.
I don't believe the Supreme Court has found any 'right not to be
offended'; can you document this, please?
>
>Why does this matter?
Because it might serve to draw attention away from the fact that you hold
your own interpretations higher than those of the Supreme Court,
perhaps... but when it comes to the laws of *my* United States of America
their say on Constitutionality seems to outweigh yours.
DD
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <c3174$426d92e7$45491c57$29869@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mr Smith made an assertion about a fetus' not being a citizen; being a
> citizen - and having the rights appertaining thereunto - is, last I
> looked, a matter of law.
Yes, and we are working to get the law changed - are you just not seeing
this? I don't want to codify my religion into the Constitution - in
this one area, where I (and others) feel that the current status quo is
wrong, we are working to change that.
>
> To ask a question about what you, and other citizens, are working to do is
> a request for information; if you see this as derision it speaks more of
> your knowledge of your view than anything else.
I don't mind requests for information - but your "requests" often seem
to be coming from a complete misstatement of my position. You misstate
my position, then ask me to defend it - how *can* I defend something
that I didn't say? Your comments to others regarding this thread and my
views, combined with this sort of thing, feels very much like derision -
and it appears my feelings have shown themselves here.
>
> Leaving aside who is the arbiter of propriety... I did not ask if you
> could see how I saw something, I asked you then - and make a second
> request, now - 'How is this sauce for your goose unfit for their gander?'
I'm not demanding the "right" to go kill something - I simply want the
laws in this country to take into account the last 30 years of medical
research regarding this practice and its effects. People used to think
that folks who thought that the earth was round were just religious
fools - until science proved otherwise.
And, I've never said that they shouldn't have the right to *lobby* for
their beliefs becoming law, or maintaining the status quo (as the case
may be). They have the same rights to lobby for abortion as I have to
lobby against it. So, the sauce works for either, to use your analogy.
Where I oppose the "my rights" philosophy (as I called it above) is
where they think it's their right to kill someone just because they're
inconvenient - after *they* were the ones who participated in an
activity which caused them to "become" in the first place. I'm
pro-choice, right up until conception.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3cqqlkF6pv6c6U1@individual.net...
I would offer that if you choose to skip the main comments that you should
certainly read the last link. It is interesting in view of your chickens
:-)
> Thanks for that.
> I appreciate your examples of practical help to girls in the position of
> unwanted pregnancy, and I can't imagine anyone objecting to that, or even
> to
> them being given full information as to what their options are. (We have
> organisations here that provide a similar service. I know personally of
> two
> girls who decided to go full term because of the support they received; I
> know one other who didn't. All of them are getting on with their lives
> OK.)
Reminds me of the psychotic murderer defense counsel. It should be made up
of everyone who lived in his neighbourhood "He was such a nice man"...."I
cannot believe this, he seemes so friendly".
Everyone living is getting on with their lives "ok".
> I think the focus has been about abortion, and that was why I posted the
> chicken cult piece. You are right that killing a chicken is not the same
> as
> killing a foetus, but that's not the point I was trying to make.
The focus has been on abortions AND religion.
The difficulty is that an abortion is what it is. There is nothing that is
the same thing.
> It comes down to whether religion (anybody's...) should be allowed to
> affect
> the process of Law making.
What would if religion played no part in the decision? I think that many
pro-lifers would claim that it is their view that a foetus is a child
regardless of what the good book might say. This then is not a religious
argument at all, but simply an ethical, scientifical and legal one.
> I realise it is very hard for people with devout religious convictions to
> NOT want their beliefs enshrined in Law; it is just that when we do that,
> we
> stuff up the whole idea of freedom and democracy. And that eventually
> impacts on the freedom to practise the very religion that was enshrined in
> the Law.
It is very hard for people with *any* convictions to NOT want their beliefs
enshrined in Law.
The difference between a religious conviction and any other is nothing more
than the source.
> Which is more important? The right to live in freedom, or the tenets of
> the
> religion to which I adhere?
Both. That is why they are both protected.
> Fortunately, society, being for the most part pragmatic, attempts to steer
> a
> middle course and most of us enjoy freedom AND the right to practise our
> respective religions. But that can ONLY be attained by separation of
> Church
> and State.
>
> And that is why we mustn't let any religious arguments affect our law
> making, and why we MUST separate Church and State.
"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the
state, but rather the conscience of the state." MLK
The separation should also extend both ways - the state should not interfere
with the purity of the religion.
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or
to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others." Madison
http://www.churchstatelaw.com/histo...ials/8_7_17.asp
Unfortunately, one need look no farther than Colorado or Utah to see where
even this simple idea has some fundamental flaws. There is also protection
for the establishment of a religion which went well many years back for some
inventive inmates who created various forms of religions (I cannot work in a
kitched that has meat or vegetables).
> That was the whole point of the 'chicken cult' piece; it had nothing to do
> with killing chickens or babies.
Yes, but the Santaria down in Miami read it with great interest.
http://www.animalrights.net/archive...002/000286.html
JCE
| |
|
| "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b1734$426d943d$45491c57$30159@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Jeff York wrote:
[color=darkred]
But how would you feel if someone set up a store opposite a church selling
Hot Gods with mustard and giving an "unbiased" view of all the flaws of your
religion, with example contradictions and evidence of people who had left
the church and gone on to make more money, live happier?
In fact, would I would do is offer to get them more access to food, better
prayer response, and help them with getting money from the state if they
found that <your> God had made them unemployed. In fact, I would tell them
that my church has no hell, and indeed <our> God is flexible and tolerant.
She accepts gay men, lesbians, blacks, cablinasians, or anyone. Plus we
play games and sing most of the time - but only if you want to.
[color=darkred]
>
> The cult of life - it's catching on! Over a billion and climbing! :)
> Having been in the office, and having read through the training materials
> that volunteers receive, I can assure you that this is not a brainwashing
> center.
I've heard people say the same of the Bible, Dianetics, and McDonalds. It's
not brainwashing - but it prays on the "grouping" instinct.
> *Former* abortion clinic...
>
> As Joe Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am". They are shown all
> options they have regarding the life inside them, even shown an actual
> ultrasound of it if they're interested. If choosing life, they're shown
> support, parenting preparation, baby clothes, etc. The only pressure is
> from their own conscience.
If this is true, would you ever consider a rule where you would say "We
only talk to you AFTER you have visited the center, or talked to planned
parenthood, please come and visit at that time".
>
> No one is forced to go there, and having gone there, no one is forced to
> sit and listen - they don't have to stay. As a voluntary activity, what
> right do we *not* have to set up a shop offering a different perspective
> than the popular culture? What right do we *not* have to help support
> those who choose life over death?
Do they abstain from religious arguments during the discussions? Having
reviewed the website it quickly drops to "bible studies".
Often people are at there most vulnerable at times of crisis, I'd rather
that religions do their recruiting on the healthy minded.
It's one of the reasons I don't like the United Way. They bring in a
spiritual story of some girl who was a smack addict, found Jesus and is all
better.
I'd much rather the story was a smack addict, found strength in her life,
and is all better.
Give people credit. I like my religion to allow people to make their own
lives better.
JCE
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-26, 8:55 am |
| In article <9ce33$426da3dc$45491c57$1040@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Yes, and we are working to get the law changed - are you just not seeing
>this?
I believe that I am seeing this and I asked if you, and other citizens,
are working to make the laws of the United States of America conform more
with a particular religion... and you responded in a fashion which made no
sense (i.e., 'we are not working to make the laws conform to our religion,
we are working to change the rights of fetuses... which, at this point, do
not conform with our religion and can be changed by law')
>I don't want to codify my religion into the Constitution - in
>this one area, where I (and others) feel that the current status quo is
>wrong, we are working to change that.
Let me try to be more clear, then: the rights accorded to a fetus are
accorded by law. Your religion has it that different rights should be
accorded to a fetus. You and others are working to change the law so that
the rights accorded to a fetus are more similar to those which your
religion has it should be accorded.
Is this so?
>
>
>I don't mind requests for information - but your "requests" often seem
>to be coming from a complete misstatement of my position.
See above for a demonstration of what confuses me and attempt at
clarification.
>You misstate
>my position, then ask me to defend it - how *can* I defend something
>that I didn't say?
When such a thing happens to me my tendency is to say 'I did not say
that'.
>Your comments to others regarding this thread and my
>views, combined with this sort of thing, feels very much like derision -
>and it appears my feelings have shown themselves here.
To what comments are you referring... those about emnity towards people
who would s to make the laws of my country conform to their religion?
You just said you weren't trying to do that... can you see why your
reaction might be a bit... befuddling?
>
>
>I'm not demanding the "right" to go kill something - I simply want the
>laws in this country to take into account the last 30 years of medical
>research regarding this practice and its effects. People used to think
>that folks who thought that the earth was round were just religious
>fools - until science proved otherwise.
'But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all
who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown.' - Carl Sagan
>
>And, I've never said that they shouldn't have the right to *lobby* for
>their beliefs becoming law, or maintaining the status quo (as the case
>may be). They have the same rights to lobby for abortion as I have to
>lobby against it. So, the sauce works for either, to use your analogy.
Good of you to allow them this.
>
>Where I oppose the "my rights" philosophy (as I called it above) is
>where they think it's their right to kill someone just because they're
>inconvenient - after *they* were the ones who participated in an
>activity which caused them to "become" in the first place.
There is no 'someone' getting killed... excepting for the purposes of a
Federal giveaway program a fetus is not a human being, remember?
>I'm
>pro-choice, right up until conception.
This view may reflect the standing of your religion; it does not reflect
the laws of the United States of America. To s to make the laws
conform with this view is to s to make them conform to a religion. I
have already expressed my views on this matter.
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-26, 8:55 am |
| In article <17693$426da5d5$45491c57$1407@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Maybe you weren't one of 'em - but my view of elimination of Social
>Security certainly was in the minority here. (but what else is new?)
What seems not new is your ability to come to a conclusion about the views
of others in absence of any sort of documentation.
>
>
>So you're opposed to Medicaid completely?
I did not say that, I said I have questions... perhaps those might be
discussed in another thread.
>
>
>Yes, and it should be no surprise. Abortion = loss of life.
Wrong. By the definition you, yourself, supplied a first-trimester
abortion has no life; by the definition of laws in the United States of
America abortion does not equal loss of life.
>Social
>programs = a little bit tougher life for some. Yeah, I could see where
>my time would be a lot better spent on railing against social programs...
Working from a false premise can lead to some interesting activities,
certainly.
>
>
>Then what kind of life is it? You've made *quite* a deal in this thread
>about what kind of life it *isn't* - what do you think it *is*?
My view is in accord with the laws of my country and I do not try to press
the dictates of my religion on anyone else.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-04-26, 3:55 pm |
|
On 25-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> They found something that isn't there. Nowhere does it say that people
> have freedom *from* religion, and nowhere does it say that "government
> shall make no policy that makes even one person uncomfortable". Same
> with the right to not be offended.
Which decisions are you referring to here?
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-04-26, 3:55 pm |
|
On 25-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> And that's where we disagree. Not a Federal law? Either have the
> legislature create one, or leave it to the states. The other branches
> are *far* better at determining the will of the people that
> appointed-for-life judges who have little to no accountability. The
> judiciary's role is to say whether the "will of the people" (duly
> enacted through legislature action and signed by the executive) directly
> conflicts with the Constitution or not.
People will take as much power as they can. Power corrupts. The branches
that can give themselves power will do so.
> We have three branches for a reason - and I'm most distrustful of the
> judiciary.
The main power the judiciary has is the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
Occasionally they use other powers (running a school district), but mainly
they only say "enough already". I want it to be difficult to pass laws. I
want both the President and Congress to have to check to see if their actions
are Constitutional.
Congress already has the power to say "I won't pass this law". And the
President already has the power to say "I won't hold American citizens without
trial". But they *like* having power. So they don't say no, unless they
have no choice. When the Democrats were out of power, the Republicans were
the party of small government. When they gained power, they were corrupted by
it. If Libertarians gained power, they would be corrupted as well. When you
have it, you believe it must be used (for good reasons). And abused (for good
reasons).
So we need someone with the power to say "no", but not much more power. Veto
power is good.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-04-26, 3:55 pm |
|
On 25-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> A 5-year-old child *could* have been once targeted for abortion.
> Therefore, my statements stands *even under* your view of when a child
> becomes a child. Or, does the fact that his mother once thought of
> killing him in utero mean that he's not a child now that he's 5?
Phil Dick wrote a story where the legal age of abortion was around 10 or so.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-26, 3:55 pm |
|
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zTkbe.13272$716.5911@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3cqqlkF6pv6c6U1@individual.net...
>
> I would offer that if you choose to skip the main comments that you should
> certainly read the last link. It is interesting in view of your chickens
> :-)
>
I read your whole piece. I have nothing to add.
But I have to say that link sent shivers down my spine... I promise you I
did not search the web before writing the 'chicken cult' piece. It just
seemed like a good analogy. I never heard of Sentaria until I followed your
link. I wrote the piece off the top of my head as the thoughts progressed.
That's REALLY spooky...
Thanks for pointing it out.
Pete.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-04-26, 3:55 pm |
| "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:9ce33$426da3dc$45491c57$1040@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> Where I oppose the "my rights" philosophy (as I called it above) is
> where they think it's their right to kill someone just because they're
> inconvenient - after *they* were the ones who participated in an
> activity which caused them to "become" in the first place. I'm
> pro-choice, right up until conception.
I see only two ways to interpret the part after the hyphen:
1) The woman who is impregnated by a rape is obligated to suffer the
consequences for her having chosen to particpate in the rape. She didn't
succeed in warding off her attacker, and she deserves to suffer the
consequences of her failure to do so.
-- or --
2) The woman who is impregnated by a rape is not obligated to operate under
the same constraints as the woman who participates willingly in the
impregnation.
Which one is true for you?
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-04-26, 3:55 pm |
|
On 25-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> Where I oppose the "my rights" philosophy (as I called it above) is
> where they think it's their right to kill someone just because they're
> inconvenient - after *they* were the ones who participated in an
> activity which caused them to "become" in the first place. I'm
> pro-choice, right up until conception.
Your argument above makes the woman's participation an element of your
conclusion. Unfortunately, there are lots of people whose position on the
abortion debate is similar.
Bad girls should be punished with motherhood.
Good girls (those who didn't participate in the activity), should be allowed
alternatives.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-04-26, 3:55 pm |
|
On 20-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
> So far as I know, Roman Catholicism treats contraception in any form save
> absolute abstinence and the rhythm method as a mortal sin (one deserving of
> eternal punishment). Though it may be only one religion, I gather it
> includes something well over 10% of the world's population.
>
> It appears that Orthodox opinions are mixed on the subject.
Roman Catholicism isn't "many" religions. I don't know enough about most
religions to know which ban the use of contraception.
In 1980 I remember listening on the radio to a Bishop who taught at St. Louis
University. He was lamenting the fact that "good Catholic girls" were
eschewing birth control - a planned sin, and then having abortions - a
backed-into-the-corner sin. He said that birth control was *not* a mortal
sin. It was a venial sin (misdemeanor, like speeding). Abortion was a mortal
sin. Modern society is too hung up with whether a sin is planned.
I remember the date because I remember where I lived - but I remember the
discussion because it interests me. We forgive people who kill in in anger,
but not who kill in cold blood. But someone who allows himself to become
 is a much bigger danger to the rest of us. Intent is over-rated, when
looked at from the point of view of the victim. Someone doing wrong in the
name of God or Country is still doing wrong and should not be excused. It is
easy to do evil, when you don't have to think about what you're doing because
someone else took responsibility, claiming it was good.
This is back to the title of the thread - it doesn't always matter whether it is
a lie or an error. If the president is responsible for making sure we have a
valid reason to go to war, and that reason is not valid - does it matter whether
he is lying or simply fooled? Not really.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-04-26, 3:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c587a$4265ab93$45491db9$30003@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> I do not lobby for the criminalization of abortion because it is
> my religious belief - I lobby for it because it is the right, humane,
> and dignified thing to do.
I note with considerable interest your use of the singular in "the right,
humane and dignified thing to do." Each of the adjectives you posit are
matters of opinion no matter where they are applied.
I also note that you ascribe rightness, humaneness and dignity to your
actions not as a matter of opinion on your part but as a matter of
demonstrable and provable fact.
> If anyone is remotely interested in the scientific facts regarding the
> gestation of human life, I'd be happy to provide links.
I think I've got a pretty good grasp on that. What I haven't seen in
scientific journals is where in the process of gestation a person exists.
> If, however, you are all hung up on your humanistic "me first" vision of
things, then
> stop with this ridiculous argument - and DO NOT try to make me feel like
> a cad for for having the beliefs I have.
Given that I'm a sixty-year-old male, I find it highly unlikely that I will
s to have an abortion. It is not out of my own selfish interests to
suggest that a rape victim who ss an abortion is appropriately treated as
a murderer.
According to a Roman Catholic source ( www.memorare.com ) devoted to cards
designed for catechetical teaching, there are four sins that "cry out to
Heaven for vengeance: wilful murder, oppression of the poor, homosexual
acts, and defrauding a worker of wages. Note that rape is not on this list
(nor is incest), but given that abortion is considered a form of "wilful
murder", it is numbered there.
I'm not convinced that distinction is *factually* the "right, humane and
dignified", whether the position comes from one's ethics or from one's
religion.
> Didn't my little summary of the 60's give any indication of how I feel?
Certainly. How one *feels* about another's actions defines only how one
*feels* about those actions; it does not cause those actions to be factually
categorized in any way.
> We wouldn't have useless eaters if people showed a little restraint in
> participating in activities that cause such eaters to be created.
> Reduced morals = more sex = more babies.
I can think of several exceptions.
If homosexual activity were more widespread, and presuming homosexual
activity is something from which one should refrain on moral grounds, then I
would think reduced morals = more sex = *fewer* babies.
Others have pointed out that for those who devoutly hold that contraception
is a Mortal Sin, reduced morals = more sex = *fewer* babies as well.
And consider the Fundamentalist LDS groups: married males are encouraged by
the precepts of their religion to s to father at least one child per year
by virtue of polygamy. In this case, reduced morals = *less* sex = fewer
babies. In such groups, marriages aren't by virtue of love or even lust;
the wives are *assigned* by the head of the church to the husband.
> But. heaven forbid someone suggest that someone else should do something
> "right" or "wrong" - seems "rights" these days merely consist of "I
wanna"s.
I don't want an abortion, Daniel. I don't want Roman Catholic doctrine --
which differs from, say, United Church of Christ doctrine or Orthodox
Judaism doctrime -- imposed as a matter of law regardless of whether the
advocates admit their position is based on their theology or claim that
every valid ethical system demands it, for the corrolary is that any system
that disagrees is factually and demonstrably invalid as an ethical system
even when it is held by a particular religion.
To restate: I do not believe the government should be in the business of
defining which religions have valid ethical systems and which religions do
not.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-04-26, 3:55 pm |
|
On 20-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
> I note with considerable interest your use of the singular in "the right,
> humane and dignified thing to do." Each of the adjectives you posit are
> matters of opinion no matter where they are applied.
>
> I also note that you ascribe rightness, humaneness and dignity to your
> actions not as a matter of opinion on your part but as a matter of
> demonstrable and provable fact.
He believes abortion is the same as infanticide. With that in mind, replace
the word "abortion" with "infanticide" in his posts and then see if your
response still works.
e.g. I do not lobby for the criminalization of infanticide because it is my
religious belief - I lobby for it because it is the right, humane, and dignified
thing to do.
We should do what we believe to be right & humane. I'm not sure about
dignified. The difference is that we should be constantly examining our
beliefs and make sure that they *are* right and humane. There have been lots
of wrongs committed in their name.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-04-26, 3:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d4673a$din$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
> He believes abortion is the same as infanticide. With that in mind,
replace
> the word "abortion" with "infanticide" in his posts and then see if your
> response still works.
My point isn't about what his *belief system* is, it's about what qualifies
as *demonstrable fact* and what qualifies as a *belief system*.
> e.g. I do not lobby for the criminalization of infanticide because it is
my
> religious belief - I lobby for it because it is the right, humane, and
dignified
> thing to do.
Well, I guess a zygote qualifies as "a person who is unable to speak" (the
etymology of "infant"), but I don't think that is the common definition of
the term.
> We should do what we believe to be right & humane. I'm not sure about
> dignified. The difference is that we should be constantly examining our
> beliefs and make sure that they *are* right and humane. There have been
lots
> of wrongs committed in their name.
I agree -- I know of horrific acts that have been done motivated by what was
"right, humane and dignified", according to the definitions used by the
person performing these acts!
-Chuck Stevens
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 25-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Which decisions are you referring to here?
Some of these may not be decisions by the Supremes, but are all things
that no one voted for, and no legislature enacted.
- The decision that held that prayer in a public school by an employee
violates the establishment clause. "Prayer" is recognized by many, many
religions, most of which refer to their deity as "God" ("god" being the
actual English word for a generic deity). This does *not* equate to an
establishment of religion - rather, an acknowledgment of the presence of
a higher power. (And what has happened to public education system since
those decisions?)
- Decisions that prohibit municipalities from having a "Christmas
tree" on their grounds, saying that it violates the establishment
clause. Poppycock! It's a cultural tradition, for crying out loud!
Christmas, *by that name*, has been celebrated by faithful and
faith-less for centuries in this country. People who are offended by
that need to get a life, or find their way to another country - our
freedoms should not be sacrificed to coddle a few *very* anti-religious
people.
- Roe v. Wade (but I'm sure you figured that one out already)
- Decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas, which I agreed with at the
time. I thought that the people who said that it would lead to a push
for gay marriage, and abolitions of bestiality and pedophilia laws, were
blowing things way out of proportion. Well, it took no time at all for
Massachusetts to cite this case in "finding" the right for gay marriage
in Massachusetts's constitution. (Now, I'm not a citizen of MA, so it
doesn't affect me - but, we're talking about runaway judiciaries here.)
Since then, there have been published studies suggesting that
consensual pedophilia (where the kid is convinced and goes along with
it) are normal sexual relationships, and NAMBLA is pushing for changes
in legislation (or interpretation) to further *its* agenda. In my
opinion, a seldom-enforced law against a certain sexual act is *worth*
protecting children from the increased sexualization of our society.
(We've discussed the gay marriage issue at length here - no need to
rehash my feelings on that; though, remember I agree that divorce has
done much harm to the institution already.)
I read an interesting article about the court system today. This writer
claims that the decisions regarding slavery, back in the late 1850's,
were the first time that the states looked to the Federal government to
"right their moral compass". From that point onward, the precedent had
been set - and, it was "game on" for both sides of whatever issue you
could imagine. It was an interesting analysis - not sure I agree with
all of it, but it certainly is an interesting thought path to take.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 25-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Phil Dick wrote a story where the legal age of abortion was around 10 or so.
Man - if he were serious, this illustrates *my* point on so *many* levels...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| jce wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:b1734$426d943d$45491c57$30159@KNOLO
GY.NET...
>
>
>
>
>
> But how would you feel if someone set up a store opposite a church selling
> Hot Gods with mustard and giving an "unbiased" view of all the flaws of your
> religion, with example contradictions and evidence of people who had left
> the church and gone on to make more money, live happier?
That would be their right. The struggle for hearts and minds is not
quite so blatantly illustrated, but it would be an interesting picture.
> In fact, would I would do is offer to get them more access to food, better
> prayer response, and help them with getting money from the state if they
> found that <your> God had made them unemployed. In fact, I would tell them
> that my church has no hell, and indeed <our> God is flexible and tolerant.
> She accepts gay men, lesbians, blacks, cablinasians, or anyone. Plus we
> play games and sing most of the time - but only if you want to.
And there are many churches that have gone this route. (I hope you
didn't think your idea was original...)
>
> I've heard people say the same of the Bible, Dianetics, and McDonalds. It's
> not brainwashing - but it prays on the "grouping" instinct.
Every so often, I get a mail-out from them (as I donate through the
Combined Federal Campaign). The latest one came a few days ago - let's
look at the numbers, shall we?
Clients Seen - 1,946
Pregnancy Tests Given - 1,251 (64% of clients)
Clients who thought abortion was their only option, but decided to carry
the child to term - 92 (4.7% of clients)
For a brainwashing agency, they *suck*.
>
> If this is true, would you ever consider a rule where you would say "We
> only talk to you AFTER you have visited the center, or talked to planned
> parenthood, please come and visit at that time".
Absolutely not! Would you insist that your child swim in shark-infested
waters before you tell him the dangers of sharks? Would you, if you ran
an IT firm, send all your prospective customers to another IT firm,
which happens to warn people about "firms like yours" as a matter of course?
>
> Do they abstain from religious arguments during the discussions?
Initially - but why should they have to? It's a free and open place -
if the counselor veers into religion and the client doesn't like it,
they're free to leave.
> Having
> reviewed the website it quickly drops to "bible studies".
> Often people are at there most vulnerable at times of crisis, I'd rather
> that religions do their recruiting on the healthy minded.
I'd rather religions help those who are hurting. As Jesus said (and
this is a paraphrase), the healthy don't need a doctor - the sick do.
Giving supernatural strength in times of crisis is faith's shining
moment - why withhold that? It's certainly gotten me through some rough
times.
When I went to basic training, I was old - I ended up being the "dad" of
our flight. The *very first night*, there were kids coming up to me,
missing their mom, missing their girlfriend, etc. I encouraged them,
and I prayed with them. Not one person refused this gesture. On the
second night, the folks on my side of the dorm asked if I would lead in
the Lord's Prayer after lights-out. A few days later, the other side
asked if they could join in too.
(In our flight, we had one atheist - he calmly got out of his bed,
walked to the latrine, waited two minutes, and got back in bed. If only
they were all that laid back...)
As the ws wore on, we moved dorms, and the leader came to me with
concerns that our post-lights-out routine, while harmless, was actually
against policy (and this new dorm had intercoms where they could listen
in at any time). Not wanting to get him in trouble, we changed it to
the 5 minutes before lights-out, at the back of one of the dorms. We
still had close to 50% of the folks in the flight back there praying
every night.
Should I have told them that first night "hey man, sucks to be you!"
Then, the day of graduation, gathered them all together and said "hey
guys, let's pray tonight!" Of what use to them would my religion have
been at that point? Religion is a hunger (none of the above was my idea
- it all came about because people came to *me* first), and its presence
can help people going through tough times.
In the Bible, in the book of James, he says (again, a paraphrase) "Faith
without works is dead. You say you have faith, but have no works. Show
me your faith without your works, and I'll show you my faith *by* my
works." If, when it's time to work, faith goes home - faith doesn't
work then, does it?
> It's one of the reasons I don't like the United Way. They bring in a
> spiritual story of some girl who was a smack addict, found Jesus and is all
> better.
> I'd much rather the story was a smack addict, found strength in her life,
> and is all better.
Why can Jesus not be her strength? Are you saying that hurting people
should have to pull *themselves* up by their own bootstraps before
looking for a deity?
> Give people credit. I like my religion to allow people to make their own
> lives better.
What religion are you?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:9ce33$426da3dc$45491c57$1040@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
>
>
>
>
> I see only two ways to interpret the part after the hyphen:
We've already discussed rape. Yes, the rapee did not choose to
participate in the activity. But, like it or not, a life was created
from it.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 25-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
> Bad girls should be punished with motherhood.
> Good girls (those who didn't participate in the activity), should be allowed
> alternatives.
If "the activity" I refer to above is "sexual intercourse" (and it is),
then where do the good girls fall in the abortion debate? If you don't
participate in the activity, then you *won't* have motherhood, whether
you consider it a punishment or a reward.
You lost me with this one...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-27, 3:55 am |
| In article <76ccf$42685510$45491db9$15115@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
> (or words to that effect...)
Evil can be caused by action as well as inaction... but it shows much that
you respond to allowing 'adult human beings both to make their own choices
and be responsible for them' with a bromide about 'evil'.
>
>
>Yes, and freedom *from* religion is nowhere in our Constitution. (I've
>looked - it's simply not there!)
The Supreme Court of the United States of America seems to disagree with
you... but what do *they* know about the Constitution, anyway?
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-27, 3:55 am |
| In article <d4b98u$j5$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 22-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to be immune to this problem.
If you wish to see perfection, Mr Brazee, then you wish to see what some
have defined as humanly impossible.
>How often do the 9th and 10th amendments get ignored in favor of some implied
>right that they want to see made more solid?
That depends on whom one asks... according to the Supreme Court it all
works out, somehow.
>
>Better them than letting the other branches decide though.
Funny how it works out that way, aye.
DD
| |
| Jeff York 2005-04-27, 3:55 am |
| LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>When I lived in Chattanooga, Tennessee, my wife and I were involved with
>an organization call "AAA Women's Services". (There's not much on their
>website, but it's http://www.aaawomen.org .) These folks set up across
>the street from the city abortion clinic, and bill themselves as a
>"crisis pregnancy center". They offer counseling, free ultrasounds, and
>education, as well as a post-abortion support group (more on that in a
>bit). Over 3/4 of the women who come in there, after seeing that baby
>growing in them, do not get abortions.
I'm sorry to say this, and I'm sure that those involved with this
scheme are motivated with the best of intentions but... This looks to
me to be almost indistinguishable from the "initiation and processing"
(ie brainwashing) of potential members indulged in by some of the
highly dubious cults that are found around the world.
The title "crisis pregnancy centre" appears almost designed to
mislead, sited as it is opposite an abortion clinic. Also, there's
"councelling" and there's "Councelling!". I've heard of "rough
kindness" - what sort of "councelling" and phsychological pressure are
the women who find themselves there subjected to?
What right do groups, religious or otherwise, have to arrogate to
themselves the power to pressure grown adults into "making the best
choice" ie *our* choice?
I live in the UK and therefore suffer at the hands of "Nanny State".
I find the concept of "Nanny Church" even more repellent.
--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)
.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."
Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-27, 3:55 am |
| In article <9cf77$4268586a$45491db9$1545@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> From Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary 2002...
>
>: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic
>structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from
>usually three months after conception to birth
>
>"A developing human"
It has been taught for a while - since Aristotle - that 'coming-to-be' is
not the same as 'being'; that which is 'developing characteristics' is not
the same as which 'possesses characteristics.'
On the other hand... if you accept that definition, yourself, then you
accept that first trimester abortions do nothing to human beings... it is
a start.
>
>I realize that you're not going to be convinced of that - God Himself
>could appear to you in a blazing smoke, and you'd say "But it's not a
>child until it's born!"
Exercising a bit of caution might be in order here... to compare the
results of your own efforts with those of an omniscient, omnipresent,
omnibeneficent and eternal deity is a bit... prideful, some might say, and
Pride is one of the Seven Deadlies.
Be that as it may... when something taps me on the shoulder and says
'Behold, I am the Lord thy God, Source of All, Alpha and Omega, Which
knoweth the secrets of thy heart and numbereth the hairth... *hairs* of
thy head!' my response might well be 'How very pleasant to meet you...
may I have three references, please?'
>But, realize that you are also never going to
>convince me that it's not - so, these asides are not the best use of
>time on behalf of either of us.
All I wish to convince you of is what the laws are, currently, in the
United States of America... and (except for consideration for a single
Federal insurance program) they do not, I believe, give a fetus the legal
status of a human being.
>
>
>In this case, it was used as it was intended.
It was intended to take money from some people under threat of force and
redistribute it to other people who did nothing to earn it but ask.
>A broke 19-year-old who
>had gotten herself in trouble was able to take that trouble and turn it
>around for her good. Once she got settled and T moved there, he was
>able to get a job and work so they no longer needed it.
Just because someone makes a bad decision, a bad choice or has bad luck
does not give them any claim on the monies earned by those who disagree
with them.
>
>I don't mind a safety net. I don't think the government should be the
>one to manage it, but that's the way it is.
What are your current efforts to change this? Seems like more people make
use of this non-Constitutional bit of government than anything else.
>It doesn't mean that I
>would counsel someone in dire need of it not to use it, because it's not
>really the government's place. You deal with the cards you're dealt. :)
.... except when you don't like them, of course, and you exercise your
'right' to attempt to re-stack the legal deck.
>
>
>Your point of logic needs proof (and, I've never seen the proof for
>which I asked - I don't think it exists). You compared two arguments
>and said they were based on the same logic.
.... and in the same sentence I stated that 'the logic on either side is...
questionable, to say the least'.
>I agree that Planned
>Parenthood et. al. are questionable organizations, both logically and
>practically. However, to compare my example with your example (which,
>I'm hoping, you don't believe), it should be established that what I've
>said is, in fact, *not* the M.O. of these organizations.
The onus probandi lies on the one making the assertion... but I'll give
you a hint: if all that Planned Parenthood wanted to do was to, as you
assert, 'whip up the emotions about their rights, and get them to kill
that child' then they might wait until it was a child, not a fetus... and
they might not give out information about contraception, which decreases
the possibility that a fetus can develop... and they might not have, on
their website, information about infertility, prenatal care and adoption.
That seems to be a pretty broad offering of choices.
>
>Besides, no one can say that a once-targeted-for-abortion child will
>grow up to tithe anyway... :)
A child cannot be targeted for abortion... and a moderately well-known arm
of a religious organisation had it that if you 'give us the child until he
is five and he is ours forever.'
>
>
>But absent all the facts, they will come to an ill-informed decision.
Being human I wonder for whom 'all the facts' are available.
>(It may still be the right one, but no matter what, they're
>ill-informed.) Doesn't drawing an accurate conclusion *require* a
>gathering of all pertinent facts?
Let me take this a step further: given that a 'fact' is a 'done thing'
(factum = deed) and that things are being done at all times... 'all the
facts' are available only when all things have been done. The Patent
Office hasn't been shut down yet.
(Note to those who need it - the last sentence above is a reference to
something I cannot track down at the moment... a conclusion by a
government official/committee that the Patent Office could be closed
because 'everything that can be invented has been invented'.)
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-27, 3:55 am |
| In article <3ctpm4F6pu1j1U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d4c8i4$s9g$1@panix5.panix.com...
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>I am not easily intimidated.
And yet... you found the thread frightening, as noted above.
>
>I saw your view (which I heartly endorse - but I think you know that) as
>being definitely the minority.
>
>THAT is what I find frightening.
Were I a... certain type I might remind you that Things of Quality are, at
times, rarer than Things of Lesser Quality... but I'm not that type, I
guess.
>
>Amen. While diversity, and catering for it, is an important part of the
>growth of a nation, it has to be within the framework of the basis for that
>nation.
Some people complain that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is
to be found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America...
in face, some of these 'some people' were Justices of the Supreme Court of
the United States of America. The phrase was first found in a missive now
known as the 'Danbury Letter', written in 1802. It was published in a
newspaper as containing the following sentence:
--begin quoted text
'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his
worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, &
not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'
--end quoted text
The other day I was doing some online research and found that this was not
how Jefferson had written the letter originally; according to the Library
of Congress and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (or FBI... I will
leave it to others to discuss the political leanings of these
organisations) the original text was written differently...
.... as Jefferson labelled it 'a wall of eternal separation'. Details can
be found at http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html .
[snip]
>Never mind. I have sat and reflected on it and I am pretty sure that CLC is
>definitely NOT representative of 'middle America'... :-)
Perhaps if that middle expands as does my own... no, never mind.
>
>Most of you who live in the US probably really have no idea of how hard it
>is for those of us who don't, to sit by and watch what happens in the
>world's most powerful nation, knowing we will inevitably be affected by it,
>and also knowing that we don't even get to vote...
Franchise is limited, for the most part, to citizens... works that way in
a lot of countries of which I am aware.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-04-27, 3:55 am |
|
On 22-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> In the United States of America, to the best of my knowledge, laws are to
> conform with the Constitution and the interpretations thereof.
My value system includes a belief that power corrupts. Therefore my value
system says we need to have politicians who believe in the limits and rights
that The Constitution provides.
That doesn't change my statement about our wants one iota.
>
> Their religions are not the Constitution of the United States of America
> and the interpretations thereof.
People also do the same thing with The Constitution.
| |
| SkippyPB 2005-04-27, 3:55 am |
| On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:06:48 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net>
enlightened us:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Yes, I said "life is life" earlier - but, from the context, I hoped
>those assembled here could see I was talking about *human* life. Even
>most secularists recognize that we humans are the rulers of this earth.
>
>
>Did you not bother to visit the link SkippyPB posted? According to the
>Federal government, since July 2002, in the view of the law it is a child.
>
>Why do over 3/4 decide not to kill it/have it removed?
>
>
>Yes - so the good citizens of Tennessee all pitched in to help. Even
>those who were pro-choice! Imagine the irony!
>
>
>They readily admit that there are people who come in, and either don't
>want to listen, or listen, see the ultrasound, and still decide to
>abort. They don't put them in shackles or try hypnotherapy - they let
>them go. Some return after their abortions to join the post-abortion
>support group.
>
>There's no creative editing here...
>
>
>Show me where Planned Parenthood or any similar organizations lays out
>the facts about the offspring from humans from conception to birth -
>complete with pictures, developmental timelines, when "it" feels pain,
>reacts to light, commences a heartbeat, etc. Absent that, the only
>argument they *have* is an emotional one based on some "right" they
>think they have.
>
Before making a blanket statement about Planned Parenthood you should
familiarize yourself with *ALL* they offer. Yes, they offer abortion
at their clinics. They also offer adoption counseling. They are also
heavy into sex education, teaching teens and others how to stay
healthy and NOT get pregnant. No, they don't, as far as I know, have
timelines and pictures and all those other things some of which are
designed to stimulate an emotional response rather than an informed
response. But they do offer a very good Q&A on abortion and abortion
questions. See
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...ion-q-and-a.xml
>Did you read the Vanderbilt research link I posted last night? Many
>women who are having abortions haven't really given it a second thought.
> Shouldn't those of us who feel the facts aren't getting out work to
>get those facts out? That certainly seems to be the rule here for COBOL
>posts - inaccurate information should not stand unchallenged.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"You can do anything if you want it bad enough.
That is why we see so many people who can fly."
-- Elden Carnahan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-27, 3:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d4bf84$3r1$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 22-Apr-2005, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
conform to[color=darkred]
system?[color=darkred]
>
> Only if we aren't part of the problem.
>
>
> The real problem in this world is all the greedy selfish people who don't
give
> me everything I want.
>
I know... :-)
I found this thread quite frightening.
I sincerely hope that CLC is not representative of the views of the average
American citizen.
If it is, and they succeed in imposing the Church onto the State, I see
little hope for any of us, irrespective of our religious beliefs...
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-27, 3:55 am |
|
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d4baps$pg5$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:9cf77$4268586a$45491db9$1545@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
>
>
> An inconsistency here: it is a theological perspective in *most* Christian
> religions that I know of that such direct extrascriptural divine
revelations
> and prophecies died out with the end of the apostolic period. Although
our
> particular denomination accepts the possibility of individual as well as
> general revelation as valid, that perspective is uncommon in mainstream
> Christianity. "Because God Himself told me so" is not an argument that
> even the most devout Christian is likely to accept on any topic.
Moreover,
> I would opine that most would suggest a straitjacket for a person making
> such a claim regardless of topic.
>
lunatic to supervisor: "I am Napoleon Buonaparte."
supervisor: "How do you KNOW you are Napoleon?"
lunatic: "God Himself told me!".
voice from next bed: "I did NOT!!"
(I first encountered this extremely old joke on an LP (remember those...?
they turned hypnotically at 33.3 RPM) released in the 60s, featuring Dr.
Murray Banks and entitled: "What to do until the psychiatrist comes". It has
stayed with me over the years...(the memory, not the LP...))
> Put a different (and oversimplistic) way, most Christians would be taught
> "Since God doesn't do that sort of thing any more, if it happens it must
be
> the Devil's Work!". I'm reminded of the psychotic in a local
Church-based
> drug recovery program whose counselors took him off his psychotropics on
the
> basis of the healing power of Jesus' stripes. Shortly thereafter he
killed
> and dismembered an infant; his defense was God had come to him and told
him
> to destroy this infant because it was the Antichrist (or the Spawn of the
> Devil, I forget which). DIRECT revelations must be taken with *many,
many*
> grains of salt!
>
> (There are Christian denominations that do not hold that direct
revelation,
> miracles, healings, etc., etc., ended with the death of the last Apostle,
> and ours is one such. In our case the revelations are generally treated
as
> for *individual* edification, and those that appear to have broader scope
> are *very* carefully scrutinized by the ministry.)
>
> On the other hand, any well-versed Orthodox Rabbi will tell you that a
fetus
> becomes a child ONLY when its forehead is out of the birth canal, or, in
the
> case of a breech birth, when more than half its body is visible.
>
> Let's say we have one perspective that is defended on the basis "Because
God
> Himself told me so", and another that is defended from a particular set of
> Scriptures and millennia of tradition within a particular religion, and
they
> are in conflict.
>
> Which perspective should the law *require* people to follow?
>
> Which perspective should the law *allow* people to follow?
>
Very interesting piece, Chuck.
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-04-27, 3:55 pm |
|
On 26-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> Well, it took no time at all for
> Massachusetts to cite this case in "finding" the right for gay marriage
> in Massachusetts's constitution. (Now, I'm not a citizen of MA, so it
> doesn't affect me - but, we're talking about runaway judiciaries here.)
Heck, I'm not gay, so it doesn't effect me. (Allowing divorce changed the
tradition of marriage far more than gay marriages will ever do).
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-04-27, 3:55 pm |
|
On 26-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> - The decision that held that prayer in a public school by an employee
> violates the establishment clause. "Prayer" is recognized by many, many
> religions, most of which refer to their deity as "God" ("god" being the
> actual English word for a generic deity). This does *not* equate to an
> establishment of religion - rather, an acknowledgment of the presence of
> a higher power. (And what has happened to public education system since
> those decisions?)
Not every religion acknowledges the presence of a higher power.
| |
| Jeff York 2005-04-27, 3:55 pm |
| LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>Every so often, I get a mail-out from them (as I donate through the
>Combined Federal Campaign). The latest one came a few days ago - let's
>look at the numbers, shall we?
>
>Clients Seen - 1,946
>Pregnancy Tests Given - 1,251 (64% of clients)
>Clients who thought abortion was their only option, but decided to carry
>the child to term - 92 (4.7% of clients)
In which case it looks like they use a sensitive approach and I
unreservedly withdraw my comment likening them to "brainwashers".
>For a brainwashing agency, they *suck*.
As this thread started from a sex-based theme, I think you could have
chosen a slightly more apposite epithet... :-)
--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)
.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."
Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
| |
|
| jce wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:3f0b$4265c574$45491db9$10349@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
>
>
> Find facts to support that abortion is *wrong*. Just the facts please - oh
> with their undisputed documentary evidence of course.
Scientific facts don't make "right" or "wrong" calls. Facts, combined
with a belief that life *is* life, leads to the conclusion that
terminating such life is wrong, cruel, and inhuman. No matter the facts
I present, there will still be people who insist that "it's a choice,
not a child".
>
> This is missing the question. Is there something that should be a law that
> goes against your religion.
Ah, I see. Let me ponder...
>
> Shouldn't this read Reduced morals = more sex = more blessings?
Some would say that, yes. Maybe if we called them "blessings" people
wouldn't be so hip on killing them.
>
> No love is free. I actually agree with your last sentence in part. I also
> think that the opposite is true which you won't.
> Selling women a bill of goods that they can only be sexual in order to bear
> children cheapen's society's view of women.
That's just it - I'm not saying that the only time women can be sexual
is procreation. Far from it!
>
>
> Ah, but they'll be able to catch up much quicker being free love junkies and
> all. (that might be a joke)
>
> You also fail to take into account the number of people that leave your
> "team" ...not sure where you turned this into a "them" and "us" team sport.
Basically, it was when I was here defending a position for over a w
with absolutely no one agreeing with the content of my posts. Mr. Gavan
chimed in on Saturday, and you've agreed with a few things here. I'm
just tired of the intentional misstatements of what I've said - and,
I've decided, I'm going to quit responding to them (as best I can).
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-04-27, 3:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:d1fcd$426edb81$45491c57$12550@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Since then, there have been published studies suggesting that
> consensual pedophilia (where the kid is convinced and goes along with
> it) are normal sexual relationships,
I for one am *adamantly* opposed to relaxing laws against *statutory* rape.
There is no such thing as consensual *anything* when it presumes acceptance
of responsibility (legal or otherwise) from a minor child. Period. A
child does *not* have what it takes -- legally, mentally, ethically or any | | |