f



OT - "lie" vs "error"

As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...

What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in fact" 
being made?

There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when 
something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then

 - if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said 
without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary)  KNOWS that it is 
not true, then it is a "lie"
 - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement) 
"believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any "mis-information" 
is an error, not a lie.

   ***

Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to many 
threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com 


0
wmklein (2605)
3/23/2005 3:18:21 AM
comp.lang.cobol 4278 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

503 Replies
2647 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 35

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message 
news:1e50e.2183556$Zm5.353953@news.easynews.com...
> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>
> What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in 
> fact" being made?
None.  An "error in fact" being made implies control of that error. But you 
clarify in the next paragraph :-)

> There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when 
> something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then
>
> - if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said 
> without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary)  KNOWS that 
> it is not true, then it is a "lie"

There is also the "lie" through omission.

For example :

100,000 people march in support of President Y in his attempts to hold 
power.

This sounds like a united country.....but only if you didn't know.....

200,000 people march in protest of President Y in his attempts to hold 
power.

This is far _more_ powerful and is used imho far more often.   This is 
something that the news media does very well - it's why we can call papers 
and TV left wing, right wing, and centrist.

> - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement) 
> "believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any 
> "mis-information" is an error, not a lie.

If they claim to have any knowledge then it is still a lie by virtue of 
deceit.
Bush claimed he believed there were weapons of mass destruction.  Using your 
definition, this was an error because he believed it to be true (unless he 
lied about that); however, as he represented himself as having evidence (the 
lie) this makes the error a lie also.


> Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to 
> many threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving.  People 
are  saying she blinks, breathes, and has brain activity - therefore she is 
alive.  They don't mention that her cerebral cortex is mush and therefore 
she is about as sentient as a dead person.
They also show the tape where she "responds" to her parents - yes, it was 
1992 (I think) and is the same one scene shown each time.

GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have to "err 
on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death penalty count was 
so high in Texas.....
Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is saying) 
but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.

> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/23/2005 8:12:52 AM
William M. Klein wrote:
> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
> 
> What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in fact" 
> being made?
> 
> There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when 
> something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then
> 
>  - if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said 
> without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary)  KNOWS that it is 
> not true, then it is a "lie"
>  - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement) 
> "believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any "mis-information" 
> is an error, not a lie.
> 
>    ***
> 
> Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to many 
> threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.
> 

The simple lie is an untruth.

The more complex lie is lack of truth, or lie of omission.

The really sophistocated lie is the truth told in such a way that it is 
not believed.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
3/23/2005 1:38:06 PM
Donald Tees wrote:
> William M. Klein wrote:
> > As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
> >
> > What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an
"error in fact"
> > being made?
> >
> > There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME,
that when
> > something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true"
then
> >
> >  - if the person making the statement (or reporting what others
have said
> > without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary)
KNOWS that it is
> > not true, then it is a "lie"
> >  - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's
statement)
> > "believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any
"mis-information"
> > is an error, not a lie.
> >
> >    ***
> >
> > Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction
applies to many
> > threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.
> >
>
> The simple lie is an untruth.
>
> The more complex lie is lack of truth, or lie of omission.
>
> The really sophistocated lie is the truth told in such a way that it
is
> not believed.
>
> Donald


I think the word deceit would be more appropriate for that. I think lie
means a simple untruth, though unravelling it may be complex, as per
some compound programming IF statements where the end result is true or
false.

Robert

0
rjones0 (206)
3/23/2005 2:10:56 PM
In article <1e50e.2183556$Zm5.353953@news.easynews.com>,
William M. Klein <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>
>What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in fact" 
>being made?

My memory is, admittedly, porous... but I recall being taught something 
about 'the intention to deceive'.

As to how one goes about discerning intent - I barely know what *my* 
intentions are, let alone anyone else's - ... that might be an exercise 
best left for the reader.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/23/2005 2:28:23 PM
jce wrote:
>
> This is far _more_ powerful and is used imho far more often.   This is
> something that the news media does very well - it's why we can call
> papers and TV left wing, right wing, and centrist.

Those who do "are in error." There are vanishingly few "right wing and 
centrist" papers.

>
>> - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's
>> statement) "believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then
>> any "mis-information" is an error, not a lie.

> The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving.

Admittedly the "life worth saving" is, um, convoluted. I think it's really 
short-hand "the deliberate taking of an innocent life, or permitting it to 
be taken, diminishes us all."

>
> GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have
> to "err on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death
> penalty count was so high in Texas.....
> Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is
> saying) but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.

The death penalty is often used in Texas because we have (had) some really 
bad actors. Fact is, some people need killing: Being on the side of death 
for miscreants is not error. Being on the side of death for the helpless IS 
error. It's not death, per se, that's at issue: it's the manner of the 
process.

>
>> Bill Klein
>> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>
> JCE 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
3/23/2005 2:28:49 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <1e50e.2183556$Zm5.353953@news.easynews.com>,
>William M. Klein <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>>As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>>
>>What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in fact" 
>>being made?
>
>My memory is, admittedly, porous... but I recall being taught something 
>about 'the intention to deceive'.

I reckon that the concept of "mens rea" just about covers it..

-- 
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).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
3/23/2005 2:37:06 PM
On 22-Mar-2005, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

> Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to many
> threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

There are also positions in between the two.

When a person of authority tells me that I should trust data that I need for my
program, and as a result, my program gives the users bad data - does it matter
whether that person was lying or erroneous?   His authority came with a
responsibility to be correct, or minimally to present me with enough information
to make my own decision.

Modern society puts too much value on intent, and not enough on results.   
0
howard (6283)
3/23/2005 3:09:25 PM
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1142v8pthc83u01@news.supernews.com...
> jce wrote:
>> GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have
>> to "err on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death
>> penalty count was so high in Texas.....
>> Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is
>> saying) but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.
>
> The death penalty is often used in Texas because we have (had) some really 
> bad actors. Fact is, some people need killing: Being on the side of death 
> for miscreants is not error. Being on the side of death for the helpless 
> IS error. It's not death, per se, that's at issue: it's the manner of the 
> process.

Not what I said.

George said he had to "err on the side of life".
My point: given the number of people on death row that have been exonerated 
recently, one could argue that in the judicial system if we "erred" on the 
side of life, we would abolish the death penalty.

Being on the side of death for the helpless IS error, if there is exactly 
ONE helpless, and that the help actually is to the detriment of the system 
as a whole.   Representative government is to govern the masses, not the 
individual.  Unfortunately hard decisions are made - among them is the right 
to allow for a group of people to die because it's too difficult/hard/costly 
to do otherwise.

If we were to "err" on the side of life, we would abolish the right for 
idiots to let kids have access to guns, drive fast cars.

Point is that what he said was probably a truth - I believe he meant it - 
but it's non universal application (absence of contrary evidence) really 
indicates it is just used as an ends to a means.  Therefore it's a truth, 
but the absence of supporting evidence makes it a little "white lie".

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/23/2005 3:27:18 PM
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8y90e.243187$JF2.154149@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

> The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving.
People
> are  saying she blinks, breathes, and has brain activity - therefore she
is
> alive.  They don't mention that her cerebral cortex is mush and therefore
> she is about as sentient as a dead person.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue with the Schiavo case has more to do with
the right of one member of a married couple to make medical decisions for
the other.  In this instance, I think it's twenty-five court decisions thus
far that have ruled in favor of the husband's right to make such decisions,
and against the Schindlers' (Terry Schiavo's parents) right to override his
decision.  Having a feeding tube inserted counts as "extraordinary measures
to prolong life", and the husband is in a better, and more legally tenable,
position to know Terry Schiavo's most recent thoughts on such matters than
the parents.  The next of kin makes these decisions, and the next of kin is
the spouse.

The Terry Schiavo Law of this past weekend gave the Federal courts
jurisdiction on the matter; the US Supreme Court has refused to hear the
case three times so far on jurisdictional grounds; the Schindlers have vowed
to take the case to the Supreme Court to overturn the two Federal Court
rulings against them.

Thus, I think it's not about life or death, it's about one spouse's *legal*
right to allow the other to die with dignity and not to prolong that
spouse's life artificially.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
3/23/2005 4:55:18 PM
On 23-Mar-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> Thus, I think it's not about life or death, it's about one spouse's *legal*
> right to allow the other to die with dignity and not to prolong that
> spouse's life artificially.

Having life prolonged by well-meaning governments is the substance of horror SF.
0
howard (6283)
3/23/2005 5:35:30 PM
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1e50e.2183556$Zm5.353953@news.easynews.com...
> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>

Oh, Goody, I LOVE philosophical discussions... :-)

> What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in
fact"
> being made?
>

The 'lie' has an intention to deceive, the error doesn't.

Of course, the results are often exactly the same, and it is no comfort to
die because someone made an 'honest mistake' when programming the
autopilot...

It comes down to a responsibility in the dissemination of information. If
you are going to disseminate information you have a responsibility to ensure
it is as accurate as possible, or state that it should not be taken
seriously.

DISCLAIMER: This post should not be taken seriously. (Not because it is not
attempting to discuss a serious issue, but because it is simply one man's
opinion...)

(Neither should any OT posts in CLC.)

I see some posters jumped onto the Schiavi case...

No minds will be changed by discussing this, because the positions are
already entrenched.  There are no swinging voters when it comes to the
question of motality. Both sides have some merit in their viewpoints, but
the crux of it is: what do we mean by "life", and how precious is it
really....?

I believe there are worse things than death.

But that is just me, and if you held a gun to my head, I might change my
mind...

I am reminded of a drawing room discussion that took place at a friend's
house some years ago. We were discussing new advances in Science that
indicated it might be possible for the aging process to be controlled, and
people could live to be 170, as a matter of course. There was a general
feeling of uneasiness when this was stated and one person expressed the
thoughts of most of us: "Who wants to live to be 170?"

Without hesitation, another person present responded: "Everyone who is
169..."

We dissolved in laughter, but it stayed with me.

This whole life experience is a very complex thing and, irrespective of
one's religious belief, most of us are in no hurry to shuffle off this
mortal coil.

Whether someone's perception of reality differs from our own, whether they
honestly believe what they say, whether they are relaying information that
is simply incorrect, the measure of a "lie" is the intention behind it.

As John Keats observed, the only real truth is beauty, (and even that is
subjective....)

I wouldn't worry about whether someone got it wrong or is deliberately
lying; simply don't operate on second or third party information until you
have checked it out.

(Obviously, the degree of importance and significance of this information in
your life, makes a difference as to how thoroughly or energetically you will
check it out. If you don't care anyway, you won't  (or shouldn't..) spend
time on it.)

Expecting complete accuracy and above board honesty from Usenet postings is
like expecting a COBOL programmer to run a four minute mile; it is
theoretically achievable, but statistically unlikely.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/24/2005 2:09:14 AM
William M. Klein wrote:
> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
> 
> What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in fact" 
> being made?
> 
> There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when 
> something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then
> 
>  - if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said 
> without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary)  KNOWS that it is 
> not true, then it is a "lie"
>  - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement) 
> "believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any "mis-information" 
> is an error, not a lie.

That makes sense - and that's what makes the "Bush Lied" crowd so... 
comical (if not annoying).  "We were sent into Iraq on a lie!"  No, we 
were sent in with what was, by the time we got there, faulty 
information.  We'll never know if that intel *was* accurate at the time 
it was gathered.

> Again, I could be in error <G>

Nope, I think you're lying...  ;)

> - but I think this distinction applies to many 
> threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

It does - thanks for introducing it here.  :)  (I still say a politician 
that says SS taxes are an investment is lying, though...)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/24/2005 3:09:45 AM
jce wrote:
> The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving.  People 
> are  saying she blinks, breathes, and has brain activity - therefore she is 
> alive.  They don't mention that her cerebral cortex is mush and therefore 
> she is about as sentient as a dead person.
> They also show the tape where she "responds" to her parents - yes, it was 
> 1992 (I think) and is the same one scene shown each time.

Ah - another Floridian for euthanasia...  Is it in the water down there?


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/24/2005 3:13:03 AM
jce wrote:
> GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have to "err 
> on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death penalty count was 
> so high in Texas.....
> Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is saying) 
> but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.

Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to 
die.  I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they* 
are the ones for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what 
if advances in technology can prove their innocence?"  However, no such 
advances are hoped for Terri.

Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent.  No wonder I'm not 
a liberal...


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/24/2005 3:17:48 AM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 23-Mar-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Thus, I think it's not about life or death, it's about one spouse's *legal*
>>right to allow the other to die with dignity and not to prolong that
>>spouse's life artificially.
> 
> 
> Having life prolonged by well-meaning governments is the substance of horror SF.

I wasn't aware that feeding medical patients food and water (and she can 
take both without the tube) was "prolonging life" - I thought it was 
what happened when you're in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/24/2005 3:20:09 AM
I thought I would give one person's response to your serious question about
   Why let Terri Schiavo die, but convicted murderers live?

First, I am AWFULLY glad that  I am not Terri's husband who has to make his 
decision (no matter what happens with it) - just as I am happy that I will never 
be pregnant with an unwanted (or rape caused or fatally genetically flawed) 
child that I would have to decide if I wanted an abortion.

However, I do believe that there is sufficient medical evidence available that 
Terri Schiavo is in a "permanent vegetative state" (despite what Gov Bush said 
today) and that, therefore, there is NO reasonable chance that she will ever 
regain a "reasonable quality of life".  (as her husband believed SHE expressed 
that she wanted)

On the other hand, except in VERY unusual cases, when there is a convicted 
murderer, I believe that there IS a reasonable possibility that
  A) he/she might be returned to being a "productive" member of society (whether 
remaining in prison for life  - or possibly even out of prison)
    and/or
  B) she/he MIGHT later be found to be not guilty (given later evidence).  This 
certainly happened in enough cases in Illinois for my state to go into a 
"moratorium" (interesting unintentional pun) on executions.

   ***

I expect that there are many other "liberals" with different rationales and some 
who would disagree either on who should live (despite convictions) or who should 
be allowed to die (despite the best medical evidence)  - but this is my 
reasoning behind my answers to your questions.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:e0d42$42423071$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET...
> jce wrote:
>> GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have to "err 
>> on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death penalty count was 
>> so high in Texas.....
>> Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is saying) 
>> but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.
>
> Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to die. 
> I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they* are the ones 
> for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what if advances in 
> technology can prove their innocence?"  However, no such advances are hoped 
> for Terri.
>
> Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent.  No wonder I'm not a 
> liberal...
>
>
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
> ~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
> ~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
> ~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
> ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
> ~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 


0
wmklein (2605)
3/24/2005 3:34:17 AM
William M. Klein wrote:
> I thought I would give one person's response to your serious question about
>    Why let Terri Schiavo die, but convicted murderers live?

Thanks!

> First, I am AWFULLY glad that  I am not Terri's husband who has to make his 
> decision (no matter what happens with it) - just as I am happy that I will never 
> be pregnant with an unwanted (or rape caused or fatally genetically flawed) 
> child that I would have to decide if I wanted an abortion.
> 
> However, I do believe that there is sufficient medical evidence available that 
> Terri Schiavo is in a "permanent vegetative state" (despite what Gov Bush said 
> today) and that, therefore, there is NO reasonable chance that she will ever 
> regain a "reasonable quality of life".  (as her husband believed SHE expressed 
> that she wanted)

What if she's not?  Would you still feel this way?

And, why not allow her to be given liquids that she can swallow?  She 
swallows over a liter of her own saliva a day.  If she's going to die, 
give her an injection to make it quick - starving her to death is just 
cruel.

> On the other hand, except in VERY unusual cases, when there is a convicted 
> murderer, I believe that there IS a reasonable possibility that
>   A) he/she might be returned to being a "productive" member of society (whether 
> remaining in prison for life  - or possibly even out of prison)
>     and/or
>   B) she/he MIGHT later be found to be not guilty (given later evidence).  This 
> certainly happened in enough cases in Illinois for my state to go into a 
> "moratorium" (interesting unintentional pun) on executions.

I understand that thinking.  How do you balance the "might" of them 
being productive against the "might not" - the fact that they may do 
what they need to to be released, and then kill again?

> I expect that there are many other "liberals" with different rationales and some 
> who would disagree either on who should live (despite convictions) or who should 
> be allowed to die (despite the best medical evidence)  - but this is my 
> reasoning behind my answers to your questions.

I appreciate that.  :)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/24/2005 3:54:46 AM
LX-i wrote:
> jce wrote:
> 
>> GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have to 
>> "err on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death 
>> penalty count was so high in Texas.....
>> Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is 
>> saying) but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.
> 
> 
> Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to 
> die.  I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they* 
> are the ones for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what 
> if advances in technology can prove their innocence?"  However, no such 
> advances are hoped for Terri.
> 
> Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent.  No wonder I'm not 
> a liberal...
> 
> 
I am going to get really pissed off at you if you keep on sneering at 
LIBERALS. Change your time piece.

My clock is set at 12:00 = Liberals

11:55 = 'Pinko' Conservatives as defined by the guys at 11:40 below.
(This includes Brian Mulroney and the old Canadian Conservatives - and 
remember Brian was a big buddy of Ronnie R., plus he has served on the 
same board of directors as George Bush Senior).

11:40 - Our Reform/Alliance, (plus Born-again Christians) who morphed 
into the new Conservatives - so 11:55 plus 11:40 gives us our 'uneasy' 
current Conservatives.

11:35 - Fascism

12:10 - Is where I personally think Tony Blair sits, perhaps 12:05. His 
mentor was a former Labour Minister, Roy Jenkins who joined the British 
Liberals (Social-Democrats) sitting at around 12:00.

12:15 Labour/Socialism - in Canada we have the NDP (National Democratic 
Party) and typically supported by the unions. In UK Labour was also 
typically supported by the unions, TUC (Trade Unions Congress) - Maggie 
Thatcher neutered the unions' power. Although you have AFCIO etc., for 
some unknown reason to me, historically your 'Labor' movement is 
non-existent. (Please don't respond with bullshit such as, 'The land of 
opportunity').

12:25 - Communism

**********

LIBERALISM sits centre at 12:00 taking from both right and left, and 
quite intentionally so. Nobody holds copyright to any political belief. 
With no 'Labor' party in the States, your Democrats have to take on some 
but not all the ideas of Socialism. (Try 36 million without health care 
coverage for starters. Don't equivocate - I got that number, (needs 
updating), from a GP from Somerset, Kentucky some five years back). 
Whether UK Social-Democrats, US Deomcrats or Canadian Liberals - they 
are all essentially centrist parties.

I guess you fit in around 11:40 to 11:45. Go buy a new Timex !

As for the death thing and that poor girl - much too emotive and nobody 
will be convinced. Eileen and I discussed it only yesterday - and we 
couldn't even agree between ourselves - just one small family unit.

Jimmy
0
3/24/2005 4:29:36 AM
In article <801ef$42422e8f$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET>,
 LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> > - but I think this distinction applies to many 
> > threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.
> 
> It does - thanks for introducing it here.  :)  (I still say a politician 
> that says SS taxes are an investment is lying, though...)

While on the (off-topic) topic of politicians claiming it is an 
investment, not a tax, here are some selected quotes from the MacDaddy 
of the program himself, Mr. FDR.  

He should server quite well to address questions about when 'the state' 
claimed that Social Security was insurance and not a tax -- that is how 
he sold it to the people when he was the head of 'the state'.  Few 
Democrats have had original thoughts since.

From a collection of his various addresses and chats regarding the 
program -- you can view the entire texts at  
"http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html":


   - "I believe that the funds necessary to provide this insurance 
should be raised by contribution rather than by an increase in general 
taxation."

   - "We must not allow this type of insurance to become a dole through 
the mingling of insurance and relief. It is not charity. It must be 
financed by contributions, not taxes."

   - "As Governor of New York, it was my pleasure to recommend passage 
of the Old-Age Pension Act which, I am told, is still generally regarded 
as the most liberal in the country. In approving the bill, I expressed 
my opinion that full solution of this problem is possible only on 
insurance principles. It takes so very much money to provide even a 
moderate pension for everybody, that when the funds are raised from 
taxation only a "means test" must necessarily be made a condition of the 
grant of pensions."

   - "the system adopted, except for the money necessary to initiate it, 
should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of 
insurance benefits should not come from the proceeds of general 
taxation."
0
3/24/2005 4:30:47 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:3dfb4$4242391b$45491f85$2166@KNOLOGY.NET...
> William M. Klein wrote:
>> I thought I would give one person's response to your serious question about
>>    Why let Terri Schiavo die, but convicted murderers live?
>
> Thanks!
>
<snip>
>>
>> However, I do believe that there is sufficient medical evidence available 
>> that Terri Schiavo is in a "permanent vegetative state" (despite what Gov 
>> Bush said today) and that, therefore, there is NO reasonable chance that she 
>> will ever regain a "reasonable quality of life".  (as her husband believed 
>> SHE expressed that she wanted)
>
> What if she's not?  Would you still feel this way?
>

I have both a "living will" and have signed a "power of attorney for medical 
issues" document - to deal with such issues in MY case.  If she had done such, I 
beleive that things would be "much clearer" and I certainly would encourage 
others to take these steps (or whatever your local government allows to handle 
such issues).

PERSONALLY, I have minimal "philosophical" objection to suicide - and would 
allow a person in his/her "right mind" (if such is possible) to take that step. 
The next step of indicating under what circumstances a person would want others 
(doctors, hospital, "loved ones") to implement their desires under specific 
situations, is also reasonable.

In the specific case of my father, he became "brain dead" after a long struggle 
with side-effects from diabetes.  "Luckily" he had made his wishes well known to 
my mother, my sisters, and to me (even though he had not done "paper work" to 
specify this) and my mother authorized the hospital to remove "extrordinary" 
means and allowed him to die peacefully and quickly.

In *my* case, I have made it clear to my sisters that should I (permantently) 
lose the ability to make appropriate mental decisions for myself, I would ask 
that they STOP (have stopped) my AIDS medications - even if I was not suffering 
from other physical problems.  This would, I believe, lead to my death as 
quickly as possible.

I would *not* ask my sisters (a doctor, or anyone else) to take this action if 
it was against THEIR beliefs - but I would ask them to allow others to follow my 
direction.

  ***

Now, in the Terri Shiavo case, there MAY be some question about whether she 
really did or did not convey her desires to her husband.  If that was what was 
being argued in the courts, I would have more sympathy with those trying to keep 
her alive.  However, as *I* hear the news reports, her parents are stating that 
she was a "good Catholic" and that she wouldn't want to commit a "mortal sin" 
but NOT that they heard her (after the reports from her husband) actually 
indicate that she would want to be kept alive in a "vegatative state".  Even if 
her parents did argue with her husband about exactly what views she had 
expressed AND when, I think I would "err" on the side of believing her husband - 
unless there was evidence from "neutral parties" that she did not have such a 
relationship with her husband.

Finally, I don't think that I quite understand what is and isn't actually 
happening vs what is being reported.  It seems to me that the news reports have 
indicated that the courts have said that the feeding (and hydration) "tubes" 
needed to be removed.  However, there seems to be some evidence that she is not 
being given any food or water thru "normal" means.  Some of the medical experts 
say that a person in a vegatative state CAN chew and swallow.  If this is the 
case, then I (like you - I think) don't understand why her parents and the 
hospice are being denied the right to provide these.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com


0
wmklein (2605)
3/24/2005 4:36:30 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:e0d42$42423071$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET...
> jce wrote:
>> GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have to 
>> "err on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death penalty 
>> count was so high in Texas.....
>> Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is 
>> saying) but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.

> Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to 
> die.
First off, no one helped her when she was alive and that's the OVERLOOKED 
tragedy of this situation.  Hundreds of lives could be saved if we focused 
on the cause of all this in the first place.  She needed help, and no one 
gave it to her.

I cannot speak for liberals, nor would I declare myself to be one.  My views 
are conservative, liberal, marxist, capitalist depending on the subject.  I 
have not stated my _personal_ opinion on where I stand on this issue yet - 
only the inconsistencies of the position of George Bush regarding "erring on 
the side of life" while advocating the "death penalty" which plainly errs on 
the side of "death".

Let me be _very_ clear here.   CONVICTED = GUILTY <> YEP, THE DEFENDENT DID 
IT

A person is convicted of a capital crime based on a court system.  The court 
system allows for evidence to support the and defend the person.   At the 
end of the trial - "guilt" is assigned.  This guilt is sometimes very well 
established, at other times the conviction is based purely on circumstancial 
evidence such as a witness statement.

In the Terri case courts used some of the same methods:

Testimony that in 1990,1991,1992 there was no swallowing reflex as 
established by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.

Every year through 1997 a speech pathologist examined her said that could 
not be rehabilitated and had high risk of aspiration.

Medical opinion is on COURT RECORDS that oral nutrition would result in 
aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing through.  Such aspiration 
would lead to infection, fever and pneumonia.  The suctioning to resolve 
this would kill her.

A trial judge held a trial on the issue of what Terri would have wanted and 
determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly showed that Terri 
would not want to continue life-prolonging measures in her current state.

Recorded in documents:

"We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon 
and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the 
Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were 
important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 
to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See � 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); 
In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial 
judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. 
Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process."

So what is the difference between your CONVICTED murderers as determined by 
court.  And the wishes of Terri as determined by court ?  Don't tell me that 
its 12 jurors who haven't read a newspaper.

My opinion is based on a certain level that the court system has done what 
it should have done - taken MEDICAL evidence of the doctors IN THE ROOM with 
the patient, the testimony of various witnesses including the husband and 
family and determined the outcome.

I don't pretend the decision is an easy one.  I know it is a hard one, but I 
also have to believe that the decisions have been made in her best interest 
as determined by the courts.  I know people that have died of their own 
choosing by switching off dialysis, or refusing medication.  I know people 
that have had diabetes and heart problems and do not maintain a diet. 
They're personal choices - not choices for bunch of anti-conservatives and 
not a for a bunch of conservatives.

Politics in america is like a football game - you're either with the home 
fans, or with the away fans.  People forget to discuss issues and take 
sides...it's rather sad.

>I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they*
I'm not left.

> are the ones for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what 
> if advances in technology can prove their innocence?"  However, no such 
> advances are hoped for Terri.

This HAS been a long draw out appeal.. Take a look at the timeline when you 
have a chance.  The tube was REMOVED the first time back in APRIL 2001!  She 
should be with God already.

Terri is in the state she is in because she PUT HERSELF there.  If she had 
required a heart transplant at the time of her collapse she could not get 
one because of the psychiatric conditions involved.  Terri did not do 
anything to suggest that she valued her life when she was living. Perhaps 
this is why I feel the way I do - she cared enough about other peoples 
perception of her healthy self to do this much damage.  I cannot believe she 
would have wanted to be seen worldwide like this.....and I have to assume 
that the courts agreed with this/

> Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent.  No wonder I'm not a 
> liberal...
My point was, not everyone on death row is without doubt guilty

http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9316&c=65
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004595.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_17_54/ai_90888288

The above examples show people not actually executed - however, they show 
that there is some chance of error.  Defenders will claim that _ZERO_ have 
been executed when they were innocent - only it's a little too late to 
really ask and find out I would suspect.  I have to believe that at least 
one of the people professing innocence at the chair wasn't lying...it's not 
like they were going to call the whole thing off, have tea and discuss his 
innocence at this point....they could have yelled...."Yeah, boi, I did 
it...that mofo deserved it...." for as much as anyone actually could do at 
that point.

One objection that I have with death penalty is that it's more often than 
not an act of retribution rather than anything useful....it's the ancient 
eye for an eye theory.  I see pros and cons to the death penalty, the 
biggest con in my mind is quite simply that the legal system is a sham.  I'd 
much rather we spend time getting that fixed.  Some of the fallout of 
pollution politics is far worse than the worst serial killer in the last few 
decades.........yet, somehow the trial lawyers cannot pin anything on the 
perpetrators of those crimes.  I ain't doing nothing to get me killed, and 
I'm not actively doing anything to get anyone else killed, so at a personal 
level I don't care....makes me shallow maybe.

On a final note,  I suppose if there had been no death penalty then Jesus 
would have just been put in jail without parole for our sins...not nearly as 
catchy as died for our sins...but maybe just maybe it would have quieted Mel 
Gibson.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/24/2005 6:10:26 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:Qmr0e.767677$8l.315077@pd7tw1no...

> I guess you fit in around 11:40 to 11:45. Go buy a new Timex !

So if he's in Alabama....does that make him a Greenwich Mean Time Fascist?

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/24/2005 6:12:56 AM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-5ACE7B.23304623032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <801ef$42422e8f$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> > - but I think this distinction applies to many 
>> > threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.
>> 
>> It does - thanks for introducing it here.  :)  (I still say a politician 
>> that says SS taxes are an investment is lying, though...)
>
>While on the (off-topic) topic of politicians claiming it is an 
>investment, not a tax, here are some selected quotes from the MacDaddy 
>of the program himself, Mr. FDR.  
>
>He should server quite well to address questions about when 'the state' 
>claimed that Social Security was insurance and not a tax -- that is how 
>he sold it to the people when he was the head of 'the state'.  Few 
>Democrats have had original thoughts since.

Ummmm... the most recent quote you show appears to be from 1935 and states 
what the system 'should be'; this thread has already shown a quote from 
the IRS dated 1939 showing what it had become.

(All of the quotations you post indicate that the Social Security program 
was not in existence ('funds... should be raised, system... should be 
self-sustaining'), indicating that it is not yet in existence; it is 
compared to the New York State Old Age Pension Act where it appears 
that 'funds are raised from taxation'.

This has been going on a few days, now... fascinating that saying 'social 
security is not a tax, but an investment' is so very common that it is 
easy to find citations of it.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/24/2005 10:31:48 AM
LX-i wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> 
>> On 23-Mar-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thus, I think it's not about life or death, it's about one spouse's 
>>> *legal*
>>> right to allow the other to die with dignity and not to prolong that
>>> spouse's life artificially.
>>
>>
>>
>> Having life prolonged by well-meaning governments is the substance of 
>> horror SF.
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that feeding medical patients food and water (and she can 
> take both without the tube) was "prolonging life" - I thought it was 
> what happened when you're in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice.
> 
> 

You cannot seem to see the difference between giving someone food and 
forcing it down their throat with a tube to make political points. Of 
course, *most* rapists insist that the victim really wanted it.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
3/24/2005 1:43:58 PM
James J. Gavan wrote:
>
> LIBERALISM sits centre at 12:00 taking from both right and left, and
> quite intentionally so. Nobody holds copyright to any political
> belief. With no 'Labor' party in the States, your Democrats have to
> take on some but not all the ideas of Socialism. (Try 36 million
> without health care coverage for starters. Don't equivocate - I got
> that number, (needs updating), from a GP from Somerset, Kentucky some
> five years back). Whether UK Social-Democrats, US Deomcrats or
> Canadian Liberals - they are all essentially centrist parties.

Strawman argument. There are HUGE numbers of U.S.citizens without health 
INSURANCE, but very few without health CARE.

In fact, there are more without insurance in the UK (almost none) than in 
the US (~40 million)! And both groups get about the same level of care.

Point is, talk about INSURANCE or CARE, but don't meld the two.

Interesting factoid: There are more MRI machines in Seattle (over 200) than 
in all of Canada (137) - at least according to GE who makes the damn things.

As for "Labor" party, we have one: the Democrats - we just don't have many 
union members.



0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
3/24/2005 1:48:11 PM
In article <d1u4uk$hcc$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-5ACE7B.23304623032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
> >In article <801ef$42422e8f$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> > LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > - but I think this distinction applies to many 
> >> > threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.
> >> 
> >> It does - thanks for introducing it here.  :)  (I still say a politician 
> >> that says SS taxes are an investment is lying, though...)
> >
> >While on the (off-topic) topic of politicians claiming it is an 
> >investment, not a tax, here are some selected quotes from the MacDaddy 
> >of the program himself, Mr. FDR.  
> >
> >He should server quite well to address questions about when 'the state' 
> >claimed that Social Security was insurance and not a tax -- that is how 
> >he sold it to the people when he was the head of 'the state'.  Few 
> >Democrats have had original thoughts since.
> 
> Ummmm... the most recent quote you show appears to be from 1935 and states 
> what the system 'should be'; this thread has already shown a quote from 
> the IRS dated 1939 showing what it had become.
> 
> (All of the quotations you post indicate that the Social Security program 
> was not in existence ('funds... should be raised, system... should be 
> self-sustaining'), indicating that it is not yet in existence; it is 
> compared to the New York State Old Age Pension Act where it appears 
> that 'funds are raised from taxation'.
> 
> This has been going on a few days, now... fascinating that saying 'social 
> security is not a tax, but an investment' is so very common that it is 
> easy to find citations of it.
> 
> DD

I know what it was from the start -- a tax.  But there are many that 
have long claimed that it was not.  The oft cited canard about 
'contributions' financing ones 'insurance' is an obvious 
misrepresentation -- or more accurately a 'lie'.

It was a lie from the very beginning of the system.  It was a lie every  
time a politician promised to keep your 'contributions' to the 'trust  
fund' in a 'lockbox'.

It is so common that I cannot remember a politician supportive of the 
program NOT trying to make claims, hints and suggestions that ones 
contributions are sacrosacnt -- even as the are treating said 
contributions exactly like taxes for spending purposes.

However, the two times I googled the topic I quite quickly found two  
cites that indicate there was gross misrepresentation of the program as 
'insurance-not-taxes' from the beginning.  And said cites indicate that 
the state was the originating participant of the misrepresentations.  (I 
could do a more in depth search, but the brief search was productive 
enough considering my limited time of late.)

Said misrepresentation is still going on by program supporters with the 
current clamor about things like 'guaranteed benefits' and denial that 
the program is welfare.
0
3/24/2005 1:57:27 PM
On 23-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to
> die.  I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they*
> are the ones for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what
> if advances in technology can prove their innocence?"  However, no such
> advances are hoped for Terri.
>
> Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent.  No wonder I'm not
> a liberal...

I've seen people say the same thing about conservatives on this "right to life"
issue.   The thing is that both of you are lumping in a lot of different people
with a wide variety of beliefs and noting that all those beliefs aren't
consistent.    You have to know conservatives who have beliefs that you disagree
with.   (Heck, the variations of conservative Christians in a small church are
large) Liberals are diverse as well.    Admittedly there are a few non-thinkers
who just follow the party line (after others fought hard to establish that line
with compromise and such).    But thinking people come up with different
conclusions - even if in general they fall in the "liberal" or "conservative"
camps.

Don't worry about labels.
0
howard (6283)
3/24/2005 2:47:22 PM
On 23-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> 11:35 - Fascism

Does anybody have definitions of fascism and National Socialism that are not
emotionally connected to the states we associate them with?

I get the idea that these are states where nominal ownership of companies is the
people, but the state runs them.   But those aren't the main things people
object to - and often times modern states emulate those.     They object to the
dictators who run the state that runs those businesses - especially because
those dictators do bad things elsewhere.
0
howard (6283)
3/24/2005 2:53:18 PM
On 24-Mar-2005, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

> Strawman argument. There are HUGE numbers of U.S.citizens without health
> INSURANCE, but very few without health CARE.

We have socialized medicine in the US, paid for by workers and their employers.

But when my brother was in between jobs, he did not see a physician about his
cough.   When he was hired again, he found out he had cancer, and didn't last a
year.    While he probably could have gotten himself looked at in time, in
practice people without insurance often wait as he did.
0
howard (6283)
3/24/2005 2:55:54 PM
On 23-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> That makes sense - and that's what makes the "Bush Lied" crowd so...
> comical (if not annoying).  "We were sent into Iraq on a lie!"  No, we
> were sent in with what was, by the time we got there, faulty
> information.  We'll never know if that intel *was* accurate at the time
> it was gathered.

They should say "We were sent to Iraq on a massive federal screw-up".
0
howard (6283)
3/24/2005 2:59:11 PM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-F9D03B.08572724032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <d1u4uk$hcc$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> In article <joe_zitzelberger-5ACE7B.23304623032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
>> Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> >While on the (off-topic) topic of politicians claiming it is an 
>> >investment, not a tax, here are some selected quotes from the MacDaddy 
>> >of the program himself, Mr. FDR.  
>> >
>> >He should server quite well to address questions about when 'the state' 
>> >claimed that Social Security was insurance and not a tax -- that is how 
>> >he sold it to the people when he was the head of 'the state'.  Few 
>> >Democrats have had original thoughts since.
>> 
>> Ummmm... the most recent quote you show appears to be from 1935 and states 
>> what the system 'should be'; this thread has already shown a quote from 
>> the IRS dated 1939 showing what it had become.
>> 
>> (All of the quotations you post indicate that the Social Security program 
>> was not in existence ('funds... should be raised, system... should be 
>> self-sustaining'), indicating that it is not yet in existence; it is 
>> compared to the New York State Old Age Pension Act where it appears 
>> that 'funds are raised from taxation'.
>> 
>> This has been going on a few days, now... fascinating that saying 'social 
>> security is not a tax, but an investment' is so very common that it is 
>> easy to find citations of it.
>
>I know what it was from the start -- a tax.  But there are many that 
>have long claimed that it was not.  The oft cited canard about 
>'contributions' financing ones 'insurance' is an obvious 
>misrepresentation -- or more accurately a 'lie'.

This 'canard' has been mentioned here repeatedly and yet nobody seems to 
be able to bring up a cite for it.

[snip]

>However, the two times I googled the topic I quite quickly found two  
>cites that indicate there was gross misrepresentation of the program as 
>'insurance-not-taxes' from the beginning.

It should be easy enough to bring them forward, then.  Would you be so 
kind as to do so?

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
3/24/2005 4:02:44 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:dccd3$424230fe$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET...

> I wasn't aware that feeding medical patients food and water (and she can
> take both without the tube) was "prolonging life" - I thought it was
> what happened when you're in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice.

JCE posted:

<<Testimony that in 1990,1991,1992 there was no swallowing reflex as
established by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.>>

and

<<Medical opinion is on COURT RECORDS that oral nutrition would result in
aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing through.  Such aspiration
would lead to infection, fever and pneumonia.  The suctioning to resolve
this would kill her.>>

Do you have evidence to the contrary that she *can* get sufficient nutrition
and hydration by "conventioal" methods of eating and drinking  (including,
but not limited to, such tasks as chewing and swallowing)?

    -Chuck Stevens


0
3/24/2005 5:10:01 PM
HeyBub wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> 
>>LIBERALISM sits centre at 12:00 taking from both right and left, and
>>quite intentionally so. Nobody holds copyright to any political
>>belief. With no 'Labor' party in the States, your Democrats have to
>>take on some but not all the ideas of Socialism. (Try 36 million
>>without health care coverage for starters. Don't equivocate - I got
>>that number, (needs updating), from a GP from Somerset, Kentucky some
>>five years back). Whether UK Social-Democrats, US Deomcrats or
>>Canadian Liberals - they are all essentially centrist parties.
> 
> 
> Strawman argument. There are HUGE numbers of U.S.citizens without health 
> INSURANCE, but very few without health CARE.
> 
Strange that. If there is no problem getting medical assistance when 
required, why is Health Care Insurance such a hot topic in the States ? 
  If EVERYBODY gets what they need - then why any Insurance scheme at all ?

I have no idea of the physician's politics, we only got around to the 
topic in a 15-minute conversation when we were both visiting Lake 
Moraine up here in Alberta. (He and his wife were here celebrating their 
wedding anniversary). I would be much more inclined to listen to the 
comments of a practicing physician, who sees the problem on a daily 
basis, rather than Mr. Citizen who is making his own private assessment, 
coupled of course with judgment based on selecting the 'right' set of 
statistics.

> In fact, there are more without insurance in the UK (almost none) than in 
> the US (~40 million)! And both groups get about the same level of care.
> 
You compare your system to UK ? I have no idea of how it currently 
works, but certainly the British right-wing tabloids consistently take 
swipes at UK Medicare. According to them it is an absolute mess. What I 
see superficially probably supports that contention.

> Point is, talk about INSURANCE or CARE, but don't meld the two.
> 
Covered above.

> Interesting factoid: There are more MRI machines in Seattle (over 200) than 
> in all of Canada (137) - at least according to GE who makes the damn things.
> 
Fewer MRIs here ? Perhaps we use our reduced number more effectively. 
Why wife had no problem getting an MRI when required. A gynecologist 
here, (ex-Brit, so obviously some bias), claims he would rather attend 
medical conferences in the UK, rather than the US. Certainly he says 
there is less money available to buy the latest technology in the UK but 
he personally finds them to be more innovative in their ideas.

Technology - you bombed the shit out of the Taliban in Afghanistan, (and 
quite rightly so after 9/11), but with all that murderous firepower, 
Afghanistan is not a safe spot to take your family on an afternoon 
picnic - so much for technology.

> As for "Labor" party, we have one: the Democrats - we just don't have many 
> union members.

The Right in the USA has always needed a bogeyman. No Labor - then 
Democrats look like a good substitute. (Go back 50 years and the 
Democrats become 'those goddamn commies').

Probably wouldn't appeal to an American right winger but the 'West Wing' 
last night. The Republican lead candidate, (Alan Alda) for the next 
presidency is approached by a 'political fixer', played by Ron Silverman 
(?), who is an out and out Democrat. He tells Alda that his philosophy 
is what the American people are looking for - somebody with appeal who 
can bring Right and Left together avoiding the continuous division in US 
politics. In the world of non-fictional politics - not a  bad objective.

Jimmy
0
3/24/2005 6:10:22 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 23-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>11:35 - Fascism
> 
> 
> Does anybody have definitions of fascism and National Socialism that are not
> emotionally connected to the states we associate them with?
> 
> I get the idea that these are states where nominal ownership of companies is the
> people, but the state runs them.   But those aren't the main things people
> object to - and often times modern states emulate those.     They object to the
> dictators who run the state that runs those businesses - especially because
> those dictators do bad things elsewhere.

Using the time-piece analogy 11:35 = Fascism and 12:25 = Communism - not 
  too much difference between the two - different segments of the clock, 
  but both finish up promoting a 'patriotic national identity', as 
defined by their own images and impose dictatorial regimes.

Jimmy
0
3/24/2005 6:24:02 PM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>
>> Strawman argument. There are HUGE numbers of U.S.citizens without
>> health INSURANCE, but very few without health CARE.
>>
> Strange that. If there is no problem getting medical assistance when
> required, why is Health Care Insurance such a hot topic in the States
>  ? If EVERYBODY gets what they need - then why any Insurance scheme
> at all ?

Quality.

>
>> Interesting factoid: There are more MRI machines in Seattle (over
>> 200) than in all of Canada (137) - at least according to GE who
>> makes the damn things.
> Fewer MRIs here ? Perhaps we use our reduced number more effectively.
> Why wife had no problem getting an MRI when required.

I've had an MRI. I threw my knee all asunder. Saw my doc in the morning, had 
the MRI that afternoon.

The average waiting time for an MRI in Canada is seven months.
http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl2001/01bjmric.htm

Likewise, the wait for an abortion is eleven months.

(Joke)

>
> Technology - you bombed the shit out of the Taliban in Afghanistan,
> (and quite rightly so after 9/11), but with all that murderous
> firepower, Afghanistan is not a safe spot to take your family on an
> afternoon picnic - so much for technology.

Maybe not a picnic, but you overlook the pure joy of killing those pests.

>
>> As for "Labor" party, we have one: the Democrats - we just don't
>> have many union members.
>
> The Right in the USA has always needed a bogeyman. No Labor - then
> Democrats look like a good substitute. (Go back 50 years and the
> Democrats become 'those goddamn commies').

Good point. Eric Hoffer said: "A mass movement can survive without a god, 
but it cannot survive without a devil. All mass movements must have 
something to hate." Currently, Republicans hate labor unions and Democrats 
hate God. When there are no more unions or God finally dies, the parties 
will find other odious villians.


>
> Probably wouldn't appeal to an American right winger but the 'West
> Wing' last night. The Republican lead candidate, (Alan Alda) for the
> next presidency is approached by a 'political fixer', played by Ron
> Silverman (?), who is an out and out Democrat. He tells Alda that his
> philosophy is what the American people are looking for - somebody with 
> appeal who
> can bring Right and Left together avoiding the continuous division in
> US politics. In the world of non-fictional politics - not a  bad
> objective.

The character Bruno is not a Democrat - he's a political expert (I've seen 
many). They are not motivated, in the main, by ideology. In that regard, 
they are similar to 18th century generals or modern-day professional sports 
coaches.

You need to understand that West Wing is created by one of the leftist of 
the lefties (Aaron Sorkin). Since the left is currently out of power, 
they've "discovered a new tactic:"* promoting "bring us together," 
"compromise," "cooperate" for the good of the country, return to civility, 
progress, peace, and apple pie. So it's not surprising that Sorkin would use 
this mantra as a sub-plot. Sorkin evidently feels that since he and his band 
are already going to burn in Hell forever, one more bit of misdirection 
won't matter.

----
I almost used the phrase "come to Jesus" but it seemed somewhat out of place 
in the context.



0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
3/25/2005 2:23:57 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
> 
>> jce wrote:
>>
>>> GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have 
>>> to "err on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death 
>>> penalty count was so high in Texas.....
>>> Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is 
>>> saying) but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo 
>> to die.  I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when 
>> *they* are the ones for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, 
>> because "what if advances in technology can prove their innocence?"  
>> However, no such advances are hoped for Terri.
>>
>> Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent.  No wonder I'm 
>> not a liberal...
>>
>>
> I am going to get really pissed off at you if you keep on sneering at 
> LIBERALS. Change your time piece.

I've heard no conservatives say Terri should die.

> My clock is set at 12:00 = Liberals

[snip times]

> LIBERALISM sits centre at 12:00 taking from both right and left, and 
> quite intentionally so.

You're not the first to claim that you're liberal, but you're "in the 
center".

> With no 'Labor' party in the States, your Democrats have to take on some 
> but not all the ideas of Socialism.

They don't *have* to - for some reason, they choose to.  Socialism 
hasn't led to prosperity in nearly the same degree as our capitalistic, 
free-market society - sort of makes me wonder *why* they choose to.

> (Try 36 million without health care 
> coverage for starters. Don't equivocate - I got that number, (needs 
> updating), from a GP from Somerset, Kentucky some five years back). 
> Whether UK Social-Democrats, US Deomcrats or Canadian Liberals - they 
> are all essentially centrist parties.

Does someone without "health care" mean that the government should get 
involved?  I'm of the belief that *most* folks without "health care" are 
without it due to the choices they have made in their life - and, 
conversely, those who "have it" are also there due to the choices they 
have made in their lives.  Rewarding irresponsible behavior with free 
money (or health care, or whatever) only encourages irresponsibility.

When people have high stakes, they are usually also highly motivated. 
I'm in that current situation now with one aspect of my military service.

> I guess you fit in around 11:40 to 11:45. Go buy a new Timex !

Better to be early than late...  :)

> As for the death thing and that poor girl - much too emotive and nobody 
> will be convinced. Eileen and I discussed it only yesterday - and we 
> couldn't even agree between ourselves - just one small family unit.

There's unanimity within our house - but, I know of others where there 
is not.  It looks like this particular case is a lost cause anyway - I 
just wonder how far the "*we* can decide when *your* life's not worth 
living" precedent will go.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 3:12:38 AM
William M. Klein wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
> news:3dfb4$4242391b$45491f85$2166@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>William M. Klein wrote:
>>
>>>I thought I would give one person's response to your serious question about
>>>   Why let Terri Schiavo die, but convicted murderers live?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>However, I do believe that there is sufficient medical evidence available 
>>>that Terri Schiavo is in a "permanent vegetative state" (despite what Gov 
>>>Bush said today) and that, therefore, there is NO reasonable chance that she 
>>>will ever regain a "reasonable quality of life".  (as her husband believed 
>>>SHE expressed that she wanted)
>>
>>What if she's not?  Would you still feel this way?
>>
> 
> 
> I have both a "living will" and have signed a "power of attorney for medical 
> issues" document - to deal with such issues in MY case.  If she had done such, I 
> beleive that things would be "much clearer" and I certainly would encourage 
> others to take these steps (or whatever your local government allows to handle 
> such issues).

This is good - I have one somewhere, but it's a little out of date.  I 
know they've changed them up now, so that you don't have to worry that 
if you have a DNR, they won't try to save you - just harvest your 
organs.  :)

> PERSONALLY, I have minimal "philosophical" objection to suicide - and would 
> allow a person in his/her "right mind" (if such is possible) to take that step. 
> The next step of indicating under what circumstances a person would want others 
> (doctors, hospital, "loved ones") to implement their desires under specific 
> situations, is also reasonable.

That's interesting (your suicide view)...

> Now, in the Terri Shiavo case, there MAY be some question about whether she 
> really did or did not convey her desires to her husband.  If that was what was 
> being argued in the courts, I would have more sympathy with those trying to keep 
> her alive.  However, as *I* hear the news reports, her parents are stating that 
> she was a "good Catholic" and that she wouldn't want to commit a "mortal sin" 
> but NOT that they heard her (after the reports from her husband) actually 
> indicate that she would want to be kept alive in a "vegatative state".  Even if 
> her parents did argue with her husband about exactly what views she had 
> expressed AND when, I think I would "err" on the side of believing her husband - 
> unless there was evidence from "neutral parties" that she did not have such a 
> relationship with her husband.

I know the Catholic angle was there - but, she has been being denied 
"therapy" for quite some time, beginning 7 years ago (3 years after he 
began seeing this "new woman").  Nurses were fired for giving her a 
washcloth with a piece of apple, for her to chew on and swallow the 
flavored saliva from.  They were prohibited from putting a small towel 
in her hand to prevent her fingernails from cutting her hand, because 
that was considered "therapy".

There are also reports from nurses that when Michael would come in, he 
would kick all the nurses out of the room - and, when he left, Terri 
would seem very agitated.  (Now I'm staring to delve into the realm of 
opinion...)  This abuse has been going on for years and years - it seems 
that Michael did everything in his power to *ensure* that she didn't 
recover, didn't come out of whatever state she was in.  It's even been 
discussed in here recently - if you don't use it, you lose it.

Now, after these years of abuse and neglect, the very condition that the 
abuse and neglect prolonged is being used as rationale for her demise. 
I'm sure Michael Schiavo isn't the first guy to get away with killing 
his wife, and he won't be the last.  It just concerns me that, given all 
these details from the first paragraph and a half are contained in sworn 
depositions from this case, these concerns are not being taken seriously.

There are times when it is inappropriate for someone to be the guardian 
of someone else, and I think this is one of these cases.  Ann Coulter 
was priceless in her column - she said that this precedent was set in 
that landmark case _Fox v. Henhouse_ of 1898.

> Finally, I don't think that I quite understand what is and isn't actually 
> happening vs what is being reported.  It seems to me that the news reports have 
> indicated that the courts have said that the feeding (and hydration) "tubes" 
> needed to be removed.  However, there seems to be some evidence that she is not 
> being given any food or water thru "normal" means.  Some of the medical experts 
> say that a person in a vegatative state CAN chew and swallow.  If this is the 
> case, then I (like you - I think) don't understand why her parents and the 
> hospice are being denied the right to provide these.

We're in agreement on this.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 3:24:21 AM
In article <d1uob4$1nk$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-F9D03B.08572724032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
> >In article <d1u4uk$hcc$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> >
> >> In article 
> >> <joe_zitzelberger-5ACE7B.23304623032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> >> Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> >While on the (off-topic) topic of politicians claiming it is an 
> >> >investment, not a tax, here are some selected quotes from the MacDaddy 
> >> >of the program himself, Mr. FDR.  
> >> >
> >> >He should server quite well to address questions about when 'the state' 
> >> >claimed that Social Security was insurance and not a tax -- that is how 
> >> >he sold it to the people when he was the head of 'the state'.  Few 
> >> >Democrats have had original thoughts since.
> >> 
> >> Ummmm... the most recent quote you show appears to be from 1935 and states 
> >> what the system 'should be'; this thread has already shown a quote from 
> >> the IRS dated 1939 showing what it had become.
> >> 
> >> (All of the quotations you post indicate that the Social Security program 
> >> was not in existence ('funds... should be raised, system... should be 
> >> self-sustaining'), indicating that it is not yet in existence; it is 
> >> compared to the New York State Old Age Pension Act where it appears 
> >> that 'funds are raised from taxation'.
> >> 
> >> This has been going on a few days, now... fascinating that saying 'social 
> >> security is not a tax, but an investment' is so very common that it is 
> >> easy to find citations of it.
> >
> >I know what it was from the start -- a tax.  But there are many that 
> >have long claimed that it was not.  The oft cited canard about 
> >'contributions' financing ones 'insurance' is an obvious 
> >misrepresentation -- or more accurately a 'lie'.
> 
> This 'canard' has been mentioned here repeatedly and yet nobody seems to 
> be able to bring up a cite for it.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >However, the two times I googled the topic I quite quickly found two  
> >cites that indicate there was gross misrepresentation of the program as 
> >'insurance-not-taxes' from the beginning.
> 
> It should be easy enough to bring them forward, then.  Would you be so 
> kind as to do so?
> 
> DD

If it is not enough to have FDR's statement from 70-odd years ago where 
he said _publically_:

"Get these facts straight, the Act provides for two kinds of insurance 
for the worker.  For that insurance both the employer and the worker pay 
premiums -- just as you pay on any other insurance policy...Here the 
employer contributes one dollar in premium for every dollar of premium 
contributed by the worker; but both dollars are held by the government 
solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age."

of course that was totally false under the provisions of the act as it 
was first passed and ever since.

However, if 70 year old cites are not good, how about the current Senate 
Minority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada.  His website at 
"http://reid.senate.gov/socialsecurity/index.cfm" repeatedly refers to 
the "insurance" myth, for example:

"It is much more than just another financial investment and I am 
committed to ensuring that it remains a stable and secure insurance 
policy"

and the guaranteed benefit myth:

"I am concerned that replacing Social Securitys defined benefit with a 
system of private accounts would result in the loss of guaranteed level 
of benefits for the more than 46 million Social Security recipients."

and

"Social Security was designed to be an insurance plan, not an investment 
program. Instead of guaranteed benefits based on an individual's work 
history"

Even thought the program is not, and never was, insurance (see Helvering 
vs. Davis 1937).  Nor were there ever any guaranteed benefits. (see 
Fleming vs. Nestor 1960).  Though this is the way it was, and still is, 
sold to the people.

So why do all workers have a Social Security ACCOUNT Number?

And why such an outcry in the early Bush administration when ssa.gov 
started representing the program as the law structures it?  Unless it 
had been previously misrepresenting?
0
3/25/2005 3:37:21 AM
In article <ioD0e.773480$8l.485230@pd7tw1no>,
 "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> The Right in the USA has always needed a bogeyman. No Labor - then 
> Democrats look like a good substitute. (Go back 50 years and the 
> Democrats become 'those goddamn commies').

Correction -- the democrats still are 'those goddamn commies' -- they 
just lost their roll model (the USSR) and hired a marketing firm or six.
0
3/25/2005 3:41:00 AM
jce wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
> news:e0d42$42423071$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to 
>>die.
> 
> Let me be _very_ clear here.   CONVICTED = GUILTY <> YEP, THE DEFENDENT DID 
> IT

And how do we know that?  Because the convicted were given long, drawn 
out appeals - and during that appeals process, new evidence was found 
that exonerated them.

> A person is convicted of a capital crime based on a court system.  The court 
> system allows for evidence to support the and defend the person.   At the 
> end of the trial - "guilt" is assigned.  This guilt is sometimes very well 
> established, at other times the conviction is based purely on circumstancial 
> evidence such as a witness statement.
> 
> In the Terri case courts used some of the same methods:
> 
> Testimony that in 1990,1991,1992 there was no swallowing reflex as 
> established by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.

Okay - 13 years ago.  Medical science doesn't advance much in 13 years, 
does it?

> Every year through 1997 a speech pathologist examined her said that could 
> not be rehabilitated and had high risk of aspiration.

8 years ago - but still, there has been more recent testimony than that 
indicating that she does *not* aspirate, consuming over a liter a day of 
her own saliva with no suction needed to clear it, and no infection.

> Medical opinion is on COURT RECORDS that oral nutrition would result in 
> aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing through.  Such aspiration 
> would lead to infection, fever and pneumonia.  The suctioning to resolve 
> this would kill her.

Let me talk a bit about medical opinion - it is often crafted in a 
CYA-type fashion.  Medical opinion told my wife that she needed to 
terminate her pregnancy at 4 weeks - there's *no* way the baby would 
make it, there's a high likelihood that *she* wouldn't make it, and even 
if she did, her blood pressure would be through the roof.

Jameson was born February 28th of this year, at 36 weeks old, weighing 7 
pounds and 3 ounces.  Completely healthy.  (And, there a picture in the 
blog entry for it, currently the second one down on the page linked in 
the sig...  :>  )

So we (the government, the people) should kill others based on 
8-year-old (your emphasis) MEDICAL OPINION?

> So what is the difference between your CONVICTED murderers as determined by 
> court.  And the wishes of Terri as determined by court ?  Don't tell me that 
> its 12 jurors who haven't read a newspaper.

It is impossible to know what Terri's wishes are - she cannot tell us. 
Her husband, whose motives are suspect at best, has nothing but hearsay 
from 15 years ago (amazingly, spousal privilege doesn't seem to be a 
concern there).

Think about this, too.  Go back 15 years, and think about some of the 
things you said then.  Do you still feel the same way about those things 
now?  I know for me, there are lots of things that are different.  How 
do we know that her wishes haven't changed?  (As Bill and others have 
said - get that living will in order...)

> I don't pretend the decision is an easy one.  I know it is a hard one, but I 
> also have to believe that the decisions have been made in her best interest 
> as determined by the courts.  I know people that have died of their own 
> choosing by switching off dialysis, or refusing medication.  I know people 
> that have had diabetes and heart problems and do not maintain a diet. 
> They're personal choices - not choices for bunch of anti-conservatives and 
> not a for a bunch of conservatives.

So you don't think that government-ordered starvation doesn't set just a 
teeny-weeny little bit of a bad precedent?  If she want to die, give her 
a shot and get it over with - don't starve her to death...

> Politics in america is like a football game - you're either with the home 
> fans, or with the away fans.  People forget to discuss issues and take 
> sides...it's rather sad.

Like I told Jimmy - I haven't heard any conservatives that want her 
dead.  (Not saying they don't exist, I just haven't heard them.)

> Terri is in the state she is in because she PUT HERSELF there.  If she had 
> required a heart transplant at the time of her collapse she could not get 
> one because of the psychiatric conditions involved.  Terri did not do 
> anything to suggest that she valued her life when she was living. Perhaps 
> this is why I feel the way I do - she cared enough about other peoples 
> perception of her healthy self to do this much damage.  I cannot believe she 
> would have wanted to be seen worldwide like this.....and I have to assume 
> that the courts agreed with this/

Oh - so *now* we want to hold folks to personal responsibility.  You're 
for eliminating welfare and social security then?

> The above examples show people not actually executed - however, they show 
> that there is some chance of error.  Defenders will claim that _ZERO_ have 
> been executed when they were innocent - only it's a little too late to 
> really ask and find out I would suspect.

You won't hear me make that claim.  Realizing that the government has 
the power to take life only underscores the importance of electing 
people who will use that power judiciously and only as a last resort.

> On a final note,  I suppose if there had been no death penalty then Jesus 
> would have just been put in jail without parole for our sins...not nearly as 
> catchy as died for our sins...but maybe just maybe it would have quieted Mel 
> Gibson.

I don't think that's what God would have accepted...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=9&verse=22&version=50&context=verse


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 3:45:04 AM
Donald Tees wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
> 
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>>> On 23-Mar-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thus, I think it's not about life or death, it's about one spouse's 
>>>> *legal*
>>>> right to allow the other to die with dignity and not to prolong that
>>>> spouse's life artificially.
>>>
>>> Having life prolonged by well-meaning governments is the substance of 
>>> horror SF.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that feeding medical patients food and water (and she 
>> can take both without the tube) was "prolonging life" - I thought it 
>> was what happened when you're in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice.
> 
> You cannot seem to see the difference between giving someone food and 
> forcing it down their throat with a tube to make political points. Of 
> course, *most* rapists insist that the victim really wanted it.

She can eat *without the tube*.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 4:20:28 AM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 23-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to
>>die.  I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they*
>>are the ones for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what
>>if advances in technology can prove their innocence?"  However, no such
>>advances are hoped for Terri.
>>
>>Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent.  No wonder I'm not
>>a liberal...
> 
> 
> I've seen people say the same thing about conservatives on this "right to life"
> issue.

Kill the guilty, let the innocent live?

> The thing is that both of you are lumping in a lot of different people
> with a wide variety of beliefs and noting that all those beliefs aren't
> consistent.

The standard liberal, pro-abortion, anti-religion groups are the ones 
lobbying for her death.  The conservative, pro-life, pro-religion groups 
are the ones lobbying for her life.  There are exceptions, but the 
grouping is there.

> You have to know conservatives who have beliefs that you disagree
> with.   (Heck, the variations of conservative Christians in a small church are
> large)

Of course - there are folks in our church with diverse beliefs.  I even 
saw a car in our parking lot with a John Kerry bumper sticker.  (Now 
there's someone who needs some churchin'!  ;>  )

> Don't worry about labels.

I'm not - they're just awfully convenient, especially when they fall 
into line so nicely, as they do in this case.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 4:25:09 AM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 23-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>That makes sense - and that's what makes the "Bush Lied" crowd so...
>>comical (if not annoying).  "We were sent into Iraq on a lie!"  No, we
>>were sent in with what was, by the time we got there, faulty
>>information.  We'll never know if that intel *was* accurate at the time
>>it was gathered.
> 
> They should say "We were sent to Iraq on a massive federal screw-up".

It wasn't just us!  The entire coalition (Britain, Australia, Italy, 
etc.) thought the same thing.

Stale intelligence is often useless...


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 4:26:34 AM
Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:dccd3$424230fe$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
> 
>>I wasn't aware that feeding medical patients food and water (and she can
>>take both without the tube) was "prolonging life" - I thought it was
>>what happened when you're in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice.
> 
> 
> JCE posted:
> 
> <<Testimony that in 1990,1991,1992 there was no swallowing reflex as
> established by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.>>
> 
> and
> 
> <<Medical opinion is on COURT RECORDS that oral nutrition would result in
> aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing through.  Such aspiration
> would lead to infection, fever and pneumonia.  The suctioning to resolve
> this would kill her.>>
> 
> Do you have evidence to the contrary that she *can* get sufficient nutrition
> and hydration by "conventioal" methods of eating and drinking  (including,
> but not limited to, such tasks as chewing and swallowing)?

I've read portions of depositions given by nurses and other health care 
workers who cared for her, that spoke to both her abilities as well as 
Michael's behavior.  I'm sure they're out there on the web.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 4:28:49 AM
LX-i wrote:
> Jameson was born February 28th of this year, at 36 weeks old, weighing 7 
> pounds and 3 ounces.  Completely healthy.  (And, there a picture in the 
> blog entry for it, currently the second one down on the page linked in 
> the sig...  :>  )

My mistake (I don't know my own sig!) - it's the second entry down on 
the "Daniel J. Summers Personal Web Site" link, found on the page link 
in my sig.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 4:34:23 AM
LX-i wrote:
> 
> 
> Does someone without "health care" mean that the government should get 
> involved?  I'm of the belief that *most* folks without "health care" are 
> without it due to the choices they have made in their life - and, 
> conversely, those who "have it" are also there due to the choices they 
> have made in their lives.  Rewarding irresponsible behavior with free 
> money (or health care, or whatever) only encourages irresponsibility.
> 
> When people have high stakes, they are usually also highly motivated. 
> I'm in that current situation now with one aspect of my military service.
> 
Daniel - there's the essential difference between Conservatism and 
Liberalism, and not particularly associated with one country's politics. 
In the UK historically we had Whigs (Liberals) and Tories 
(Conservatives) from the Georgian period. Tories primarily represented 
the nobility whereas the Whigs/Liberals were the merchant class. Not too 
much difference - both were either interested in retaining a buck, 
(Tories) or making a buck (Whigs).

Not a clean cut line - but the Tories were the Empire builders; the 
Whigs, merchants and naturally they followed where the Empire was set 
up. Again also not a clear cut line, but the Whigs/Liberals were the 
ones with a social conscience - which held fine until after WWI - then 
the Liberals came a cropper because a more ardent form of social 
conscience took place - Labour/Socialism.

Let's take your above reference to mean dead-beats, idlers, scroungers, 
not motivated  - choose your word/phrase. It seems to me a bit of a push 
to describe 40 million of your population as being dead-beats. Like it 
or not, it boils down to, very often, 'being in the right place at the 
right time' - for opportunity to occur.

Reverse the roles - dead-beats versus the 'flourishing' - put everybody 
back in the Stone Age. A fair proportion of the dead-beats might have 
been brawny Neanderthals clipping you around the head with a dinosaur 
bone. "Hey ! That's not fair". "Yes it is. Survival of the fittest !".

I know you rated zero as a Tupperware/Vacuum salesmen (whichever it was) 
- Me to if I had tried it :-). Then due to your own built-in abilities, 
intelligence, probably with a lot of hard slog, grabbed on to 
programming and the USAF - not sure which was first. Like it or not, 
those 40 million can't all be Sgt. Daniels. A handful might - but even 
if you offered the remainder a starting bonus of $50K the majority would 
never become programmers.

I'm not for one moment suggesting reward indolence. All should be 
encouraged to be self-motivated and achieve a reward of riches in their 
lives. There are some that are truly idle, but also many more who just 
don't have the savvy to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - should 
we totally ignore them ?

The 'Right' views it as the state *must* provide military defence to 
defend the nation - and as you put it elsewhere 'kick butt'. Suggest 
that other 'rights' should be provided by the state, then you folks come 
on real strong - very often highlighting there are no such rights - 
although it's still OK to kill folks using your military. (No - I'm not 
a peacenik - how could I possibly be after 12 years in the RAF).

I''m not going to get into a razzle here suggesting what some other 
rights might be - sometimes liberals (small "L") think in terms of 'new 
rights', other times they reject such suggestions. And when running a 
state, idealism counts for naught if you don't have the money in your 
national bank account to support new ideals.

Could keep going - but to try and make the point seeing that you are a 
religious man. Sit yourself down quietly for half an hour and meditate, 
meditate - meditate on the parable of 'The Rich Man and the Poor Man".
Reflect on the message that Jesus was giving. (Hopefully the Baptist 
interpretation of that parable matches the Catholic one !). Good Friday 
tomorrow - excellent day to do the meditating.

Jimmy
0
3/25/2005 6:53:49 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:33e30$4243938f$45491f85$5288@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:dccd3$424230fe$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET...
>>
>>
>>>I wasn't aware that feeding medical patients food and water (and she can
>>>take both without the tube) was "prolonging life" - I thought it was
>>>what happened when you're in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice.
>>
>>
>> JCE posted:
>>
>> <<Testimony that in 1990,1991,1992 there was no swallowing reflex as
>> established by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.>>
>>
>> and
>>
>> <<Medical opinion is on COURT RECORDS that oral nutrition would result in
>> aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing through.  Such aspiration
>> would lead to infection, fever and pneumonia.  The suctioning to resolve
>> this would kill her.>>
>>
>> Do you have evidence to the contrary that she *can* get sufficient 
>> nutrition
>> and hydration by "conventioal" methods of eating and drinking 
>> (including,
>> but not limited to, such tasks as chewing and swallowing)?
>
> I've read portions of depositions given by nurses and other health care 
> workers who cared for her, that spoke to both her abilities as well as 
> Michael's behavior.  I'm sure they're out there on the web.

Those depositions should be available and recorded in a court document 
somewhere I presume?
There _were_ court proceedings, I would think that someone would have liked 
to bring them up.

I don't think anyone would mind if the parent snuck in some Mickey D's.  If 
indeed she can swallow then I'm sure she won't die.

JCE


0
defaultuser (532)
3/25/2005 8:17:47 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:ac289$424381b9$45491f85$23919@KNOLOGY.NET...
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>> LX-i wrote:
> Does someone without "health care" mean that the government should get 
> involved?  I'm of the belief that *most* folks without "health care" are 
> without it due to the choices they have made in their life - and, 
> conversely, those who "have it" are also there due to the choices they 
> have made in their lives.  Rewarding irresponsible behavior with free 
> money (or health care, or whatever) only encourages irresponsibility.

Yes, it's a shame when you choose to be born to poor parents.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
3/25/2005 8:20:48 AM
..    On  24.03.05
  wrote  lxi0007@netscape.net (LX-i)
     on  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
     in  ac289$424381b9$45491f85$23919@KNOLOGY.NET
  about  Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"


l> Does someone without "health care" mean that the government should get
l> involved?  I'm of the belief that *most* folks without "health care"
l> are without it due to the choices they have made in their life - and,
l> conversely, those who "have it" are also there due to the choices they
l> have made in their lives.


   Like chosing to be born into a poor family, you mean?

   Well, health care is the responsibility of the society as a whole  
for all its members. Call it the right to life and freedom from  
injury.

   Health care, as food, clothing, housing, education, access to  
culture and sports are basic human rights.

   Without it, a human being cannot exist or not develop itself to the  
full extent of their abilities.

   A society which can't guarantee such basic humand rights needs to  
be changed quite urgently.

   Have a look at the small island country just south of the USA as a  
counter example.


l> Rewarding irresponsible behavior with free
l> money (or health care, or whatever) only encourages irresponsibility.

   Makes me think of Enron, Worldcom and the like, also all the wars  
fought by the USA in the past decades.


L�ko Willms                                     http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Man stattete ihm sehr hei�en, schon etwas verbrannten Dank ab. -G.C.Lichtenberg
0
l.willms1 (637)
3/25/2005 9:14:00 AM
..    On  24.03.05
  wrote  howard@brazee.net (Howard Brazee)
     on  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
     in  d1uk8t$q10$1@peabody.colorado.edu
  about  OT -socialism


HB> Does anybody have definitions of fascism and National Socialism that
HB> are not emotionally connected to the states we associate them with?

   Well, its hard to explain it in abstract terms.

   The main point is the violent destruction of each and every form of  
independent organisation of working people, so that they can be  
subjected to exploitation without any resistance. This is not achieved  
by police violence alone, but it uses the mob violence of a petty- 
bourgeois mass movement.

   Fascism is the name given to the rule of Mussolini in Italy,  
derived from the symbol used by his movment, the antique Roman  
"fascii". Fascism then became the generic term for this political  
phenomenon; "national socialism" is part of the name of the  
corresponding party in Germany, intended to fool the adherants.


HB> I get the idea that these are states where nominal ownership of
HB> companies is the people, but the state runs them.

   No, the goal is to strengthen the rule of private property. If  
there were public works programs and investements in Hitler's Germany,  
that was just another form of Keynesian economic policy, just as the  
New Deal in the USA. Just that in the German case, the bill had to be  
paid by the robberies by war than in the case of Roosevelt.


Yours,
L�ko Willms                                     http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

�ngstlich zu sinnen und zu denken, was man h�tte tun k�nnen, ist das �belste, was man tun _kann_. -G.C.Lichtenberg
0
l.willms1 (637)
3/25/2005 9:23:00 AM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-411CBB.22372124032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <d1uob4$1nk$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> In article <joe_zitzelberger-F9D03B.08572724032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
>> Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >In article <d1u4uk$hcc$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

[snip]

>> >> This has been going on a few days, now... fascinating that saying 'social 
>> >> security is not a tax, but an investment' is so very common that it is 
>> >> easy to find citations of it.
>> >
>> >I know what it was from the start -- a tax.  But there are many that 
>> >have long claimed that it was not.  The oft cited canard about 
>> >'contributions' financing ones 'insurance' is an obvious 
>> >misrepresentation -- or more accurately a 'lie'.
>> 
>> This 'canard' has been mentioned here repeatedly and yet nobody seems to 
>> be able to bring up a cite for it.
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >However, the two times I googled the topic I quite quickly found two  
>> >cites that indicate there was gross misrepresentation of the program as 
>> >'insurance-not-taxes' from the beginning.
>> 
>> It should be easy enough to bring them forward, then.  Would you be so 
>> kind as to do so?
>> 
>> DD
>
>If it is not enough to have FDR's statement from 70-odd years ago where 
>he said _publically_:

Already addressed, and it has been pointed out that this was specifically 
changed by the 1939 revisions.

[snip]

>However, if 70 year old cites are not good, how about the current Senate 
>Minority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada.  His website at 
>"http://reid.senate.gov/socialsecurity/index.cfm" repeatedly refers to 
>the "insurance" myth, for example:
>
>"It is much more than just another financial investment and I am 
>committed to ensuring that it remains a stable and secure insurance 
>policy"

Finally!  Well, that's at least half... the 'an insurance policy'.  The 
assertion was, as stated originally and above, 'not a tax, an 
investment'... and from the same page:

--begin quoted text:

Diverting current payroll taxes into personal accounts would mean the loss 
of revenues that pay the benefits of today's retirees. In order to make 
privatization work, benefits would need to be cut, the retirement age 
would need to be raised, or taxes would need to be increased.

--end quoted text

.... clearly and unambiguously showing that the funds result from taxation.

Now if you wish to say this fellow is asserting that the funds result from 
taxation and are not a tax... then I would be interested in learning how 
you come to that conclusion.

As for this 'guaranteed benefit' matter you raise... please, one factual 
matter at a time.  Mr Brazee's assertion of 'not a tax, an investment' 
seems to be as unsupported as when it was originally made... and notice 
how the originator has abandoned it?

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
3/25/2005 10:23:09 AM
In article <1146ti0l9rije4a@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>James J. Gavan wrote:

[snip]

>> Technology - you bombed the shit out of the Taliban in Afghanistan,
>> (and quite rightly so after 9/11), but with all that murderous
>> firepower, Afghanistan is not a safe spot to take your family on an
>> afternoon picnic - so much for technology.
>
>Maybe not a picnic, but you overlook the pure joy of killing those pests.

[snip]

>> The Right in the USA has always needed a bogeyman. No Labor - then
>> Democrats look like a good substitute. (Go back 50 years and the
>> Democrats become 'those goddamn commies').
>
>Good point. Eric Hoffer said: "A mass movement can survive without a god, 
>but it cannot survive without a devil. All mass movements must have 
>something to hate." Currently, Republicans hate labor unions and Democrats 
>hate God.

[snip]

>So it's not surprising that Sorkin would use 
>this mantra as a sub-plot. Sorkin evidently feels that since he and his band 
>are already going to burn in Hell forever, one more bit of misdirection 
>won't matter.

This, to me, shows a 'fundamentalist's prejudice', found in any extreme 
form of monotheism of which I am aware: 'Those whose opinions differ from 
mine are against The Lord'.

Granted that I am a man of limited experience... but I have never seen 
anything productive come of it.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/25/2005 12:30:31 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:12a7b$42438477$45491f85$24537@KNOLOGY.NET...

> > Some of the medical experts
> > say that a person in a vegatative state CAN chew and swallow.  If this
is the
> > case, then I (like you - I think) don't understand why her parents and
the
> > hospice are being denied the right to provide these.
>
> We're in agreement on this.

The question is not whether *some* people in a permanent vegetative state
can chew or swallow; the question is whether *Terri Schiavo* can chew or
swallow.  I can't speak to whether she is capable of chewing without
mangling either her tongue or the inside of her mouth (my suspicion is that
she cannot), but there is sworn testimony from physicians that she does not
have the swallow reflex, and she is likely to inhale anything they try to
feed her by mouth.  That's why they *haven't* been giving her nutrition that
way.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
3/25/2005 4:07:23 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b98ab$42439199$45491f85$4979@KNOLOGY.NET...

> She can eat *without the tube*.

Video clip, please, or credible sworn medical testimony to that effect.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
3/25/2005 4:11:13 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:33e30$4243938f$45491f85$5288@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
> > "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:dccd3$424230fe$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET...
> >
> >
> >>I wasn't aware that feeding medical patients food and water (and she can
> >>take both without the tube) was "prolonging life" - I thought it was
> >>what happened when you're in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice.
> >
> >
> > JCE posted:
> >
> > <<Testimony that in 1990,1991,1992 there was no swallowing reflex as
> > established by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.>>
> >
> > and
> >
> > <<Medical opinion is on COURT RECORDS that oral nutrition would result
in
> > aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing through.  Such aspiration
> > would lead to infection, fever and pneumonia.  The suctioning to resolve
> > this would kill her.>>
> >
> > Do you have evidence to the contrary that she *can* get sufficient
nutrition
> > and hydration by "conventioal" methods of eating and drinking
(including,
> > but not limited to, such tasks as chewing and swallowing)?
>
> I've read portions of depositions given by nurses and other health care
> workers who cared for her, that spoke to both her abilities as well as
> Michael's behavior.  I'm sure they're out there on the web.

I am aware of the nurse who claims that Michael Schiavo beat Terri and
repeatedly asked "When is that b..ch going to die?", but I am unaware of
*any* corroboration for this.  I'm also aware of the physician who claims to
have been nominated for a Nobel prize in medicine and who thinks he can cure
Terri by putting her in a hyperbaric chamber.  And I'm aware of the
physician who went to visit her and is arguing for reinsertion of the
feeding tube on the scientific grounds that he felt her life force as he
entered the room.   I think the preponderance of the scientific evidence and
the sworn testimony -- including that of the guardian ad litem appointed by
the state of Florida -- is that she has limited reflexes and no detectable
conscious responses at all.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
3/25/2005 4:17:16 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <1146ti0l9rije4a@news.supernews.com>,
> HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
I see Doc already picked up on the following, regarding the fictional 
'West Wing' :-

>>So it's not surprising that Sorkin would use 
>>this mantra as a sub-plot. Sorkin evidently feels that since he and his band 
>>are already going to burn in Hell forever, one more bit of misdirection 
>>won't matter.

So let me get this right.

For my money 95% of TV viewing in N. America is abysmal. Flipping 
channels I saw that 'American Idol' got the LARGEST viewer rating EVER - 
oh my gawd ! Perhaps I might watch at best some two hours of TV in an 
evening, either looking for decent movies, documentaries (primarily PBS 
- shows like 'Frontline'), or a well-scripted fictional like 'West 
Wing'. My prime objective to be entertained and secondly, as an adjunct, 
be informed. (One that recently caught my interest was 'House' the 
quirky Dr. House with his medical investigative team. I like its 
premise, can't guarantee though that I will always be interested in 
watching it).

Our friend Mr. Sorkin is an absolute LEFTIE. So before I sit down to 
watch anything, I should first establish is the CEO of the TV network a 
very rich but rabid Leftie. Carry the commie search through the 
executive levels, quiz who producers and directors are and their 
political affiliations. Better do the same with the script writers. What 
about the actors - should I give 'West Wing' a miss because fictional 
president Martin Sheen, in his non-acting capacity, states quite openly 
that he thinks GWB is a bozo.

Caught the last part of Costa Grivas 'Missing' starring Jack Lemmon and 
Sissy Spacek. Fair bet Costa is a Leftie picking holes in Pinochet's 
regime, plus for good measure he threw in some supportive US military.
What about actor Jack, now dead; he starred in that 'Three Mile Island' 
movie along with then young Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas. Could it be 
that Jack was a latent commie. (Well we *all* know Jane is a Leftie - 
that ill chosen visit to Viet Nam).

The other side of the coin. Should I stop watching re-runs of John Wayne 
and Jimmy Stewart movies because both actors were declared Republicans - 
but to my mind, 'Norman Rockwell' type Republicans - honest views from a 
different age, and in non-rabid fashion proud of their country.

The logical conclusion from your comments - you want to censor the arts 
where they don't fit with your image.

Give me a break. Can't I think for myself and sift the wheat from the 
chaff ?

Jimmy
0
3/25/2005 6:07:21 PM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> Let's take your above reference to mean dead-beats, idlers, scroungers, 
> not motivated  - choose your word/phrase. It seems to me a bit of a push 
> to describe 40 million of your population as being dead-beats. Like it 
> or not, it boils down to, very often, 'being in the right place at the 
> right time' - for opportunity to occur.

That 40 million estimate was health care *insurance*, not health care. 
Our health care system has some problems, I'll admit; the biggest being 
the ridiculous markup that is now attached to medical care, so that they 
can charge the "real price" to members of the HMOs.  Personally, I think 
they should charge what they charge, and then be done with it.  Costs 
would be slightly higher for HMOs/PPOs, but lower for the average joe.

> I know you rated zero as a Tupperware/Vacuum salesmen (whichever it was) 
> - Me to if I had tried it :-).

Mine was knives and Amway - my wife is the one who was *very good* with 
the vacuums...  :)

> Then due to your own built-in abilities, 
> intelligence, probably with a lot of hard slog, grabbed on to 
> programming and the USAF - not sure which was first. Like it or not, 
> those 40 million can't all be Sgt. Daniels. A handful might - but even 
> if you offered the remainder a starting bonus of $50K the majority would 
> never become programmers.

But, this isn't the first time I've done well in my job.

The first job I had was washing dishes at a local restaurant.  Over 
time, I began busing tables, then I was scheduled to be the middleman 
between the dining room and the kitchen (called "swing").  Finally, I 
was trained on the salad bar (yes, this all sounds rather hokey, but 
barely being 16 at the time, it was a *big* deal - working the salad bar 
was the easiest job in the place, and by the time you were allowed to do 
that, you were making the most money).  My best night was Valentine's 
Day evening - there was a line out the front door, people were parking a 
block away, the checkout line was back halfway through the dining room! 
  We were slammed!  Nothing on the salad bar ever dipped below 1/2 full 
(except for the lettuce, but it was never empty).  Management recognized 
this, and I got a raise the following month.

Then, one of my friends who was a delivery driver for Godfather's Pizza 
in town told me they were looking for someone to work the counter (take 
orders and clean tables).  I decided to work there.  As I had free time, 
I paid attention to what the cooks did, and helped keep the dishes 
clean.  Within 6 months, I was an acting shift manager, called in at the 
last minute when the entire management of one of the stores quit.  A few 
weeks later, they dropped the "acting" - a few months later, they moved 
me to another store as "assistant", and when the manager quit, they gave 
me the store.  I managed three of the local stores in town, and brought 
the bottom line up at all three.  Eventually, the owner folded (and, I 
think, with legal troubles), so that went away.

The next few jobs weren't anything to write home about - working for a 
car rental place, cleaning cars and doing airport valet parking; working 
at Cracker Barrel, where I was rising quickly but had a personality 
conflict with one of the managers, who eventually found an excuse to get 
rid of me (and their managers support each other, even when they are 
wrong...); working as a cook at Waffle House (whose business slumped, so 
they could afford that new cook they thought they needed); and working 
at a buffet place (which has to be, hands-down, the worst job I've ever 
had).

The next job was Hardee's.  I started on the counter, and on my first 
day, ended up working 10 hours to cover for someone who didn't show up. 
  I worked the counter for a couple of months, paying attention to what 
went on in the back.  A little drive-thru work, then a kitchen position 
opened up, and I asked them if I could try it.  They put me back there 
on a Saturday morning, and it was the first Saturday morning that the 
drive-thru line wasn't almost out into the road.  Every order was out 
within 30 seconds of it being called back, I worked with the back cook 
to make sure I kept the ingredients coming - it was great!

I could see, though, that I didn't want to go the Hardee's management 
route - so, I left there, and went back to the only Godfather's that was 
still open (the manager had bought it from the old owner), and worked as 
her assistant manager.  It was a lot of fun, because we were both "old 
hats" at running a Godfather's - in fact, it was she who trained me on 
the management aspects.  Met a woman through working there who almost 
became my wife...

A year at school, a new wife - and I need a job.  I go to Olsten 
Staffing Service, a temporary agency.  Through them, I worked at several 
different places around town, doing everything from writing down phone 
messages from a voice mailbox, to typing in a manual for which a 
hospital didn't have a soft copy, to working in the ATM department of a 
local bank, to dispatching Coke machine repairmen.  Some of the tasks 
were hard work, and I was never let go before the assignment was 
naturally over.  (In fact, I worked myself out of a job at two of them.)

(I know this is getting long, but bear with me - there's a point at the 
end...)  Finally, I had been working on the weekends helping to load 
trucks at the local newspaper, for the big Sunday edition.  They 
eventually put me in charge of the warehouse, which was significant in 
that I was the only person over there - what that said was that they 
trusted me enough to do the work that needed to be done that they didn't 
need someone watching over my shoulder.  Then, in circulation, a 
District Manager position opened up - I applied, and they took me.  It 
was hard work, yes, but I was doing well.  An at-fault wreck in a 
company truck sank that one, though.

My point is this.  Are you telling me that I've been "lucky" 6 times?  I 
just don't buy that.  Employers like me because I'm dedicated, I don't 
mind working hard, I'm respectful, and I give 100% nearly every day. 
(Hey, we all have "those days"...)  And notice the range of jobs there - 
restaurants, manual labor, office work, dispatching.  If someone in this 
country wants to work, the work is there.  It may not be your favorite 
thing (trust me, you *do* get sick of pizza after a while), but if it 
puts money in the bank, it fulfills the need.

> I'm not for one moment suggesting reward indolence. All should be 
> encouraged to be self-motivated and achieve a reward of riches in their 
> lives. There are some that are truly idle, but also many more who just 
> don't have the savvy to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - should 
> we totally ignore them ?

No - we should come up with programs that help them.  But, by "help" I 
don't mean "give money" - if they're not savvy, educate them!  Our 
church does this all the time - on Sunday evenings, there's a class in 
the worship center, but there are all sorts of other classes, on 
everything from an in-depth study of one book of the Bible, to 
parenting, to investing, to arts & crafts.

We also need to define "we".  Government has little to no business 
running social programs.  They're inefficient, and in this country, 
they're an un-Constitutional use of taxpayer funds.  Private charities 
and religious organizations do a *much* better job of charity than 
government - and *especially* national/federal government.

> The 'Right' views it as the state *must* provide military defence to 
> defend the nation - and as you put it elsewhere 'kick butt'. Suggest 
> that other 'rights' should be provided by the state, then you folks come 
> on real strong - very often highlighting there are no such rights - 
> although it's still OK to kill folks using your military. (No - I'm not 
> a peacenik - how could I possibly be after 12 years in the RAF).

There are valid reasons for the government to take life - defense is 
one, punishment of like crime is another.  Outside of the military, 
though, I can't think of a single federal government entity that I would 
consider "well-run".  (Some would disagree with my assessment of the 
military, too...)

> Could keep going - but to try and make the point seeing that you are a 
> religious man. Sit yourself down quietly for half an hour and meditate, 
> meditate - meditate on the parable of 'The Rich Man and the Poor Man".
> Reflect on the message that Jesus was giving. (Hopefully the Baptist 
> interpretation of that parable matches the Catholic one !). Good Friday 
> tomorrow - excellent day to do the meditating.

I'm familiar with the parable.  The focus in that parable is not on the 
poor man, though - its focus is the heart of the rich man.  And, the 
rich man's crime wasn't not giving to the poor, it was his stealing of 
the poor man's lamb.

The charity *must* come from the heart.  There a change that happens 
when the government starts getting involved with charity.  Instead of 
needy folks coming to the charitable organization or church saying "I 
need - can you please help?", the request begins to take the form of 
"It's my right - GIMMIE!"


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 8:50:28 PM
jce wrote:
> I don't think anyone would mind if the parent snuck in some Mickey D's.  If 
> indeed she can swallow then I'm sure she won't die.

That's been expressly forbidden by the court.  No food or water is to be 
given to her by any means.  They also won't allow any photography, so 
they can prove all us wackos wrong with what a "peaceful, euphoric 
transition" she's having...

People get mad when I use labels - but, why is it always the same side 
that objects to the light being shown on the truth?  If this *isn't* the 
distasteful, painful, inhumane transition that my side claims it is, why 
not tape it and prove us wrong?

Every woman seeking an abortion should be given an ultrasound, and be 
shown pictures of aborted fetuses, before they make that decision.  But 
how *dare* you insinuate that it's anything other than a "choice" - when 
it really looks from here that they're denying "informed consent" for a 
procedure that *arguably* takes a life.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 9:20:54 PM
Lueko Willms wrote:
> .    On  24.03.05
>   wrote  lxi0007@netscape.net (LX-i)
>      on  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
>      in  ac289$424381b9$45491f85$23919@KNOLOGY.NET
>   about  Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
> 
> 
> l> Does someone without "health care" mean that the government should get
> l> involved?  I'm of the belief that *most* folks without "health care"
> l> are without it due to the choices they have made in their life - and,
> l> conversely, those who "have it" are also there due to the choices they
> l> have made in their lives.
> 
> 
>    Like chosing to be born into a poor family, you mean?

That's a popular retort...

>    Health care, as food, clothing, housing, education, access to  
> culture and sports are basic human rights.

And *that* is where we disagree.  Life is a basic human right, and 
that's it (from your list above).  Combined with liberty, the rest is up 
to the individual to attain.  Hungry?  Do what you must do to obtain 
food.  Need a house?  Do what you need to do to rent/buy one.  I don't 
mind a temporary "helping hand", but defining them as rights, at least 
in this country, means that the government has to provide them.

>    Without it, a human being cannot exist or not develop itself to the  
> full extent of their abilities.

But they're not rights.  They're *responsibilities*, on parents first, 
to provide food, clothing, shelter, education, and culture.  When the 
child reaches the age that they should begin providing for themselves, 
they should.

>    A society which can't guarantee such basic humand rights needs to  
> be changed quite urgently.

In this country, you are guaranteed the *opportunity* for all these 
things.  You are not guaranteed that they will be handed to you.  (Well, 
at least you shouldn't...)

>    Have a look at the small island country just south of the USA as a  
> counter example.

Cuba?  You've got to be kidding me...  They're a lot more prosperous, 
affluent, and free than we are.

> l> Rewarding irresponsible behavior with free
> l> money (or health care, or whatever) only encourages irresponsibility.
> 
>    Makes me think of Enron, Worldcom and the like,

Was that the government?

> also all the wars fought by the USA in the past decades.

All the wars - even the one that defeated Hitler?  Even the Cold War, 
which means that *you* live in a freer Germany because of it?  Whew - we 
must just be lucky...


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/25/2005 9:27:44 PM
Here's a quote that sums up fascism pretty well:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth
of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic
State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism - ownership of government
power by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."

-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt



0
nospam30 (870)
3/25/2005 10:53:33 PM
In article <Xns9624ABD78B723SpamKillerNoSpamOrg@216.196.97.140>,
Ron  <NoSpam@NoSpam.org> wrote:
>Here's a quote that sums up fascism pretty well:
>
>"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth
>of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic
>State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism - ownership of government
>power by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."
>
>-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Yes, but that was changed by the 1939 revisions...

.... whoops, sorry, wrong thread.  Carry on.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/25/2005 11:57:52 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <Xns9624ABD78B723SpamKillerNoSpamOrg@216.196.97.140>,
> Ron  <NoSpam@NoSpam.org> wrote:
> 
>>Here's a quote that sums up fascism pretty well:
>>
>>"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth
>>of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic
>>State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism - ownership of government
>>power by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."
>>
>>-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> 
> 
> Yes, but that was changed by the 1939 revisions...
> 
> ... whoops, sorry, wrong thread.  Carry on.
> 
> DD
> 
Me too ! I was completely non-plussed, so I traced back. Under the 
thread 'Prezs and Foreign Policy', I described my time piece for Daniel.

Howard picks up on it, queries the word 'Fascism' and the nearest we get 
is he throws in 'National Socialism'. But Howard then starts a new 
thread "OT: Socialism" to make his comment, would you believe, about 
"Fascism". Howard, please do keep up - you do know the difference 
between Fascism and Socialism ? You sir are responsible for creating the 
confusion :-)

Pity our 'unofficial' Moderator just took off for a holiday/vacation in 
  Blighty - he might have kept us straight on this one.


Jimmy
0
3/26/2005 5:51:08 AM
In article <d20oqd$5j0$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> As for this 'guaranteed benefit' matter you raise... please, one factual 
> matter at a time.  Mr Brazee's assertion of 'not a tax, an investment' 
> seems to be as unsupported as when it was originally made... and notice 
> how the originator has abandoned it?
> 
> DD

The originator said that 'the state' claims that social security is not 
a tax, but an investment.  Not that that is what it is, only that the 
state has claimed thus.

You took issue with that and wanted to know when 'the state' makes such 
claims.  Yet you define 'the state' as not including the people who run 
the state:

> docdw...@panix.com Mar 17, 2:21am   show options
>
> What politicians and bureaucrats often euphemistically call things
> are not what 'the state' calls things

FDR was the head of the state -- as such, he spoke for the state, even 
with misrepresenting.  What the law says is fact, what the people who 
write the law say about it can well be described as claims.  

If the president does not, as you claim, speak for the state, who does?


Bill Clinton was also, if you will pardon the pun, the head of state.  

When he started his "National Forum on Social Security" he also started 
using the terms "social security contributions" and "payroll 
contributions" instead of tax.

"http://www.ssa.gov/history/clntstmts.html"

This is hardly coincidence coming from one of the most brilliant and 
articulate communicators in the history of the human race.
0
3/26/2005 5:19:36 PM
Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
>
> Bill Clinton was also, if you will pardon the pun, the head of state.
>
> When he started his "National Forum on Social Security" he also
> started using the terms "social security contributions" and "payroll
> contributions" instead of tax.
>
> "http://www.ssa.gov/history/clntstmts.html"
>
> This is hardly coincidence coming from one of the most brilliant and
> articulate communicators in the history of the human race.

Yes, but Clinton would lie when the truth sounded better. 


0
heybubNOSPAM (643)
3/26/2005 6:51:27 PM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-E710C1.12193626032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <d20oqd$5j0$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> As for this 'guaranteed benefit' matter you raise... please, one factual 
>> matter at a time.  Mr Brazee's assertion of 'not a tax, an investment' 
>> seems to be as unsupported as when it was originally made... and notice 
>> how the originator has abandoned it?
>> 
>
>The originator said that 'the state' claims that social security is not 
>a tax, but an investment.  Not that that is what it is, only that the 
>state has claimed thus.
>
>You took issue with that and wanted to know when 'the state' makes such 
>claims.  Yet you define 'the state' as not including the people who run 
>the state:
>
>> docdw...@panix.com Mar 17, 2:21am   show options
>>
>> What politicians and bureaucrats often euphemistically call things
>> are not what 'the state' calls things
>
>FDR was the head of the state -- as such, he spoke for the state, even 
>with misrepresenting.

And thus he did, in 1935... and in 1939 the regulations changed, as 
previously cited from http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/fica.htm in 
<http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=d1l2gr%24g1p%241%40panix5.panix.com&output=gplain>

--begin quoted text:

As part of the 1939 Amendments the Title VIII taxing provisions were taken 
out of the Social Security Act and placed in the Internal Revenue Code. 

[snip]

The payroll taxes collected for Social Security are of course taxes, but 
they can also be described as contributions to the social insurance system 
that is Social Security.

[snip]

So FICA is nothing more than the tax provisions of the Social Security 
Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.

--end quoted text

>What the law says is fact, what the people who 
>write the law say about it can well be described as claims.  

See above about the 1939 revisions.  I believe that since 1939 comes after 
Roosevelt's claims of 1935 the 1939 regulations supersede Mr Roosevelt's 
statements.

>
>If the president does not, as you claim, speak for the state, who does?

The president spoke of the situation in 1935... see above about 1939.

>
>
>Bill Clinton was also, if you will pardon the pun, the head of state.  
>
>When he started his "National Forum on Social Security" he also started 
>using the terms "social security contributions" and "payroll 
>contributions" instead of tax.
>
>"http://www.ssa.gov/history/clntstmts.html"

He also mentioned, clearly and unambiguously, taxes.  From that page:

--begin quoted text:

In fact, today we collect more money in Social Security taxes every year, 
quite a bit more, than we pay out.

--end quoted text

Not 'investment'... 'taxes'.

So... where is it that this is called 'not a tax, an investment'?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/27/2005 3:22:24 AM
In article <d258tg$rl9$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> >FDR was the head of the state -- as such, he spoke for the state, even 
> >with misrepresenting.
> 
> And thus he did, in 1935... and in 1939 the regulations changed, as 
> previously cited from http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/fica.htm in 
> <http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=d1l2gr%24g1p%241%40panix5.panix.com&ou
> tput=gplain>
> 
> --begin quoted text:
> 
> As part of the 1939 Amendments the Title VIII taxing provisions were taken 
> out of the Social Security Act and placed in the Internal Revenue Code. 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> The payroll taxes collected for Social Security are of course taxes, but 
> they can also be described as contributions to the social insurance system 
> that is Social Security.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> So FICA is nothing more than the tax provisions of the Social Security 
> Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.
> 
> --end quoted text
> 
> >What the law says is fact, what the people who 
> >write the law say about it can well be described as claims.  
> 
> See above about the 1939 revisions.  I believe that since 1939 comes after 
> Roosevelt's claims of 1935 the 1939 regulations supersede Mr Roosevelt's 
> statements.
>
> >If the president does not, as you claim, speak for the state, who does?
> 
> The president spoke of the situation in 1935... see above about 1939.
> 

It was a tax in the 1935 bill as well.  The 1939 only moved the taxing 
authority around and changed the name.  What was his excuse for the 
years 1935-1938?


> >
> >Bill Clinton was also, if you will pardon the pun, the head of state.  
> >
> >When he started his "National Forum on Social Security" he also started 
> >using the terms "social security contributions" and "payroll 
> >contributions" instead of tax.
> >
> >"http://www.ssa.gov/history/clntstmts.html"
> 
> He also mentioned, clearly and unambiguously, taxes.  From that page:
> 
> --begin quoted text:
> 
> In fact, today we collect more money in Social Security taxes every year, 
> quite a bit more, than we pay out.
> 
> --end quoted text

That page has quite a few talks given by BC -- I clearly state that when 
he went on his "National Forum on Social Security" the character of the 
speeches changes from "tasex" to "contributions".  Seems like an obvious 
case of trying to delude his listeners on that specific subject.

You make my case for me -- when he was talking on other subjects he 
didn't put on the hard sell and use "contributions".  For example, in 
one of those speeches about Y2K he uses the 'regressivness of payroll 
taxes' as a justification for more 'soak the rich' policy to fix the 
imbalance.  As I said, the man is a grand master of language and 
communication -- he could sell snow to Eskimos.


> Not 'investment'... 'taxes'.
> 
> So... where is it that this is called 'not a tax, an investment'?
> 
> DD

When BC specifically addressed the issue, his "National Forum Tour", he 
was calling it "Contributions" which is the historical language used to 
convince people that it is some form of contributory pension or annuity.
0
3/27/2005 4:28:06 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e0d42$42423071$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET...
> jce wrote:
> > GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have to
"err
> > on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death penalty count
was
> > so high in Texas.....
> > Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is
saying)
> > but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.
>
> Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to
> die.

Daniel, you are much more liberal than you think. I have noticed a pattern
of fairness and genuine concern in your posts. Your religious beliefs are a
matter of record, and, while I don't share them, I respect your right to
hold them and I respect the fact that you are not alone in having these
beliefs. However, they also colour your judgement (as I know you would be
the first to admit).

I consider myself to be a liberal and I do sometimes believe that some
convicted murderers should be allowed to live, while other medical cases
like Schiavo, should be allowed to die. I certainly believe that women
should have the right to choose whether they give birth or not. (However,
that does not mean that I see abortion as a substitute for contraception...)

So how do I reconcile these choices?

First off, I don't have a set of immutable rules to live by like: "Life is
sacred". Most of the worlds great religions would hold this to be axiomatic.
The adherents therefore have an easy choice when the difficult questions
arise... just do what God says. "Life is sacred". Abortion,  Euthanasia, and
Capital punishment, are therefore unacceptable. It's easy.

And in the majority of cases it is a very workable solution. The world will
be a better place if people adopt the general rule that "Life is sacred",
rather than something like..."The most powerful will live".

As an atheist, I have options that are denied the theists. I can question
the wisdom of God's rules for EVERY case, and evaluate the benefits and
penalties to all concerned of allowing exceptions to be made.

That is the major difference. I have to evaluate every individual case on
merit, looking at who wins and who loses and deciding the course of action
that returns the best solution for the majority concerned. If I was a devout
theist I wouldn't need to do that.

Sometimes these choices are difficult. Often they require an exception to be
made, to a rule that normally works pretty well.

Secondly, I don't have to answer to anybody other than my own conscience,
when I make these choices. I am not influenced by the possibility of eternal
damnation or torture when I die, or the disapproval of my fellow
congregation while I am alive. Neither is my choice influenced by the
approval and support it will bring me if I vote with the party line...


Thirdly, I can choose without allowing powerful emotions based on a
religious upbringing to sway my decision.

So that is why THIS particular liberal may advocate that a certain prisoner
should not be executed, or that a different prisoner SHOULD be executed, or
that Terri Schiavo SHOULD be allowed to 'live', or not. And that is why the
decisions can be different, depending on the time and the circumstances,
even though the overall cases may look similar.

Your question is a sweeping statement implying that 'liberals' ALWAYS
require criminals to be pardoned, and terminal cases like Schiavo be allowed
to die. That just isn't so.

Some final thoughts... I read your posts and I can see your concerns. It is
probably true that administering a lethal painless injection could be an act
of mercy in this case, rather than a lingering death due to starvation, when
the victim is unable to to express her wishes. I already covered elsewhere
in this thread how much hinges on what you consider 'life' to be.

I hope this poor woman and all her family are released from their dilemma
pretty soon.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/27/2005 5:11:44 AM
..     Am  25.03.05
 schrieb  lxi0007@netscape.net (LX-i)
     bei  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
      in  2285e$42448117$45491f85$7309@KNOLOGY.NET
   ueber  Re: OT - Basic human rights

   Medical care as a human right.

>>    Like chosing to be born into a poor family, you mean?

l> That's a popular retort...

>>    Health care, as food, clothing, housing, education, access to
>> culture and sports are basic human rights.

l> And *that* is where we disagree.  Life is a basic human right, and
l> that's it (from your list above).  Combined with liberty, the rest is
l> up to the individual to attain.  Hungry?  Do what you must do to
l> obtain food.  Need a house?  Do what you need to do to rent/buy one.

   When you want the human society as such a dog-eats-dog everyone-on- 
its-own-against-the-rest, rejecting  all human solidarity, then you  
also can't have no objections to Mr. Schiavo getting rid of that haft  
dead person which is his wife, don't you?


Yours,
L�ko Willms                                     http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Ohne Pressefreiheit, Vereins- und Versammlungsrecht ist keine
Arbeiterbewegung m�glich"        - Friedrich Engels      (Februar 1865)
0
l.willms1 (637)
3/27/2005 6:32:00 AM
Lueko Willms wrote:
> .     Am  25.03.05
>  schrieb  lxi0007@netscape.net (LX-i)
>      bei  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
>       in  2285e$42448117$45491f85$7309@KNOLOGY.NET
>    ueber  Re: OT - Basic human rights
> 
>    Medical care as a human right.
> 
> 
>>>   Like chosing to be born into a poor family, you mean?
> 
> 
> l> That's a popular retort...
> 
> 
>>>   Health care, as food, clothing, housing, education, access to
>>>culture and sports are basic human rights.
> 
> 
> l> And *that* is where we disagree.  Life is a basic human right, and
> l> that's it (from your list above).  Combined with liberty, the rest is
> l> up to the individual to attain.  Hungry?  Do what you must do to
> l> obtain food.  Need a house?  Do what you need to do to rent/buy one.
> 
>    When you want the human society as such a dog-eats-dog everyone-on- 
> its-own-against-the-rest, rejecting  all human solidarity, then you  
> also can't have no objections to Mr. Schiavo getting rid of that haft  
> dead person which is his wife, don't you?
> 
> 

Or you and I, from what I can see.

Freedom to kill each other, freedom to kill everybody else, and freedom 
to invade anybody for anything you want to take. Freedom to destroy the 
air, freedom to rape the forests and trees, Freedom to destroy the planet.

But freedom to live?  Not a chance. You are allowed to be born.  That's 
it?  After that you are on your own? Very strange philosophy. What a 
miserable society to live in.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
3/27/2005 1:14:54 PM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-AB89FC.23280526032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <d258tg$rl9$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

[snip]

>> The president spoke of the situation in 1935... see above about 1939.
>> 
>
>It was a tax in the 1935 bill as well.  The 1939 only moved the taxing 
>authority around and changed the name.  What was his excuse for the 
>years 1935-1938?

I barely know *my* excuses for things, let along anyone else's.  He put it 
one way, seventy years ago... and sixty-six years ago it was put another 
way.  Do you happen to have a more recent reference?

>
>> >
>> >Bill Clinton was also, if you will pardon the pun, the head of state.  
>> >
>> >When he started his "National Forum on Social Security" he also started 
>> >using the terms "social security contributions" and "payroll 
>> >contributions" instead of tax.
>> >
>> >"http://www.ssa.gov/history/clntstmts.html"
>> 
>> He also mentioned, clearly and unambiguously, taxes.  From that page:
>> 
>> --begin quoted text:
>> 
>> In fact, today we collect more money in Social Security taxes every year, 
>> quite a bit more, than we pay out.
>> 
>> --end quoted text
>
>That page has quite a few talks given by BC -- I clearly state that when 
>he went on his "National Forum on Social Security" the character of the 
>speeches changes from "tasex" to "contributions".  Seems like an obvious 
>case of trying to delude his listeners on that specific subject.

'Obvious' is in the mind of the beholder... you chose a source where the 
President refers to 'social security taxes', it appears obvious that he is 
calling 'social security' a tax.

>
>You make my case for me -- when he was talking on other subjects he 
>didn't put on the hard sell and use "contributions".

I am afraid I do not understand this logic.  Once again:

The assertion was that when 'state claims that our social security 
payments aren't a tax, but are an investment' then it lies.

You provide a cite where the President refers to 'contributions' and 
'Social Security taxes'.

Where does this cite provide:

1) A denial that Social Security payments are taxes

2) An statement that they are investments.

It *does* provide a clear and unambiguous assertion that Social Security 
taxes exist.

[snip]

>> Not 'investment'... 'taxes'.
>> 
>> So... where is it that this is called 'not a tax, an investment'?
>
>When BC specifically addressed the issue, his "National Forum Tour", he 
>was calling it "Contributions" which is the historical language used to 
>convince people that it is some form of contributory pension or annuity.

So when President Clinton specifically addressed the issue he said social 
security payments are 'contributions'... *not* 'not a tax, but an 
investment'.

No matter how hard one might wish it to be, Mr Zitzelberger, English does 
not define 'contribution' as 'investment'.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/27/2005 1:59:50 PM
In article <d26e8m$i78$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> >> >Bill Clinton was also, if you will pardon the pun, the head of state.  
> >> >
> >> >When he started his "National Forum on Social Security" he also started 
> >> >using the terms "social security contributions" and "payroll 
> >> >contributions" instead of tax.
> >> >
> >> >"http://www.ssa.gov/history/clntstmts.html"
> >> 
> >> He also mentioned, clearly and unambiguously, taxes.  From that page:
> >> 
> >> --begin quoted text:
> >> 
> >> In fact, today we collect more money in Social Security taxes every year, 
> >> quite a bit more, than we pay out.
> >> 
> >> --end quoted text
> >
> >That page has quite a few talks given by BC -- I clearly state that when 
> >he went on his "National Forum on Social Security" the character of the 
> >speeches changes from "tasex" to "contributions".  Seems like an obvious 
> >case of trying to delude his listeners on that specific subject.
> 
> 'Obvious' is in the mind of the beholder... you chose a source where the 
> President refers to 'social security taxes', it appears obvious that he is 
> calling 'social security' a tax.
>
> >You make my case for me -- when he was talking on other subjects he 
> >didn't put on the hard sell and use "contributions".
>
> I am afraid I do not understand this logic.  Once again:
> 
> The assertion was that when 'state claims that our social security 
> payments aren't a tax, but are an investment' then it lies.
>
> You provide a cite where the President refers to 'contributions' and 
> 'Social Security taxes'.

There are 27 speeches on that page that span two terms.  What I was 
pointing out was the context in which he uses the phrases.  The first 
context, not specific to the program, he freely refers to taxes.  The 
second context, specific to the program, he switches to myth-speek.

If you insist on plain speech from anyone involved in government you 
will be waiting a very long time.  This is the land where "Patriot Acts" 
promote tyranny and "Crime Bills" pay for basketball leagues.


> Where does this cite provide:
> 
> 1) A denial that Social Security payments are taxes
> 
> 2) An statement that they are investments.
> 
> It *does* provide a clear and unambiguous assertion that Social Security 
> taxes exist.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> Not 'investment'... 'taxes'.
> >> 
> >> So... where is it that this is called 'not a tax, an investment'?

The problem here is that you are taking the original posters exact 
phrase and looking for an official publication using his exact wording.

What he obviously referred to -- and sometimes obvious is just obvious 
-- is the persistent myth that Social Security is some form of defined 
benefit pension or insurance program.

This myth originated with the program and has been maintained by those 
supportive of the program regardless of what the law has said all these 
years.

I can provide cites for the source of the myth.

I can provide instances where more recent politicians will try to 
reinforce the myth with phrases like "Your contributions are an 
investment in your future retirement" which help perpetrate the myth.

I can point out that the Social Security Administration feels the need  
to include specific denunciations of this myth in their current FAQ -- 
70 years after you claim it went away.

I can also provide cites where some of the current myth supporters go 
into hysterics and accuse the current administration of propagandizing 
peoples retirement.  When all ssa.gov did was post statements accurately 
describing how the program works and the law is written.

However, if the only proof you will accept is 'the state' issuing a 
declaration with Mr. Brazees original wording -- well I cannot produce 
that.  In part because you defined 'the state' as excluding politicians.  
And in part because politicians rarely speak clearly -- they have all 
manner of ways to twist the language to their own ends.

> >When BC specifically addressed the issue, his "National Forum Tour", he 
> >was calling it "Contributions" which is the historical language used to 
> >convince people that it is some form of contributory pension or annuity.
> 
> So when President Clinton specifically addressed the issue he said social 
> security payments are 'contributions'... *not* 'not a tax, but an 
> investment'.
> 
> No matter how hard one might wish it to be, Mr Zitzelberger, English does 
> not define 'contribution' as 'investment'.

English is not a programming language Mr. Dwarf, context and usage do 
matter.

"Contributions" and "Investments" are both commonly used terms for 
retirement.  One can, for example, use the phrase "contribute to my 401k 
for retirement" and be as understood as if one had said "invest in my 
401k for retirement".  They are synonyms in the context of retirement.

Neither has a meaning of 'taxes', and thus their usage to define 'taxes' 
is a misrepresentation that helps perpetrate a widely assumed myth.
0
3/27/2005 9:43:47 PM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:e0d42$42423071$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>jce wrote:
>>
>>>GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have to
> 
> "err
> 
>>>on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death penalty count
> 
> was
> 
>>>so high in Texas.....
>>>Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is
> 
> saying)
> 
>>>but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.
>>
>>Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to
>>die.
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are much more liberal than you think. I have noticed a pattern
> of fairness and genuine concern in your posts.

"Conservative" people can't be fair and genuine?  :)

[snip]

> First off, I don't have a set of immutable rules to live by like: "Life is
> sacred". Most of the worlds great religions would hold this to be axiomatic.
> The adherents therefore have an easy choice when the difficult questions
> arise... just do what God says. "Life is sacred". Abortion,  Euthanasia, and
> Capital punishment, are therefore unacceptable. It's easy.

You had me up to "capital punishment."  Life is sacred, but government 
has been ordained among men to, among other things, punish wrongdoers 
(and protect others from them).  There are two major examples of 
government taking of life that were actually encouraged - war and 
capital punishment.  The former two in your list are "innocent" life, 
what's supposed to be protected - the latter is a means to provide that 
protection.

> As an atheist, I have options that are denied the theists. I can question
> the wisdom of God's rules for EVERY case, and evaluate the benefits and
> penalties to all concerned of allowing exceptions to be made.

I think you're the first atheist I've seen that capitalized "God" and 
didn't replace the "o" with something else...  :)

> Thirdly, I can choose without allowing powerful emotions based on a
> religious upbringing to sway my decision.

But, it's not just emotion.  Yes, I'll admit that my beliefs color my 
view - but, so do everyone else's, too.  There has been quite a lot of 
emotion on the side of the "let her die" crowd.  And, of course, I can 
only speak for myself (something for which the rest of the world is 
grateful! ;> ), and I'll admit that I have put emotion into my arguments 
for her living.  But, my arguments aren't *based* on emotion - passion 
is evident when the level of belief is high.  :)

> Your question is a sweeping statement implying that 'liberals' ALWAYS
> require criminals to be pardoned, and terminal cases like Schiavo be allowed
> to die. That just isn't so.

You're not the first to object to my use of that term.  I've heard folks 
say that Timothy McVeigh (the American who bombed the Oklahoma City 
Federal building) shouldn't be put to death.  It's a lose-lose 
situation.  If you say they can be reformed, then killing them seems 
merciless.  If you say they can't, that their brains are so wired as to 
prevent them from valuing life, then some medical professional will 
claim they have brain damage, and *surely* you'd have to be heartless to 
execute a brain-damaged person.

Yet, Schiavo should die.  That's the disconnect I'm trying to resolve...

> Some final thoughts... I read your posts and I can see your concerns. It is
> probably true that administering a lethal painless injection could be an act
> of mercy in this case, rather than a lingering death due to starvation, when
> the victim is unable to to express her wishes. I already covered elsewhere
> in this thread how much hinges on what you consider 'life' to be.
> 
> I hope this poor woman and all her family are released from their dilemma
> pretty soon.

It's Easter evening, and from what I've heard, she's fading fast.  9 
days without food or water...  Not the way *I* want to go.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/28/2005 12:55:43 AM
Lueko Willms wrote:
> .     Am  25.03.05
>  schrieb  lxi0007@netscape.net (LX-i)
>      bei  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
>       in  2285e$42448117$45491f85$7309@KNOLOGY.NET
>    ueber  Re: OT - Basic human rights
> 
> l> And *that* is where we disagree.  Life is a basic human right, and
> l> that's it (from your list above).  Combined with liberty, the rest is
> l> up to the individual to attain.  Hungry?  Do what you must do to
> l> obtain food.  Need a house?  Do what you need to do to rent/buy one.
> 
>    When you want the human society as such a dog-eats-dog everyone-on- 
> its-own-against-the-rest, rejecting  all human solidarity, then you  
> also can't have no objections to Mr. Schiavo getting rid of that haft  
> dead person which is his wife, don't you?

Of course.  "Life is a basic human right" means that it should only be 
taken away according to a very strict, narrow set of laws.

And, it's not dog-eat-dog.  I'm all for human solidarity, loving your 
neighbor as yourself, and helping people out.  However, I *don't* 
believe it is the *government's* job to do that - it is the *citizen's* job.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/28/2005 1:03:53 AM
Donald Tees wrote:
> Lueko Willms wrote:
> 
>>    When you want the human society as such a dog-eats-dog everyone-on- 
>> its-own-against-the-rest, rejecting  all human solidarity, then you  
>> also can't have no objections to Mr. Schiavo getting rid of that haft  
>> dead person which is his wife, don't you?
> 
> Or you and I, from what I can see.
> 
> Freedom to kill each other, freedom to kill everybody else, and freedom 
> to invade anybody for anything you want to take. Freedom to destroy the 
> air, freedom to rape the forests and trees, Freedom to destroy the planet.
> 
> But freedom to live?  Not a chance. You are allowed to be born.  That's 
> it?  After that you are on your own? Very strange philosophy. What a 
> miserable society to live in.

You think I feel this way, and yet you taunt me?  You're brave...  ;)

(And you *know* that the above is a gross misrepresentation of my world 
view - either that, or you haven't been paying attention to my posts...)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
3/28/2005 1:05:17 AM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-A5F586.16434627032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <d26e8m$i78$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

[snip]

>> >You make my case for me -- when he was talking on other subjects he 
>> >didn't put on the hard sell and use "contributions".
>>
>> I am afraid I do not understand this logic.  Once again:
>> 
>> The assertion was that when 'state claims that our social security 
>> payments aren't a tax, but are an investment' then it lies.
>>
>> You provide a cite where the President refers to 'contributions' and 
>> 'Social Security taxes'.
>
>There are 27 speeches on that page that span two terms.  What I was 
>pointing out was the context in which he uses the phrases.  The first 
>context, not specific to the program, he freely refers to taxes.  The 
>second context, specific to the program, he switches to myth-speek.
>
>If you insist on plain speech from anyone involved in government you 
>will be waiting a very long time.

I am waiting... and have been, for a while now, for evidence that 'the 
state says that social security payments are not taxes, they are 
investments', as Mr Brazee asserted.

>This is the land where "Patriot Acts" 
>promote tyranny and "Crime Bills" pay for basketball leagues.
>
>
>> Where does this cite provide:
>> 
>> 1) A denial that Social Security payments are taxes
>> 
>> 2) An statement that they are investments.
>> 
>> It *does* provide a clear and unambiguous assertion that Social Security 
>> taxes exist.
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >> Not 'investment'... 'taxes'.
>> >> 
>> >> So... where is it that this is called 'not a tax, an investment'?
>
>The problem here is that you are taking the original posters exact 
>phrase and looking for an official publication using his exact wording.

That's right.  When someone asserted 'when (condition) occurs then the 
state is telling a lie' I replied 'all right... when has (condition) 
occurred?'

Not 'like (condition)'... not 'sorta (condition)'... but as the asserter 
stated it, no more, no less.

That is not a problem for me... it is a problem for anyone who wishes 
others to believe that statements which have not been made have been made.

>
>What he obviously referred to -- and sometimes obvious is just obvious 
>-- is the persistent myth that Social Security is some form of defined 
>benefit pension or insurance program.

No, what he obviously referred to was the state saying that 'social 
security payments are not taxes, they are investments.'

It has not been shown that such a formulation has been given since 1939... 
it just might possibly be that the Statute of Limitations for this 
particular activity has passed.

[snip]

>However, if the only proof you will accept is 'the state' issuing a 
>declaration with Mr. Brazees original wording -- well I cannot produce 
>that.

Gracious of you to admit that.  I consider the matter closed, then.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
3/28/2005 2:04:32 AM
In article <d27ong$5k2$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> >What he obviously referred to -- and sometimes obvious is just obvious 
> >-- is the persistent myth that Social Security is some form of defined 
> >benefit pension or insurance program.
> 
> No, what he obviously referred to was the state saying that 'social 
> security payments are not taxes, they are investments.'

And one makes investments in pensions programs and insurance annuities.  
"Investment" includes in its definition, a hope of return.  May I 
suggest a Google of '"payroll tax is not a tax"'.  


> Gracious of you to admit that.  I consider the matter closed, then.

I would be quite happy to close it with a single dangling question -- we 
have strong evidence that many people believe that 'social security is 
not a tax, but an investment in ones retirement'.  What hypothesis do 
you propose to explain the source of this belief?
0
3/28/2005 2:03:02 PM
In article <joe_zitzelberger-D19F9F.09030228032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <d27ong$5k2$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

[snip]

>> Gracious of you to admit that.  I consider the matter closed, then.
>
>I would be quite happy to close it with a single dangling question -- we 
>have strong evidence that many people believe that 'social security is 
>not a tax, but an investment in ones retirement'.  What hypothesis do 
>you propose to explain the source of this belief?

I barely know what *I* believe, let alone other people; you might ask one 
of the adherents about their foundations.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
3/28/2005 2:08:05 PM
LX-i wrote:
> Donald Tees wrote:
> 
>> Lueko Willms wrote:
>>
>>>    When you want the human society as such a dog-eats-dog 
>>> everyone-on- its-own-against-the-rest, rejecting  all human 
>>> solidarity, then you  also can't have no objections to Mr. Schiavo 
>>> getting rid of that haft  dead person which is his wife, don't you?
>>
>>
>> Or you and I, from what I can see.
>>
>> Freedom to kill each other, freedom to kill everybody else, and 
>> freedom to invade anybody for anything you want to take. Freedom to 
>> destroy the air, freedom to rape the forests and trees, Freedom to 
>> destroy the planet.
>>
>> But freedom to live?  Not a chance. You are allowed to be born.  
>> That's it?  After that you are on your own? Very strange philosophy. 
>> What a miserable society to live in.
> 
> 
> You think I feel this way, and yet you taunt me?  You're brave...  ;)
> 
> (And you *know* that the above is a gross misrepresentation of my world 
> view - either that, or you haven't been paying attention to my posts...)
> 
> 

The only things I know about you are the things you tell me in this NG.

Yes, I do rather suspect that your world view is a bit more kindly than 
what you stated, or I responded to above.

Nevertheless, I did you the courtesy to respond to what you stated. I 
did not second geuss what I thought you might mean, then try to respond 
to that.

Donald

0
donald_tees (563)
3/28/2005 2:15:03 PM
On 24-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> There are times when it is inappropriate for someone to be the guardian
> of someone else, and I think this is one of these cases.  Ann Coulter
> was priceless in her column - she said that this precedent was set in
> that landmark case _Fox v. Henhouse_ of 1898.

She can't make decisions for herself.   So the choices are either to have a
person be her guardian, or the state to be her guardian.    I'd much rather have
my wife be my guardian than the state.    Which choice do you trust to know what
your wants would be?
0
howard (6283)
3/28/2005 2:27:01 PM
On 24-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Probably wouldn't appeal to an American right winger but the 'West Wing'
> last night. The Republican lead candidate, (Alan Alda) for the next
> presidency is approached by a 'political fixer', played by Ron Silverman
> (?), who is an out and out Democrat. He tells Alda that his philosophy
> is what the American people are looking for - somebody with appeal who
> can bring Right and Left together avoiding the continuous division in US
> politics. In the world of non-fictional politics - not a  bad objective.

I'm not so sure that I agree with you.   When the Right and Left agree, then Big
Government almost always gets bigger.
0
howard (6283)
3/28/2005 2:29:24 PM
On 25-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> For my money 95% of TV viewing in N. America is abysmal.

Sturgeon's law has always been true.    But in the 1960s, I knew every show out
there - with a lot fewer worth watching.   In the last couple of decades I only
know what I read about.    Despite there being more good shows (because there
are more shows), I don't have the interest in them.   Time is too rare.
0
howard (6283)
3/28/2005 2:33:43 PM
On 25-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> The other side of the coin. Should I stop watching re-runs of John Wayne
> and Jimmy Stewart movies because both actors were declared Republicans - 
> but to my mind, 'Norman Rockwell' type Republicans - honest views from a
> different age, and in non-rabid fashion proud of their country.

I know people who stopped watching Jane Fonda.
0
howard (6283)
3/28/2005 2:34:39 PM
On 24-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> They don't *have* to - for some reason, they choose to.  Socialism
> hasn't led to prosperity in nearly the same degree as our capitalistic,
> free-market society - sort of makes me wonder *why* they choose to.

That's not the goal of socialism.    And there are other worthy goals besides
economic prosperity.

Even most conservatives agree that there are some things that should be
socialistic - for instance the defense of our country.   The reason for a state
run military isn't because it leads to prosperity.
0
howard (6283)
3/28/2005 2:39:53 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d294lv$dr1$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 25-Mar-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > The other side of the coin. Should I stop watching re-runs of John Wayne
> > and Jimmy Stewart movies because both actors were declared Republicans -
> > but to my mind, 'Norman Rockwell' type Republicans - honest views from a
> > different age, and in non-rabid fashion proud of their country.
>
> I know people who stopped watching Jane Fonda.
>
Only while she was fully dressed... :-)

I still remember the effect 'Barbarella' had on a friend of mine and I when
we first saw it in the cinema. Both had to go swimming in the ocean...

I watched it again recently and it is fairly tame by today's standards. She
was/is a very beautiful woman whatever her politics are/were. And who can
listen to Duran Duran without being reminded of the source...?

Pete.




0
dashwood1 (2140)
3/29/2005 11:56:04 AM
William M. Klein wrote:
> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
> 
> What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in fact" 
> being made?
> 
> There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when 
> something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then
> 
>  - if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said 
> without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary)  KNOWS that it is 
> not true, then it is a "lie"
>  - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement) 
> "believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any "mis-information" 
> is an error, not a lie.
> 
>    ***
> 
> Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to many 
> threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.
> 

Bill,

You raise an interesting question. One that a professor of Philosophy at
Princeton addressed in the 80's in a 25 or so page paper. Recently, the 
Princeton Publishing people asked the prof to publish his book. When
he pointed out it was not a book, but a paper, they responded somewhat
like this.

Don't worry about that. We have margins, type fonts, and all sorts of
things we can use to make it a book.  He agreed, and it has been 
published. I've seen the author on Jon Stewart's Daily Show, and
the book, while small, is selling well.

If I remember correctly, the title of this book is "On Bullshit".
On the show, Jon and the prof discussed the differences between
lies and "bullshit", and the prof has a very good method for telling the 
difference between them. Sorry my short term memory didn't record
that part.

Asks by Stewart if the prof felt that BS was becoming more prevalent,
or less. The author responded that BS in his opinion was growing
by leaps and bounds.  I've asked my daughter to get me a copy of
the book for my birthday. I believe it is available at  most
book stores. My recollection of the difference between lies and
BS has to do with the deliberate fabrication of lies vs. the
chain of thought of a BS.

Warren
0
wsimmons5 (172)
4/1/2005 9:49:50 PM
Warren Simmons wrote:
> William M. Klein wrote:
> 
>> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>>
(snip>
> You raise an interesting question. One that a professor of Philosophy at
> Princeton addressed in the 80's in a 25 or so page paper. Recently, the 
> Princeton Publishing people asked the prof to publish his book. When
> he pointed out it was not a book, but a paper, they responded somewhat
> like this.
> 
Seems to me you are a bit of a late developer. Why would you want to 
know about bull-shitting now ? Back when you were one of Gracie's 
associates - then the bullshit might have improved your career.

I easily recognized English bullshit, but when I came over here, just a 
little difficult to get a sense of N. American bullshit - but I'm really 
  tuned in now, having of course, adopted some of the speech patterns 
and N. American phraseology. In the written word, as opposed to spoken, 
I think bull-shitters very quickly reveal themselves.

Trouble is with 'lies' - people that utter them can *actually* believe 
them. Fortunately GWB just got a big tome - the intelligence agencies 
were bull-shitting him all along.

Jimmy
0
4/2/2005 12:41:14 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:636da$42447f7d$45491f85$6747@KNOLOGY.NET...
> jce wrote:
<snip>
>
> Every woman seeking an abortion should be given an ultrasound, and be shown 
> pictures of aborted fetuses, before they make that decision.  But how *dare* 
> you insinuate that it's anything other than a "choice" - when it really looks 
> from here that they're denying "informed consent" for a procedure that 
> *arguably* takes a life.
>

<sarcastic reply, not serious>

And every women who decideds to "keep" her pregnancy and place her child up for 
"adoption" should be shown pictures of (bad) group homes, over-filled foster 
homes, and children who run away from abusive foster/adoptive parents.

Parents of (diagnosed) defective children should be shown pictures of what 
happens to similar children when their parents die (good and bad).

Women pregnant after rape should be shown pictures of divorce courts processing 
"broken" marriages when non-biological farthers can't handle such situations.

  ***

Non-sarcastic reply,
   It would be "really nice" if the US (and/or other countries) actually could 
come up with a medically defensible (and probably subject to change) LEGAL 
definition of when "life begins".  It would be REALLY interesting if this 
applied to ALL things (such as how old you are to get a drivers licens, vote, 
drink, get social-security, etc).

Let me be VERY clear, I do NOT have such a definition.  It seems "clear" to me 
that life definitely begins (or has begun) when a baby is "born" (separated 
physically and continues to live) from her/his mother. The problem arises when a 
fetus is NOT separated but has the "potential" to survive separation from 
his/her mother (both with and without medical device assistance).  For me, 
personally, (and I KNOW that this is not universally accepted) when a fetus is 
at a stage that it canNOT survive (even with help) outside the mother's womb, 
then the fetus may be protected by OTHER things, but not by such concepts 
applying to the "lving" such as murder.  To ME, "potential human" is NOT the 
same thing as "current human".


-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com


0
wmklein (2605)
4/7/2005 8:50:26 PM
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message 
news:m2h5e.3678979$Zm5.590479@news.easynews.com...
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
> news:636da$42447f7d$45491f85$6747@KNOLOGY.NET...
>> jce wrote:

Just to clarify, I didn't write the following.

>> Every woman seeking an abortion should be given an ultrasound, and be 
>> shown pictures of aborted fetuses, before they make that decision.  But 
>> how *dare* you insinuate that it's anything other than a "choice" - when 
>> it really looks from here that they're denying "informed consent" for a 
>> procedure that *arguably* takes a life.
>>
>
> <sarcastic reply, not serious>
Sarcasm is riducule intended to wound, harm or belittle and is very much 
serious.

> And every women who decideds to "keep" her pregnancy and place her child 
> up for "adoption" should be shown pictures of (bad) group homes, 
> over-filled foster homes, and children who run away from abusive 
> foster/adoptive parents.
>
> Parents of (diagnosed) defective children should be shown pictures of what 
> happens to similar children when their parents die (good and bad).
>
> Women pregnant after rape should be shown pictures of divorce courts 
> processing "broken" marriages when non-biological farthers can't handle 
> such situations.
>
I think that there is more than a hint of honesty in there.  Fact is that 
there are any number of situations where there are bad things that come out 
of birth.  I generally don't get into abortion debates because I feel it is 
an intensely private decision that has so many factors I don't think that my 
judgment has any merit at all.  Some people are equipped to deal with more 
than others - and I don't think it's my place to judge them.  Some people 
have religion to help  them with these decisions, some people don't.  Some 
people have a strong family support structure, some people don't.

I do think the general statement that "abortion as birth control" is 
overblown because it is major surgery - it's not a simple procedure and it's 
more emotionally complicated.  I feel more saddened by anyone needing to 
make that choice rather than the choice itself.

That said I often here people say "what do they do? they have no money and 
they have no food and all they do is screw and have babies" about poor 
countries and locations....well, what we do about this? Preach 
abstinence...that has a *great* track record.

> Non-sarcastic reply,
>   It would be "really nice" if the US (and/or other countries) actually 
> could come up with a medically defensible (and probably subject to change) 
> LEGAL definition of when "life begins".  It would be REALLY interesting if 
> this applied to ALL things (such as how old you are to get a drivers 
> licens, vote, drink, get social-security, etc).
Life begins at 18, when you get to go to college ;)
<facetious>
However, generally speaking, life is that time between birth and death.  How 
more simple can it get ?
</facetious>

> Let me be VERY clear, I do NOT have such a definition.  It seems "clear" 
> to me that life definitely begins (or has begun) when a baby is "born" 
> (separated physically and continues to live) from her/his mother. The 
> problem arises when a fetus is NOT separated but has the "potential" to 
> survive separation from his/her mother (both with and without medical 
> device assistance).  For me, personally, (and I KNOW that this is not 
> universally accepted) when a fetus is at a stage that it canNOT survive 
> (even with help) outside the mother's womb, then the fetus may be 
> protected by OTHER things, but not by such concepts applying to the 
> "lving" such as murder.  To ME, "potential human" is NOT the same thing as 
> "current human".

The issue with your definition is that soon a phoetus will be grown in a jar 
in a lab and your argument has ethical as well as a moral argument.  I'd be 
interested to see what the concensus is once we get closer to that stage. 
Right now it is strictly a moral argument.

I personally don't understand why we don't have more fuss about fertility 
treatments and test tube babies- if you cannot have kids, get over it, get a 
dog, adopt do something else with your life.

Obviously God didn't want you to have them....but WAIT, we have fertility 
treatment that will give you TRIPLETS.....well done.   Science is allowed to 
create life, but not "take it away".   I like that.  Everything is good 
about the world.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
4/8/2005 12:21:47 AM
William M. Klein wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
> news:636da$42447f7d$45491f85$6747@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>jce wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>Every woman seeking an abortion should be given an ultrasound, and be shown 
>>pictures of aborted fetuses, before they make that decision.  But how *dare* 
>>you insinuate that it's anything other than a "choice" - when it really looks 
>>from here that they're denying "informed consent" for a procedure that 
>>*arguably* takes a life.
> 
> <sarcastic reply, not serious>
> 
> And every women who decideds to "keep" her pregnancy and place her child up for 
> "adoption" should be shown pictures of (bad) group homes, over-filled foster 
> homes, and children who run away from abusive foster/adoptive parents.
> 
> Parents of (diagnosed) defective children should be shown pictures of what 
> happens to similar children when their parents die (good and bad).
> 
> Women pregnant after rape should be shown pictures of divorce courts processing 
> "broken" marriages when non-biological farthers can't handle such situations.

Every choice has a consequence.  And, I highly doubt a newborn baby 
would go to foster home after foster home - most folks *want* the 
youngest child they can get.  Often, adoptive parents are located before 
the baby is even born.

> Non-sarcastic reply,
>    It would be "really nice" if the US (and/or other countries) actually could 
> come up with a medically defensible (and probably subject to change) LEGAL 
> definition of when "life begins".  It would be REALLY interesting if this 
> applied to ALL things (such as how old you are to get a drivers licens, vote, 
> drink, get social-security, etc).

They have it for those latter things.  This will be a long time coming, 
though, because the "pro-choice" crowd is reflexively opposed to any 
science that shows an unborn human is still a human.

> Let me be VERY clear, I do NOT have such a definition.  It seems "clear" to me 
> that life definitely begins (or has begun) when a baby is "born" (separated 
> physically and continues to live) from her/his mother. The problem arises when a 
> fetus is NOT separated but has the "potential" to survive separation from 
> his/her mother (both with and without medical device assistance).  For me, 
> personally, (and I KNOW that this is not universally accepted) when a fetus is 
> at a stage that it canNOT survive (even with help) outside the mother's womb, 
> then the fetus may be protected by OTHER things, but not by such concepts 
> applying to the "lving" such as murder.  To ME, "potential human" is NOT the 
> same thing as "current human".

When a grass seed is planted, and it begins to sprout - but *before* 
that sprout breaks through the soil - is it grass?  Does the fact that 
you can't see how it's grown up the that point mean that that's the 
point at which it starts growing?


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/8/2005 2:01:05 AM
jce wrote:
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message 
> news:m2h5e.3678979$Zm5.590479@news.easynews.com...
> 
>>"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
>>news:636da$42447f7d$45491f85$6747@KNOLOGY.NET...
>>
>>>jce wrote:
> 
> 
> Just to clarify, I didn't write the following.

But you should have...  ;)

>>>Every woman seeking an abortion should be given an ultrasound, and be 
>>>shown pictures of aborted fetuses, before they make that decision.  But 
>>>how *dare* you insinuate that it's anything other than a "choice" - when 
>>>it really looks from here that they're denying "informed consent" for a 
>>>procedure that *arguably* takes a life.
>>>
>>
>><sarcastic reply, not serious>
> 
> Sarcasm is riducule intended to wound, harm or belittle and is very much 
> serious.

But, it can also be stress relief.  I wasn't offended...

>>And every women who decideds to "keep" her pregnancy and place her child 
>>up for "adoption" should be shown pictures of (bad) group homes, 
>>over-filled foster homes, and children who run away from abusive 
>>foster/adoptive parents.
>>
>>Parents of (diagnosed) defective children should be shown pictures of what 
>>happens to similar children when their parents die (good and bad).
>>
>>Women pregnant after rape should be shown pictures of divorce courts 
>>processing "broken" marriages when non-biological farthers can't handle 
>>such situations.
>>
> 
> I think that there is more than a hint of honesty in there.  Fact is that 
> there are any number of situations where there are bad things that come out 
> of birth.  I generally don't get into abortion debates because I feel it is 
> an intensely private decision that has so many factors I don't think that my 
> judgment has any merit at all.  Some people are equipped to deal with more 
> than others - and I don't think it's my place to judge them.  Some people 
> have religion to help  them with these decisions, some people don't.  Some 
> people have a strong family support structure, some people don't.

Yes, both bad things and good things come out of birth.  Does that mean 
we kill all the babies, in case they were going to turn out bad?  Of 
course not.  So how do you know which ones are going to turn out bad? 
You let them *all* give it their best shot.

> That said I often here people say "what do they do? they have no money and 
> they have no food and all they do is screw and have babies" about poor 
> countries and locations....well, what we do about this? Preach 
> abstinence...that has a *great* track record.

100% pregnancy prevention rate, and holding...  :)

> I personally don't understand why we don't have more fuss about fertility 
> treatments and test tube babies- if you cannot have kids, get over it, get a 
> dog, adopt do something else with your life.
> 
> Obviously God didn't want you to have them....but WAIT, we have fertility 
> treatment that will give you TRIPLETS.....well done.   Science is allowed to 
> create life, but not "take it away".   I like that.  Everything is good 
> about the world.


Science can figure out how to create life, but that knowledge comes from 
something far above them.  Taking a life is completely different from 
that.  And, you'll notice that most anti-abortion folks are also 
anti-cloning - helping an egg and sperm get together is altogether 
different than copying the entire genetic structure of another human being.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/8/2005 3:04:06 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:3ff9$4255f4ac$45491f85$7807@KNOLOGY.NET...
> jce wrote:
>> I think that there is more than a hint of honesty in there.  Fact is that 
>> there are any number of situations where there are bad things that come 
>> out of birth.  I generally don't get into abortion debates because I feel 
>> it is an intensely private decision that has so many factors I don't 
>> think that my judgment has any merit at all.  Some people are equipped to 
>> deal with more than others - and I don't think it's my place to judge 
>> them.  Some people have religion to help  them with these decisions, some 
>> people don't.  Some people have a strong family support structure, some 
>> people don't.
>
> Yes, both bad things and good things come out of birth.  Does that mean we 
> kill all the babies, in case they were going to turn out bad?  Of course 
> not.  So how do you know which ones are going to turn out bad? You let 
> them *all* give it their best shot.

I don't look at other peoples lives as black and white like you appear to 
do.  I have an appreciation that not everyone is in a position to make the 
decision that is right for *everyone* else.
People live their own lives within constraints.  Those constraints are 
generally put in place for the benefit of the majority in most modern 
societies.

>> That said I often here people say "what do they do? they have no money 
>> and they have no food and all they do is screw and have babies" about 
>> poor countries and locations....well, what we do about this? Preach 
>> abstinence...that has a *great* track record.
>
> 100% pregnancy prevention rate, and holding...  :)

Yes, and the "Just Say No" campaign has produced drug free kiddies too.

>> I personally don't understand why we don't have more fuss about fertility 
>> treatments and test tube babies- if you cannot have kids, get over it, 
>> get a dog, adopt do something else with your life.
>>
>> Obviously God didn't want you to have them....but WAIT, we have fertility 
>> treatment that will give you TRIPLETS.....well done.   Science is allowed 
>> to create life, but not "take it away".   I like that.  Everything is 
>> good about the world.

> Science can figure out how to create life, but that knowledge comes from 
> something far above them.

So what about the "superfluous" embryos that would be considered life? 
Frozen, thrown out, reused, researched....is the "life" that becomes valued 
more than the "life" that doesn't?
What about the situation where the donor was not the husband or the mother 
was borrowed?
What if the mother was a lesbian?
What about the notion that God is the creator of life and death?  Isn't that 
sovereignty threatened by artificial means of messing with conception?

My understanding from the Bible is that there were many barren women and 
each would eventually give birth after *prayer* to God.  Furthermore, from 
other lessons we learn that God answers some prayers with a No..
Why is childlessness not considered to be the path that God has outlined for 
a couple?   God is _not_ a pro life advocate - He kind of has His own 
plans..

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing 
of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is 
good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2).

> Taking a life is completely different from that.  And, you'll notice that 
> most anti-abortion folks are also anti-cloning - helping an egg and sperm 
> get together is altogether different than copying the entire genetic 
> structure of another human being.

Helping them get together? Sounds like a high school reunion. :-)

Maybe I should post to alt.religion........  I'm not saying you are wrong in 
your ideas, I'm only saying that there are other ideas.  I like to think 
it's good to have opinions, but not always judge others by them.  Even you 
would admit that you are not really in a position to judge the actions of 
others - but it all makes for interesting discussion [to me at least]:-)

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
4/8/2005 5:36:21 AM
On  7-Apr-2005, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

> Non-sarcastic reply,
>    It would be "really nice" if the US (and/or other countries) actually could
>
> come up with a medically defensible (and probably subject to change) LEGAL
> definition of when "life begins".  It would be REALLY interesting if this
> applied to ALL things (such as how old you are to get a drivers licens, vote,
> drink, get social-security, etc).

There are several such defensible definitions.    Trouble is - we need to define
the social/ethical meaning for a technical meaning to be useful.   Life does
exist before conception - but nobody is worrying about the sacred right of
sperm.    The decision isn't scientific - unless we agree on the criteria first
(for instance - brain activity).

Historically, women determined when an embryo quickened into a fetus.   The AMA
didn't like woman being able to make medical decisions, and since physicians
couldn't tell, they eliminated this criterion.
0
howard (6283)
4/8/2005 1:51:44 PM
Former president Bush was against abortion - except in the case of rape, incest,
or to save the mother's life.    Self defense is an acceptable reason to kill a
person.    But killing a human being because he is the result of rape or incest
is not acceptable.   So obviously, he didn't think abortion kills a human being.


Or maybe this is the "good girls can have abortions - bad girls need to be
punished with motherhood" argument.
0
howard (6283)
4/8/2005 1:55:18 PM
On  7-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> > That said I often here people say "what do they do? they have no money and
> > they have no food and all they do is screw and have babies" about poor
> > countries and locations....well, what we do about this? Preach
> > abstinence...that has a *great* track record.
>
> 100% pregnancy prevention rate, and holding...

For various values of abstinence.    Someone who abstains from sex can still be
raped.
0
howard (6283)
4/8/2005 1:56:26 PM
jce wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
> news:3ff9$4255f4ac$45491f85$7807@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>Yes, both bad things and good things come out of birth.  Does that mean we 
>>kill all the babies, in case they were going to turn out bad?  Of course 
>>not.  So how do you know which ones are going to turn out bad? You let 
>>them *all* give it their best shot.
> 
> I don't look at other peoples lives as black and white like you appear to 
> do.  I have an appreciation that not everyone is in a position to make the 
> decision that is right for *everyone* else.
> People live their own lives within constraints.  Those constraints are 
> generally put in place for the benefit of the majority in most modern 
> societies.

Morality *can* be black and white.  And, it's not me making the 
decisions for other people - it's me, using the power I have a single 
citizen, to support those who believe the way I do about issues, whether 
life and death (such as this one), or those that aren't quite so important.

But, absolutes *have* to exist - they must!  Why is math so precise? 
Did that happen by chance?  Accidental accuracy?  To say that everything 
is relative is to turn a blind eye to nature and science.

>>>That said I often here people say "what do they do? they have no money 
>>>and they have no food and all they do is screw and have babies" about 
>>>poor countries and locations....well, what we do about this? Preach 
>>>abstinence...that has a *great* track record.
>>
>>100% pregnancy prevention rate, and holding...  :)
> 
> Yes, and the "Just Say No" campaign has produced drug free kiddies too.

Those that *always* just said no.  Abstinence works 100% percent of the 
time it is practiced (practised, for our overseas friends).

>>Science can figure out how to create life, but that knowledge comes from 
>>something far above them.
> 
> So what about the "superfluous" embryos that would be considered life? 
> Frozen, thrown out, reused, researched....is the "life" that becomes valued 
> more than the "life" that doesn't?

No, and that is one reason I'm not in favor of certain methods of 
human-assisted conception.  Fertilizing 40 embryos, taking the 7 
"strongest" and throwing the rest away kills (for sure) 33 people. 
Chances are that all of the other 7 won't implant, but at least they 
were given a chance.

> What about the situation where the donor was not the husband or the mother 
> was borrowed?

It's still human life.

> What if the mother was a lesbian?

It's still human life.

> What about the notion that God is the creator of life and death?  Isn't that 
> sovereignty threatened by artificial means of messing with conception?

Those artificial means only exist by the permissiveness of that 
sovereign Being.  Sovereignty has no exceptions.  :)

> My understanding from the Bible is that there were many barren women and 
> each would eventually give birth after *prayer* to God.  Furthermore, from 
> other lessons we learn that God answers some prayers with a No..
> Why is childlessness not considered to be the path that God has outlined for 
> a couple?   God is _not_ a pro life advocate - He kind of has His own 
> plans..

I can't say what is in other people's minds.  God designed us with the 
need to reproduce - it's a biological drive, an urge that cries out to 
be fulfilled.  I don't pretend to know what God's plans are for a person 
in particular.  I *do* know the principles He has laid out and told us 
to follow in living our lives.

> "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing 
> of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is 
> good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2).

And how, in your opinion, do you "prove what the will of God is"?  There 
are Scriptures that rail against the shedding of innocent blood (the 
taking of innocent life), and there are Scriptures that exhort believers 
to share what they know with the rest of the world.  Isn't standing up 
for what you believe (from an honest reading of Scripture, not some 
pull-out-of-context mauling of it) *demanded* of believers?

>>Taking a life is completely different from that.  And, you'll notice that 
>>most anti-abortion folks are also anti-cloning - helping an egg and sperm 
>>get together is altogether different than copying the entire genetic 
>>structure of another human being.
> 
> 
> Helping them get together? Sounds like a high school reunion. :-)

heh...

> Maybe I should post to alt.religion........  I'm not saying you are wrong in 
> your ideas, I'm only saying that there are other ideas.  I like to think 
> it's good to have opinions, but not always judge others by them.  Even you 
> would admit that you are not really in a position to judge the actions of 
> others - but it all makes for interesting discussion [to me at least]:-)

I don't know if you want to forage into that area - I imagine there are 
a lot of people there that have nothing better to do than take the exact 
opposite of every position posted.  :)  Kind of like here...  ;)  just 
kidding...

Opinions are different from convictions.  I am of the opinion that if 
the base lawn mowers would leave the area of my fence alone, I could do 
a lot better job of growing that grass than they have.  However, I 
wouldn't debate it (though a call to housing might be in order).  I am 
of the opinion that Pizza Hut has the best pizza.  Again, just opinion. 
  But, when you get into serious matters, life-and-death stuff, you've 
wandered into the area of convictions (or beliefs, if you will) - and 
these are the areas that I'm more likely to debate with others over.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/11/2005 10:11:05 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> Former president Bush was against abortion - except in the case of rape, incest,
> or to save the mother's life.    Self defense is an acceptable reason to kill a
> person.    But killing a human being because he is the result of rape or incest
> is not acceptable.   So obviously, he didn't think abortion kills a human being.

Yes, and these exceptions are just a bone thrown to the more "moderate" 
members of the party.  If it's life, it's life no matter how it comes to 
be.  And I believe you'll find that statistics will bear out that very 
few pregnancies terminated below 24 weeks were done "to save the 
mother's life".

> Or maybe this is the "good girls can have abortions - bad girls need to be
> punished with motherhood" argument.

I wouldn't call it a punishment - taking responsibility for your actions 
would be a better term.  (Yes, I know the raped woman is taking 
responsibility for the actions of another - no one said life was fair.)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/11/2005 10:14:16 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b0d0f$425af6b2$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > Former president Bush was against abortion - except in the case of rape,
incest,
> > or to save the mother's life.    Self defense is an acceptable reason to
kill a
> > person.    But killing a human being because he is the result of rape or
incest
> > is not acceptable.   So obviously, he didn't think abortion kills a
human being.
>
> Yes, and these exceptions are just a bone thrown to the more "moderate"
> members of the party.  If it's life, it's life no matter how it comes to
> be.  And I believe you'll find that statistics will bear out that very
> few pregnancies terminated below 24 weeks were done "to save the
> mother's life".
>
> > Or maybe this is the "good girls can have abortions - bad girls need to
be
> > punished with motherhood" argument.
>
> I wouldn't call it a punishment - taking responsibility for your actions
> would be a better term.  (Yes, I know the raped woman is taking
> responsibility for the actions of another - no one said life was fair.)
>
I'm staggered by this, Daniel.

For the most part I find your arguments acceptable and fair (whether I
actually agree or not), but this is definitely over the top.

Is it a compassionate Christian viewpoint to decide that a girl who has been
raped MUST take responsibility for the action of the animal that did it?

Is a life conceived from lust (sexual or for power) involving the forcing of
the will onto another human being, accompanied by brutality and degradation,
as valuable as a life conceived by a loving couple?

If the answer is "Yes, all life is sacred" then how can you countenance
capital punishment?

I don't see it that way. Allowing the scum who indulge in rape to perpetuate
their gene pool is questionable; actually ensuring that their unborn progeny
get to arrive in our world is just downright stupid.

I just asked my housekeeper  (who is vacuuming around me as I write this
:-)) what she thinks about this (I accept that a woman's viewpoint might
differ from both of ours). She gave a revealing answer: "I would not want
the perpetual reminder of that experience with me for the rest of my life.
It's bad enough dealing with the rape, without being reminded of it every
day...".

Some women would feel differently, I imagine. But at best you seem to be
saying the victim should carry the baby and either keep it or have it
adopted. Neither of these are attractive options to a girl in this
situation.

No man (and that includes you and me) has the right to decide what a rape
victim MUST do. This is a decision to be taken only by the victim and
whatever she decides is OK. It has to be. Even if it means abortion.

We definitely differ on this one.

Pete.




>
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/12/2005 12:07:32 AM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:b0d0f$425af6b2$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>I wouldn't call it a punishment - taking responsibility for your actions
>>would be a better term.  (Yes, I know the raped woman is taking
>>responsibility for the actions of another - no one said life was fair.)
> 
> I'm staggered by this, Daniel.
> 
> For the most part I find your arguments acceptable and fair (whether I
> actually agree or not), but this is definitely over the top.
> 
> Is it a compassionate Christian viewpoint to decide that a girl who has been
> raped MUST take responsibility for the action of the animal that did it?
> 
> Is a life conceived from lust (sexual or for power) involving the forcing of
> the will onto another human being, accompanied by brutality and degradation,
> as valuable as a life conceived by a loving couple?

It may not seen compassionate - but, what makes that child conceived by 
those means any less deserving of air, food, and water than a child 
conceived by a loving couple?  In my view, nothing - they both are 
humans, both equally deserving of their chance in this world.

> If the answer is "Yes, all life is sacred" then how can you countenance
> capital punishment?

Easily.  There is a difference between innocent life, and life taken as 
punishment for homicide.  These distinctions have existed throughout 
history, and weren't even blurred until the latter part of the last 
century.  I can't think of a single civilization I've studied that did 
not have at least one law that allowed capital punishment.

> I don't see it that way. Allowing the scum who indulge in rape to perpetuate
> their gene pool is questionable; actually ensuring that their unborn progeny
> get to arrive in our world is just downright stupid.

So rape is hereditary?  Have you ever seen any psychological studies 
that suggested this?  I *have* seen studies that show many of these 
abusers being abused themselves as children - but that's environmental. 
  You still haven't lowered the worth of that unborn child (in my mind, 
at least)...

> I just asked my housekeeper  (who is vacuuming around me as I write this
> :-)) what she thinks about this (I accept that a woman's viewpoint might
> differ from both of ours). She gave a revealing answer: "I would not want
> the perpetual reminder of that experience with me for the rest of my life.
> It's bad enough dealing with the rape, without being reminded of it every
> day...".

She wouldn't be reminded of it every day even without a child?

> Some women would feel differently, I imagine. But at best you seem to be
> saying the victim should carry the baby and either keep it or have it
> adopted. Neither of these are attractive options to a girl in this
> situation.

Giving it up for adoption allows her to get "the reminder" gone in a 
matter of months, and gives another family a child that they want, but 
can't have naturally.  How is this anything *but* making the best of a 
bad situation?

> No man (and that includes you and me) has the right to decide what a rape
> victim MUST do. This is a decision to be taken only by the victim and
> whatever she decides is OK. It has to be. Even if it means abortion.

And, as I told jce earlier this evening - I'm not in the position of 
making the decisions.  Sitting in CLC and saying "should" is a lot 
different than imposing my views on "the world".  But, be that as it 
may, during a stressful, emotional time is a *terrible* time to make 
decisions of this gravity.  They should be based in the principles and 
beliefs of person involved.

> We definitely differ on this one.

I suppose...  I hope I've at least convinced you that my view isn't as 
uncompassionate as you originally thought, though.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/12/2005 1:08:25 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:af76e$425af5f4$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET...
> jce wrote:
>> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
>> news:3ff9$4255f4ac$45491f85$7807@KNOLOGY.NET...
>>
>>>Yes, both bad things and good things come out of birth.  Does that mean 
>>>we kill all the babies, in case they were going to turn out bad?  Of 
>>>course not.  So how do you know which ones are going to turn out bad? You 
>>>let them *all* give it their best shot.
>>
>> I don't look at other peoples lives as black and white like you appear to 
>> do.  I have an appreciation that not everyone is in a position to make 
>> the decision that is right for *everyone* else.
>> People live their own lives within constraints.  Those constraints are 
>> generally put in place for the benefit of the majority in most modern 
>> societies.

> Morality *can* be black and white.  And, it's not me making the decisions 
> for other people - it's me, using the power I have a single citizen, to 
> support those who believe the way I do about issues, whether life and 
> death (such as this one), or those that aren't quite so important.
Morality can be black and white if you choose them to be within your 
personal constraint system - your own ethical boundaries.
..
Given that there are entire courses of study dedicated to "moral philosophy" 
I would tend to think it's usually not black and white "across society". 
You have a right to use the means at your disposal to further your moral 
position within society as a whole. I tend to believe in the greater good - 
whereby people, in general, will make the decision that is right for them 
and society as a whole.  I believe that society intervenes when the general 
ethical boundary has been crossed.  I didn't disagree with Kevorkian's 
principles, and I didn't disagree with him being jailed, for example.

> But, absolutes *have* to exist - they must!  Why is math so precise? Did 
> that happen by chance?  Accidental accuracy?  To say that everything is 
> relative is to turn a blind eye to nature and science.
Math is often imprecise.  Think calculus, think series, think 
statistics,think quantum - want me to go on?

>>>>That said I often here people say "what do they do? they have no money 
>>>>and they have no food and all they do is screw and have babies" about 
>>>>poor countries and locations....well, what we do about this? Preach 
>>>>abstinence...that has a *great* track record.
>>>
>>>100% pregnancy prevention rate, and holding...  :)
>>
>> Yes, and the "Just Say No" campaign has produced drug free kiddies too.
> Those that *always* just said no.  Abstinence works 100% percent of the 
> time it is practiced (practised, for our overseas friends).
The overall effectiveness of any method has to take into account all points 
of failure. Therefore, as an overall method, both plans fail miserably.

snip snip  various pieces I don't feel like commenting on

>> What about the notion that God is the creator of life and death?  Isn't 
>> that sovereignty threatened by artificial means of messing with 
>> conception?
> Those artificial means only exist by the permissiveness of that sovereign 
> Being.  Sovereignty has no exceptions.  :)
Someone invented the atomic bomb to end life in much the same way. 
Sovereignty has *no* exceptions.

>> My understanding from the Bible is that there were many barren women and 
>> each would eventually give birth after *prayer* to God.  Furthermore, 
>> from other lessons we learn that God answers some prayers with a No..
>> Why is childlessness not considered to be the path that God has outlined 
>> for a couple?   God is _not_ a pro life advocate - He kind of has His own 
>> plans..
> I can't say what is in other people's minds.  God designed us with the 
> need to reproduce - it's a biological drive, an urge that cries out to be 
> fulfilled.
God provided *some* of us with a need to reproduce.

> I don't pretend to know what God's plans are for a person in particular. 
> I *do* know the principles He has laid out and told us to follow in living 
> our lives.

>> "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the 
>> renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, 
>> that which is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2).

> And how, in your opinion, do you "prove what the will of God is"?
It's not my issue to decide the will of God - never has been, never will be. 
What I think of God, and his role in both my life now and going forward is 
something only I have to reconcile.  Perhaps one needs to be careful in 
drawing the distinction between God's will, and God's principles, and the 
words of writers trying to interpret and put these principles into some 
context..

> There are Scriptures that rail against the shedding of innocent blood (the 
> taking of innocent life), and there are Scriptures that exhort believers 
> to share what they know with the rest of the world.  Isn't standing up for 
> what you believe (from an honest reading of Scripture, not some 
> pull-out-of-context mauling of it) *demanded* of believers?
Yes, but *should* the heeding  of that message be *demanded* of non 
believers.

>>>Taking a life is completely different from that.  And, you'll notice that 
>>>most anti-abortion folks are also anti-cloning - helping an egg and sperm 
>>>get together is altogether different than copying the entire genetic 
>>>structure of another human being.
>> Helping them get together? Sounds like a high school reunion. :-)
> heh...
>
>> Maybe I should post to alt.religion........  I'm not saying you are wrong 
>> in your ideas, I'm only saying that there are other ideas.  I like to 
>> think it's good to have opinions, but not always judge others by them. 
>> Even you would admit that you are not really in a position to judge the 
>> actions of others - but it all makes for interesting discussion [to me at 
>> least]:-)
>
> I don't know if you want to forage into that area - I imagine there are a 
> lot of people there that have nothing better to do than take the exact 
> opposite of every position posted.  :)  Kind of like here...  ;)  just 
> kidding...
I don't feel like I've taken the exact opposite of your position.

> Opinions are different from convictions.  I am of the opinion that if the 
> base lawn mowers would leave the area of my fence alone, I could do a lot 
> better job of growing that grass than they have.
The grass is always greener where the dogs are sh*tting

> However, I wouldn't debate it (though a call to housing might be in 
> order).  I am of the opinion that Pizza Hut has the best pizza.  Again, 
> just opinion.
See other thread - until they get caramelized onions they will never be the 
best ;-)

>  But, when you get into serious matters, life-and-death stuff, you've 
> wandered into the area of convictions (or beliefs, if you will) - and 
> these are the areas that I'm more likely to debate with others over.
Apparently, this is the case.

No more posts from me on this thread because I feel I understand your 
position and your level of conviction.

Thanks for participating, the conversation points always get logged and 
always become part of my better understanding of all the people lucky enough 
to share the internet with me.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
4/12/2005 4:08:40 AM
It's a very good response Daniel. I think I understand your position better.

Comments below.

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:6c427$425b1f96$45491f85$14981@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:b0d0f$425af6b2$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET...
> >
> >>I wouldn't call it a punishment - taking responsibility for your actions
> >>would be a better term.  (Yes, I know the raped woman is taking
> >>responsibility for the actions of another - no one said life was fair.)
> >
> > I'm staggered by this, Daniel.
> >
> > For the most part I find your arguments acceptable and fair (whether I
> > actually agree or not), but this is definitely over the top.
> >
> > Is it a compassionate Christian viewpoint to decide that a girl who has
been
> > raped MUST take responsibility for the action of the animal that did it?
> >
I notice there was no direct response to this. You are focusing on the
conceived baby. My focus is on the mother.

> > Is a life conceived from lust (sexual or for power) involving the
forcing of
> > the will onto another human being, accompanied by brutality and
degradation,
> > as valuable as a life conceived by a loving couple?
>
> It may not seen compassionate - but, what makes that child conceived by
> those means any less deserving of air, food, and water than a child
> conceived by a loving couple?  In my view, nothing - they both are
> humans, both equally deserving of their chance in this world.

As it happens, I agree with you on this. But the mother's rights here are
being conveniently forgotten. The foetus is a collection of cells; the
mother is a developed, thinking living breathing human with siblings and
parents and interactions with other humans. She is no less 'innocent' than
the foetus. A victim of circumstance who had the child forced on her by
someone who has NO right to put her in that situation.
>
> > If the answer is "Yes, all life is sacred" then how can you countenance
> > capital punishment?
>
> Easily.  There is a difference between innocent life, and life taken as
> punishment for homicide.  These distinctions have existed throughout
> history, and weren't even blurred until the latter part of the last
> century.  I can't think of a single civilization I've studied that did
> not have at least one law that allowed capital punishment.
>
OK, we can argue that some other time.  But I see you accept the need for
punishment. (I don't personally. I think punishment is an outmoded concept.
People who misbehave should either be restrained and re-conditioned, or
eliminated. :-) But, for the sake of this argument I'll go along with the
punishment concept...)

So, your argument predicates on the 'innocent life' of the foetus. Why would
you not weigh that innocent life, against the mother's innocent life?

> > I don't see it that way. Allowing the scum who indulge in rape to
perpetuate
> > their gene pool is questionable; actually ensuring that their unborn
progeny
> > get to arrive in our world is just downright stupid.
>
> So rape is hereditary?

The jury is still out on exactly what is and is not hereditary. If
homosexuality and high IQ can be in the genes (there is evidence to support
both of these, although personally, I don't believe it), why can't the
propensity for rape?

Supposing, just for the sake of this argument, that rape was hereditary.
Would that change your position regarding the option to abort the foetus?

> Have you ever seen any psychological studies
> that suggested this?

No, but that doesn't mean it can't be so.


  I *have* seen studies that show many of these
> abusers being abused themselves as children - but that's environmental.
>   You still haven't lowered the worth of that unborn child (in my mind,
> at least)...
>
Good. That was not my intention, although it may have appeared so.

So the baby lives because it is innocent. It is just as worthwhile as any
other baby.

So far so good. But what about punishing the father?

There are contradictory texts on this, but here are the ones that support my
case:

EXODUS 34:7
keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
and who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of fathers
on the sons, and on the sons of sons, to the third and to the fourth
generation.

DEUTERONOMY 5:9
....For I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those who hate
Me,

JEREMIAH 32:18
You show loving-kindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers
into the bosom of their sons after them.

NUMBERS 14:18
The LORD is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and
transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation.

Pretty frightening stuff; no wonder no one messes with the God of Israel...
:-)

So I reckon the above would justify the execution of the foetus as proper
punishment for the father (and it looks like God agrees with me..."by no
means clearing the guilty")

I don't seriously expect you to agree, Daniel, but it is nevertheless a fair
case, made on the stated positions of Jehovah, from scripture.

Here's what I glean from all of this (religious and secular arguments):

1. The mother had no say in it and is therefore innocent.
2. The child had no say in it and is also innocent. (However, there is
another argument about whether a collection of cells with potential to be an
individual, is actually an individual. If  it is inevitable that either the
mother or the child are going to have to suffer, this argument would weight
the odds in favour of the mother.)
3. The father needs to be punished. According to Moses' discussion with God
(described in the Pentateuch which was allegedly written by Moses, so, first
hand...), it is pretty clear (and stated on a number of occasions) that
punishment is passed on to up to four generations. This doesn't look good
for the foetus...
4. NO-ONE on Earth (and God's position is pretty clear...) has the right to
impose on the mother that she must carry this baby and give birth to it, if
she doesn't want to.(If she is strongly religious and wants to carry it, OK.
But it has to be HER decision.)
5. We need more drastic penalties for rapists.

> > I just asked my housekeeper  (who is vacuuming around me as I write this
> > :-)) what she thinks about this (I accept that a woman's viewpoint might
> > differ from both of ours). She gave a revealing answer: "I would not
want
> > the perpetual reminder of that experience with me for the rest of my
life.
> > It's bad enough dealing with the rape, without being reminded of it
every
> > day...".
>
> She wouldn't be reminded of it every day even without a child?
>
> > Some women would feel differently, I imagine. But at best you seem to be
> > saying the victim should carry the baby and either keep it or have it
> > adopted. Neither of these are attractive options to a girl in this
> > situation.
>
> Giving it up for adoption allows her to get "the reminder" gone in a
> matter of months, and gives another family a child that they want, but
> can't have naturally.  How is this anything *but* making the best of a
> bad situation?

Supposing rape IS genetic? Why take the risk? Leaving that aside, you are
still consistenly ignoring the rights of the mother. If she doesn't want to
carry it, why should she have to? Because of a religious belief , held by
people other than her?
>
> > No man (and that includes you and me) has the right to decide what a
rape
> > victim MUST do. This is a decision to be taken only by the victim and
> > whatever she decides is OK. It has to be. Even if it means abortion.
>
> And, as I told jce earlier this evening - I'm not in the position of
> making the decisions.  Sitting in CLC and saying "should" is a lot
> different than imposing my views on "the world".  But, be that as it
> may, during a stressful, emotional time is a *terrible* time to make
> decisions of this gravity.  They should be based in the principles and
> beliefs of person involved.

Your last sentence seems to agree with my position. If so, then we don't
differ on this one... and I am happy to close this argument, leaving you the
right to your beliefs, even the hope that the girl will carry the baby, but
agreeing that when the chips are down the decision must be made by her, and
by her alone.

When you think about it, although I would prefer her not to go to
completion, I would feel all right about it if that is what she wanted; it
seems to me that your view is simply the obverse of this coin...you would
prefer her to go to completion, but would also accept her decision not to.

You were right, we were not so far apart.
>
> > We definitely differ on this one. (As it turns out, we don't.)
>
> I suppose...  I hope I've at least convinced you that my view isn't as
> uncompassionate as you originally thought, though.
>
Yes, that is a fair conclusion.

I still want to kick that bastard rapist, though... :-) (Not because it will
punish him, simply because it would make me feel better :-))

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/12/2005 3:18:34 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:6c427$425b1f96$45491f85$14981@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:b0d0f$425af6b2$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET...

> It may not seen compassionate - but, what makes that child conceived by
> those means any less deserving of air, food, and water than a child
> conceived by a loving couple?  In my view, nothing - they both are
> humans, both equally deserving of their chance in this world.

Not only does it not *seem* compassionate, it *is not* compassionate to the
victim of rape.  Etymologically, "compassion" comes from "to suffer with" -- 
and in its roots is almost identical with "sympathize".

Demanding that the victim of rape be forced to deal with the consequences of
that rape in the way *you* think they ought to deal with them is neither
sympathetic nor compassionate.  The child, too, is not just a consequence
but a *victim* of that rape.

This strikes me as about as compassionate as requiring that the rapist and
his victim are morally obligated to marry and live happily ever after,
providing a nurturing and loving home for the product of their "love".  Are
you prepared to demand that?

Even if the child is put up for adoption it is the obligation of society to
inform the child of his or her genetic background, and by virtue of that, of
the circumstances of the conception and the reasons why the mother chooses
to abandon the child to strangers.  Are you prepared to demand that?

Further, until you personally are willing to admit that *you* were the
victim of rape, and as a direct consequence of that rape joyfully and
gleefully went through months of constant nausea (at best) culminated by an
experience analogous to defecating a bowling ball over a period of many
hours, I would contend that you have no standing to offer an opinion on what
further suffering the *victim* of a rape is morally obligated to endure.

And as for me, I have standing on the first of these qualifications, though
arguably not on the second (though at the age of sixty I still deal with the
emotional and psychological consequences imposed by the behavior of adults
toward me when I was eight years old).

Do *you* truly feel the pain that a rapist endures, Daniel?   It doesn't
seem to me that you're demonstrating it very well.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/12/2005 3:45:30 PM
In article <af76e$425af5f4$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>jce wrote:
>> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
>> news:3ff9$4255f4ac$45491f85$7807@KNOLOGY.NET...
>> 
>>>Yes, both bad things and good things come out of birth.  Does that mean we 
>>>kill all the babies, in case they were going to turn out bad?  Of course 
>>>not.  So how do you know which ones are going to turn out bad? You let 
>>>them *all* give it their best shot.
>> 
>> I don't look at other peoples lives as black and white like you appear to 
>> do.  I have an appreciation that not everyone is in a position to make the 
>> decision that is right for *everyone* else.
>> People live their own lives within constraints.  Those constraints are 
>> generally put in place for the benefit of the majority in most modern 
>> societies.
>
>Morality *can* be black and white.

A torque-wrench *can* be used as a hammer... but it might not function 
very well as a torque-wrench afterwards.  Two plus two *can* be five... 
for very small values of five.  Two men *can* be providers of an 
environment which proves to be better for raising a child than a man and a 
women... and this has been demonstrated over and over again.

What '*can* be' (emphasis original) might serve to show the inventiveness 
of people in a situation... nothing more, nothing less.

[snip]

>But, absolutes *have* to exist - they must!  Why is math so precise? 
>Did that happen by chance?  Accidental accuracy?

This seems more a cry of desire than a statement of fact... it *must* be 
so!  Math is precise because the rules for that game were established as 
such... and math fails miserably in areas many folks encounter every day.  
Magnetism can be quantified, sure... and so can electricity... and I 
remember when a professor in my junior-year college physics class took 
Maxwells's equations, showed how they described physical phenomena by 
adding units to them and then manipulated them according to the rules of 
algebra many folks now take for granted...

.... and my skin went cold when the speed of light (3.0 x 10(8) m/s) (where 
'10(8)' is used to signify ten-to-the-eighth-power) just... *fell* right 
out.  Math is fine for that, sure...

.... but for 'beauty' or 'love' or 'honor' or 'duty' - things that some 
call the 'highest human functions', beyond the... merely mechanical and 
mathematical - it does not seem to do so well.

>To say that everything 
>is relative is to turn a blind eye to nature and science.

To say 'everything is relative' is to posit an absolute... next?

>>>>That said I often here people say "what do they do? they have no money 
>>>>and they have no food and all they do is screw and have babies" about 
>>>>poor countries and locations....well, what we do about this? Preach 
>>>>abstinence...that has a *great* track record.
>>>
>>>100% pregnancy prevention rate, and holding...  :)
>> 
>> Yes, and the "Just Say No" campaign has produced drug free kiddies too.
>
>Those that *always* just said no.

I always thought that the 'doing' had more influence on the results than 
the 'just saying'.

>Abstinence works 100% percent of the 
>time it is practiced (practised, for our overseas friends).

Leaving aside incidents of force... you *do* realise that you are, with 
that statement, denying the Immaculate Conception, don't you?

>
>>>Science can figure out how to create life, but that knowledge comes from 
>>>something far above them.
>> 
>> So what about the "superfluous" embryos that would be considered life? 
>> Frozen, thrown out, reused, researched....is the "life" that becomes valued 
>> more than the "life" that doesn't?
>
>No, and that is one reason I'm not in favor of certain methods of 
>human-assisted conception.  Fertilizing 40 embryos, taking the 7 
>"strongest" and throwing the rest away kills (for sure) 33 people. 

Only if embryo=person.  Granted that every person I know of was once an 
embryo... but the existence of miscarriage demonstrates that every embryo 
will not necessarily develop into a human.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
4/12/2005 3:52:59 PM
On 11-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> Morality *can* be black and white.  And, it's not me making the
> decisions for other people - it's me, using the power I have a single
> citizen, to support those who believe the way I do about issues, whether
> life and death (such as this one), or those that aren't quite so important.

But it isn't absolute everywhere.   Otherwise we wouldn't have theological
arguments.

> But, absolutes *have* to exist - they must!  Why is math so precise?
> Did that happen by chance?  Accidental accuracy?  To say that everything
> is relative is to turn a blind eye to nature and science.

Sometimes.   Relativity does exist.   Grays exist.   And so do Red, plaid, and
beige.

Just because some things are black or white, doesn't mean everything can or
should be shoehorned into those categories.
0
howard (6283)
4/12/2005 4:04:57 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d3gqsr$opv$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <af76e$425af5f4$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET>,

> Leaving aside incidents of force... you *do* realise that you are, with
> that statement, denying the Immaculate Conception, don't you?

Ummm ... think maybe you've mixed up some terms here ...

The doctrine of the "immaculate conception" is that Mary, as the Mother of
God, was preserved from the stain of original sin at her conception.  This
doctrine was made Roman Catholic dogma by Pope Leo IX in an "ex cathedra"
declaration on December 8, 1854AD.

What I think you're thinking of is Mary's virginity at the time of Jesus'
birth.  Roman Catholic doctrine has held that she was a lifelong virgin
since the time the contrary was defined as anathema during the Lateran
Council under Pope Martin 1 in 649AD).

Kind of like the *ascension* of Jesus into heaven, as contrasted with the
*assumption* of Mary into heaven (finally declared dogma by Pope Pius XII
"ex cathedra" on November 1, 1950).

       -Chuck Stevens


0
4/12/2005 4:23:00 PM
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:m2h5e.3678979$Zm5.590479@news.easynews.com...

>    It would be "really nice" if the US (and/or other countries) actually
could
> come up with a medically defensible (and probably subject to change) LEGAL
> definition of when "life begins".  It would be REALLY interesting if this
> applied to ALL things (such as how old you are to get a drivers licens,
vote,
> drink, get social-security, etc).

I seem to remember an old-testament reference that said someone who
physically attacked a pregnant woman *after* she had felt the baby's kicks
in her womb, causing her to abort the baby, was guilty of murder, whereas
one who did so *before* that point was not.

I have also been told that in some forms of Judaism abortion is not
permitted past something like the fourth or fifth month on the basis of that
scripture, but is not prohibited before that point in the pregnancy.

Judaism treats "The Law", "The Prophets" and "The Writings" as having
somewhat different weight, The Law having more gravity, whereas Christianity
tends to group these as "the Old Testament".  For that reason, it seems to
me the citation from I think somewhere in Psalms about God's foreknowledge
of David carries more weight *as doctrinal fodder* among some Christian
groups (where it's part of The Bible) than it does among some Jewish groups
(where it's part of The Writings).

I've often wondered why it's appropriate for the Christian view to prevail
as the Law of the Land on a given subject when it clearly overrides the
Jewish view on the same subject, given the proclamations of the importance
of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in this country  ...

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/12/2005 5:00:20 PM
In article <d3gsl5$2tb5$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d3gqsr$opv$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <af76e$425af5f4$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>
>> Leaving aside incidents of force... you *do* realise that you are, with
>> that statement, denying the Immaculate Conception, don't you?
>
>Ummm ... think maybe you've mixed up some terms here ...
>
>The doctrine of the "immaculate conception" is that Mary, as the Mother of
>God, was preserved from the stain of original sin at her conception.  This
>doctrine was made Roman Catholic dogma by Pope Leo IX in an "ex cathedra"
>declaration on December 8, 1854AD.
>
>What I think you're thinking of is Mary's virginity at the time of Jesus'
>birth.  Roman Catholic doctrine has held that she was a lifelong virgin
>since the time the contrary was defined as anathema during the Lateran
>Council under Pope Martin 1 in 649AD).

Thanks for the clarification, Mr Stevens... my error and apologies.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/12/2005 7:29:42 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d3h7j6$57u$1@panix5.panix.com...

> Thanks for the clarification, Mr Stevens... my error and apologies.

Not a problem.  It's a common misconception among those who weren't subject
to catechism during the reign ... er ... papacy ... of Pius XII ... ;-)

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/12/2005 8:18:44 PM
Chuck Stevens wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d3h7j6$57u$1@panix5.panix.com...
> 
> 
>>Thanks for the clarification, Mr Stevens... my error and apologies.
> 
> 
> Not a problem.  It's a common misconception among those who weren't subject
> to catechism during the reign ... er ... papacy ... of Pius XII ... ;-)
> 
>     -Chuck Stevens
> 
> 
Well we had a small paperback, 'penny catechism' so it was widely 
available to us young 'uns :-). The cover was red and I'm sure you will 
recall the first question :-

Q: Who made you ?

A: God made me to know Him, to serve Him and Love Him in this world and 
in the next.

 From experience I can tell you that when folks get into priesthood, 
religious orders training etc., that 'penny catechism' becomes an 
encyclopaedeia. The above question occupies about two-thirds of a page 
and the answer, perhaps a page and a half; sometimes more. And you have 
to memorize this stuff !

 > during the reign ... er ... papacy ... of Pius XII ... ;-)

Some reign. Josef Stalin once asked, "How many divisions does the Pope 
have ?"

Jimmy
0
4/12/2005 9:35:23 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:vaX6e.981973$Xk.814414@pd7tw3no...

> Well we had a small paperback, 'penny catechism' so it was widely
> available to us young 'uns :-). The cover was red and I'm sure you will
> recall the first question :-
>
> Q: Who made you ?
>
> A: God made me to know Him, to serve Him and Love Him in this world and
> in the next.

In the US, I remember the cover being dark blue -- the "Baltimore
Catechism" -- but that was a *very* long time ago.  They may have had
different covers for the various levels, of which there wer3e four.  They
all had essentially the same questions.  Each one was geared to the audience
(pre-first-communion, pre-confirmation, post-confirmation, and teacher's
training).   And we too had to memorize the questions and the answers.  "Why
did God make me?" is question 6 in the Baltimore Catechism parts 1, 2 and 4
(the numbering scheme's entirely different in Part 3, the post-confirmation
text; there it's #150), and the answer too is slightly different:  "God made
me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy
with Him for ever in Heaven" in part 1, "... happy with Him for ever in the
next" in part 2, "... happy with Him forever in the next" in parts 3 and 4
(note:  no space in "forever").

The first question in parts 1, 2 and 4 of the Baltimore is "Who made the
world?" and the answer, of course, is "God made the world."

The first question in part 3 is "What do we mean by the 'end of man'?", and
the answer is "By the 'end of man' we mean the purpose for which he was
created; namely, to know, love, and serve God."

> during the reign ... er ... papacy ... of Pius XII ... ;-)
>
> Some reign. Josef Stalin once asked, "How many divisions does the Pope
> have ?"

Well, things certainly did get a bit more relaxed under his successor, John
XXIII ... ;-)

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/12/2005 10:14:13 PM
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message 
news:d3gqep$2ruf$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...

> And as for me, I have standing on the first of these qualifications, 
> though
> arguably not on the second (though at the age of sixty I still deal with 
> the
> emotional and psychological consequences imposed by the behavior of adults
> toward me when I was eight years old).

It is at moments like these when "discussion" becomes "real*
It is at moments like these that I realise that there are occasions when it 
is fortunate that I am *not* to be able to defend my position with 
experience.
It is at moments like these that I realise how much I owe to the people 
around me that took care of me growing up.

JCE


0
defaultuser (532)
4/12/2005 10:18:47 PM
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bPX6e.40423$Pc.5833@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

> It is at moments like these when "discussion" becomes "real*
> It is at moments like these that I realise that there are occasions when
it
> is fortunate that I am *not* to be able to defend my position with
> experience.
> It is at moments like these that I realise how much I owe to the people
> around me that took care of me growing up.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/12/2005 11:22:00 PM
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d3gqep$2ruf$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:6c427$425b1f96$45491f85$14981@KNOLOGY.NET...
> > Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > > "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > > news:b0d0f$425af6b2$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
<snipped well presented argument>

> Do *you* truly feel the pain that a rapist endures, Daniel?   It doesn't
> seem to me that you're demonstrating it very well.
>
Surely that should be "the victim of a rapist" shouldn't it, Chuck?

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/13/2005 1:06:15 AM
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bPX6e.40423$Pc.5833@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:d3gqep$2ruf$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> > And as for me, I have standing on the first of these qualifications,
> > though
> > arguably not on the second (though at the age of sixty I still deal with
> > the
> > emotional and psychological consequences imposed by the behavior of
adults
> > toward me when I was eight years old).
>
> It is at moments like these when "discussion" becomes "real*
> It is at moments like these that I realise that there are occasions when
it
> is fortunate that I am *not* to be able to defend my position with
> experience.
> It is at moments like these that I realise how much I owe to the people
> around me that took care of me growing up.
>

Good result. If a discussion in CLC can have that effect for just ONE
person, then this forum has justified its existence.

Pete



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/13/2005 1:07:38 AM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> It's a very good response Daniel. I think I understand your position better.

Ah - good...  :)

> Comments below.

Likewise!

> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:6c427$425b1f96$45491f85$14981@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>>>"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>news:b0d0f$425af6b2$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I wouldn't call it a punishment - taking responsibility for your actions
>>>>would be a better term.  (Yes, I know the raped woman is taking
>>>>responsibility for the actions of another - no one said life was fair.)
>>>
>>>I'm staggered by this, Daniel.
>>>
>>>For the most part I find your arguments acceptable and fair (whether I
>>>actually agree or not), but this is definitely over the top.
>>>
>>>Is it a compassionate Christian viewpoint to decide that a girl who has
> 
> been
> 
>>>raped MUST take responsibility for the action of the animal that did it?
>>>
> 
> I notice there was no direct response to this. You are focusing on the
> conceived baby. My focus is on the mother.

I'm not ignoring the mother - but, to say that an innocent person has to 
die because of a wrong inflicted on yet another innocent person seems 
(to me) to be prolonging the evil.  A woman who conceives while being 
raped will likely not die from carrying that child to term - however, 
the baby definitely *will* die from an abortion.

>>It may not seen compassionate - but, what makes that child conceived by
>>those means any less deserving of air, food, and water than a child
>>conceived by a loving couple?  In my view, nothing - they both are
>>humans, both equally deserving of their chance in this world.
> 
> As it happens, I agree with you on this. But the mother's rights here are
> being conveniently forgotten. The foetus is a collection of cells; the
> mother is a developed, thinking living breathing human with siblings and
> parents and interactions with other humans. She is no less 'innocent' than
> the foetus. A victim of circumstance who had the child forced on her by
> someone who has NO right to put her in that situation.

I agree (well, of course I do, since you agreed with me... ;> )  But, 
does her victim status give her a "kill someone free" card?  Bad things 
happen to people all the time - few are as bad as rape (thank God), but 
people learn to recover, get past them, and become stronger.

> OK, we can argue that some other time.  But I see you accept the need for
> punishment. (I don't personally. I think punishment is an outmoded concept.
> People who misbehave should either be restrained and re-conditioned, or
> eliminated. :-) But, for the sake of this argument I'll go along with the
> punishment concept...)

We've done that here at least once since I've been here...  :)

> So, your argument predicates on the 'innocent life' of the foetus. Why would
> you not weigh that innocent life, against the mother's innocent life?

My scale is 3 responses above...

> The jury is still out on exactly what is and is not hereditary. If
> homosexuality and high IQ can be in the genes (there is evidence to support
> both of these, although personally, I don't believe it), why can't the
> propensity for rape?

(we're both skeptical of the same things there)

> Supposing, just for the sake of this argument, that rape was hereditary.
> Would that change your position regarding the option to abort the foetus?

No, not really (although you did make me sit back from the keyboard and 
think).  Just because someone is born with the propensity for something 
doesn't mean they can't be educated to go against those negative 
behaviors and become productive members of society.

>>abusers being abused themselves as children - but that's environmental.
>>  You still haven't lowered the worth of that unborn child (in my mind,
>>at least)...
>>
> Good. That was not my intention, although it may have appeared so.

Well, no, I didn't think it was.  And, I probably came across more 
defensive than I actually was - I was legitimately curious as to whether 
you knew of any studies where rape was shown to be hereditary.  :)

> So the baby lives because it is innocent. It is just as worthwhile as any
> other baby.
> 
> So far so good. But what about punishing the father?

The state does this.

> There are contradictory texts on this, but here are the ones that support my
> case:
> 
> EXODUS 34:7
> keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
> and who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of fathers
> on the sons, and on the sons of sons, to the third and to the fourth
> generation.
> 
> DEUTERONOMY 5:9
> ...For I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
> fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those who hate
> Me,
> 
> JEREMIAH 32:18
> You show loving-kindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers
> into the bosom of their sons after them.
> 
> NUMBERS 14:18
> The LORD is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and
> transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of
> the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation.

You're using this to justify abortion?  In every one of these verses 
here (Exodus 34:6, for the first one) the person doing the visitation is 
the Lord, not man.  These verses aren't instructions on what we should 
do, they're declarations of who the Lord is, and what He will do.

These Old Testament declarations were also fulfilled and done away with 
by Jesus's atonement on the cross.  No longer to families live under a 
curse for generation after generation.  Yes, there may be consequences 
(a drunkard father being fired punishes the children by reducing the 
amount of food and other needs they can purchase, for example), but the 
"curse" is gone.

> Pretty frightening stuff; no wonder no one messes with the God of Israel...
> :-)

you got that right!  ;)

> So I reckon the above would justify the execution of the foetus as proper
> punishment for the father (and it looks like God agrees with me..."by no
> means clearing the guilty")

Procreation is hardly ever a motivation for rape.  Hatred of women, lust 
for power, maybe.  The rapist wouldn't give two twists of a swine's 
snout if his progeny were terminated.  Again, you're back to punishing 
the innocent baby, this time for the "sins of the father".

> I don't seriously expect you to agree, Daniel, but it is nevertheless a fair
> case, made on the stated positions of Jehovah, from scripture.

If man plays God...  :)

> Here's what I glean from all of this (religious and secular arguments):
> 
> 1. The mother had no say in it and is therefore innocent.

Agreed.

> 2. The child had no say in it and is also innocent. (However, there is
> another argument about whether a collection of cells with potential to be an
> individual, is actually an individual. If  it is inevitable that either the
> mother or the child are going to have to suffer, this argument would weight
> the odds in favour of the mother.)

The mother is already suffering.  A pregnancy takes 9 months - are you 
telling me that a woman would *not* be thinking about her past rape 
every day for the first 9 months after it happened?  Why make yet 
another person suffer?  (Aren't you the one who's against punishment?)

> 3. The father needs to be punished. According to Moses' discussion with God
> (described in the Pentateuch which was allegedly written by Moses, so, first
> hand...), it is pretty clear (and stated on a number of occasions) that
> punishment is passed on to up to four generations. This doesn't look good
> for the foetus...

A child borne in this manner may have a less-comfortable childhood than 
one born to Mr. and Mrs. Perfect over on Easy Street.  However, lots of 
kids from humble or meager beginnings often rise to high levels of 
achievement.

> 4. NO-ONE on Earth (and God's position is pretty clear...) has the right to
> impose on the mother that she must carry this baby and give birth to it, if
> she doesn't want to.(If she is strongly religious and wants to carry it, OK.
> But it has to be HER decision.)

Where does God say that the mother's rights outweigh the baby's rights? 
  My Bible is strangely silent about "rights"...

> 5. We need more drastic penalties for rapists.

A point of agreement has emerged!  I second that...

> Your last sentence seems to agree with my position. If so, then we don't
> differ on this one... and I am happy to close this argument, leaving you the
> right to your beliefs, even the hope that the girl will carry the baby, but
> agreeing that when the chips are down the decision must be made by her, and
> by her alone.

Well, I know a post full of question marks doesn't really seem like 
"closing" things off...  But, if you don't reply to any of 'em, I won't 
go hounding you for one.  ;)

> I still want to kick that bastard rapist, though... :-) (Not because it will
> punish him, simply because it would make me feel better :-))

heh....  Where would you kick him?  (Oh, never mind - I didn't need to 
ask that...)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/13/2005 2:49:49 AM
Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:6c427$425b1f96$45491f85$14981@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>>>"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>news:b0d0f$425af6b2$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
> 
>>It may not seen compassionate - but, what makes that child conceived by
>>those means any less deserving of air, food, and water than a child
>>conceived by a loving couple?  In my view, nothing - they both are
>>humans, both equally deserving of their chance in this world.
> 
> 
> Not only does it not *seem* compassionate, it *is not* compassionate to the
> victim of rape.  Etymologically, "compassion" comes from "to suffer with" -- 
> and in its roots is almost identical with "sympathize".
> 
> Demanding that the victim of rape be forced to deal with the consequences of
> that rape in the way *you* think they ought to deal with them is neither
> sympathetic nor compassionate.  The child, too, is not just a consequence
> but a *victim* of that rape.

So the victim should die?  That's compassionate...

> This strikes me as about as compassionate as requiring that the rapist and
> his victim are morally obligated to marry and live happily ever after,
> providing a nurturing and loving home for the product of their "love".  Are
> you prepared to demand that?

Of course not.

> Even if the child is put up for adoption it is the obligation of society to
> inform the child of his or her genetic background, and by virtue of that, of
> the circumstances of the conception and the reasons why the mother chooses
> to abandon the child to strangers.  Are you prepared to demand that?

If it's the "obligation", doesn't that mechanism already exist?  Isn't 
it already "demanded"?

> Further, until you personally are willing to admit that *you* were the
> victim of rape, and as a direct consequence of that rape joyfully and
> gleefully went through months of constant nausea (at best) culminated by an
> experience analogous to defecating a bowling ball over a period of many
> hours, I would contend that you have no standing to offer an opinion on what
> further suffering the *victim* of a rape is morally obligated to endure.

Your contention is your right, just as it is my right to hold these beliefs.

> Do *you* truly feel the pain that a rapist endures, Daniel?   It doesn't
> seem to me that you're demonstrating it very well.

I take it you mean "rape victim" - I've got a pretty good idea, not from 
personal experience, but from a close family member who was a victim.  A 
pregnancy did not occur, thankfully, but she still has times where it 
just really gets to her.

It's really easy to say I'm harsh and uncompassionate because you can't 
*see* the unborn victim.  I'm pretty sure that *they* would think your 
position as uncompassionate as you think mine.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/13/2005 2:55:32 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:4c563$425c88cb$45491f85$27772@KNOLOGY.NET...
>> Supposing, just for the sake of this argument, that rape was hereditary.
>> Would that change your position regarding the option to abort the foetus?
>
> No, not really (although you did make me sit back from the keyboard and 
> think).  Just because someone is born with the propensity for something 
> doesn't mean they can't be educated to go against those negative behaviors 
> and become productive members of society.

That's a very well crafted sentence - it says a lot and is substantially 
loaded :-)  I suppose that what you are saying is that "after" committing a 
crime the chances of this "education" working are nil.

I recently watched Johnny Cash at Folsom prison and I was not previously 
aware of the documentary portions of the videa where they interviewed 
prisoners.

The amazing thing to me was listening to the inmates talk.  They freely 
acknowledged their crime, but when you *listened* to them, you could to tell 
that at some level they were victims themselves.  In some cases their crimes 
were despicable but there was a real sadness in what they were saying about 
their lives and choices, and most of all a tinge of regret that forgiveness 
was not coming from society.  Mostly they didn't try and justify their 
crimes but more rationalize them, some of them better than others.  Others 
still I am sure had nothing to say.  A lot of them had become christian, had 
sought forgiveness from God, and thought that in death salvation would come.

I'm not suggesting that we set them all free.  I'm not suggesting that we 
abolish the death penalty.

It was just eye opening for me.   I truly believe that whilst there are 
people on death row and in jail that are morally reprehensible to the core, 
there are many that have made grievous mistakes and deserve at least 
acknowledgment of changes they make to their lives - even behind bars.

As the Man in Black said:

"Prisoners are the greatest audience that an entertainer can perform for. We 
bring them a ray of sunshine in their dungeon and they're not ashamed to 
respond, and show their appreciation. Listen closely to this album and you 
can hear in the background the clanging of the doors, the shrill of the 
whistle, the shout of the men - even laughter from men who had forgotten how 
to laugh. But mostly you'll feel the electricity and hear the single 
pulsation of two thousand heartbeats in men who had their hearts torn out, 
as well as their minds, their nervous systems and their souls. Hear the 
sounds of the men, the convicts all brothers of mine - with the Folsom 
Prison Blues."

If I suggest anything it's that everyone who asks deservingly for dignity 
should receive it.  Sure you can kick them when they've done wrong, but we 
should not judge them solely on what they did before we kicked them, but 
also how they respond to that kick.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
4/13/2005 3:48:32 AM
In article <vaX6e.981973$Xk.814414@pd7tw3no>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>Well we had a small paperback, 'penny catechism' so it was widely 
>available to us young 'uns :-). The cover was red and I'm sure you will 
>recall the first question :-
>
>Q: Who made you ?
>
>A: God made me to know Him, to serve Him and Love Him in this world and 
>in the next.

Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of 

Q: Where am I?

A: In The Village.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/13/2005 5:13:40 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <vaX6e.981973$Xk.814414@pd7tw3no>,
> James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>Well we had a small paperback, 'penny catechism' so it was widely 
>>available to us young 'uns :-). The cover was red and I'm sure you will 
>>recall the first question :-
>>
>>Q: Who made you ?
>>
>>A: God made me to know Him, to serve Him and Love Him in this world and 
>>in the next.
> 
> 
> Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of 
> 
> Q: Where am I?
> 
> A: In The Village.
> 
> DD
> 
I really *do* have the feeling that you are misquoting when you supply 
your answer "In the Village". Isn't this where you normally write :-

"My mind is porous, or I don't even know what I think, let alone what 
anybody else thinks, or I don't even know whether or not I am the King 
of England".

Jimmy
0
4/13/2005 5:32:54 AM
In article <aa27e.986519$Xk.337428@pd7tw3no>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <vaX6e.981973$Xk.814414@pd7tw3no>,
>> James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> 
>>>Well we had a small paperback, 'penny catechism' so it was widely 
>>>available to us young 'uns :-). The cover was red and I'm sure you will 
>>>recall the first question :-
>>>
>>>Q: Who made you ?
>>>
>>>A: God made me to know Him, to serve Him and Love Him in this world and 
>>>in the next.
>> 
>> 
>> Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of 
>> 
>> Q: Where am I?
>> 
>> A: In The Village.
>> 
>> 
>I really *do* have the feeling that you are misquoting when you supply 
>your answer "In the Village".

But... if I'm quoting accurately then am I supplying 'my' answer or 
someone else's?

>Isn't this where you normally write :-
>
>"My mind is porous, or I don't even know what I think, let alone what 
>anybody else thinks, or I don't even know whether or not I am the King 
>of England".

It might be somewhat similar to some things I've posted, aye... but I'm 
not really sure, as my memory is, admittedly, porous.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/13/2005 6:14:48 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d3i9q4$rhc$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <vaX6e.981973$Xk.814414@pd7tw3no>,
> James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Well we had a small paperback, 'penny catechism' so it was widely
> >available to us young 'uns :-). The cover was red and I'm sure you will
> >recall the first question :-
> >
> >Q: Who made you ?
> >
> >A: God made me to know Him, to serve Him and Love Him in this world and
> >in the next.
>
> Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of
>
> Q: Where am I?
>
> A: In The Village.
>
ROFL! (That was without doubt one of your very best, Doc. At this rate you
will be a shoe in for the new number 2...:-))

Pete. (who is not a number...)



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/13/2005 10:23:22 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <vaX6e.981973$Xk.814414@pd7tw3no>,
>James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Well we had a small paperback, 'penny catechism' so it was widely 
>>available to us young 'uns :-). The cover was red and I'm sure you will 
>>recall the first question :-
>>
>>Q: Who made you ?
>>
>>A: God made me to know Him, to serve Him and Love Him in this world and 
>>in the next.
>
>Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of 
>
>Q: Where am I?
>
>A: In The Village.

ROFL...

Ever been to Portmeirion, Doc?

-- 
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).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
4/13/2005 2:18:26 PM
On 12-Apr-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

>  > during the reign ... er ... papacy ... of Pius XII ... ;-)
>
> Some reign. Josef Stalin once asked, "How many divisions does the Pope
> have ?"

Ask the current leader of the USSR.
0
howard (6283)
4/13/2005 2:51:53 PM
On 12-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of
>
> Q: Where am I?
>
> A: In The Village.

Is that from a recent movie that I didn't see?    Or is it from _The Prisoner_
TV series?

The latter works well.   (I wonder if it will ever be available on DvD).
0
howard (6283)
4/13/2005 2:53:52 PM
On 12-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> > I notice there was no direct response to this. You are focusing on the
> > conceived baby. My focus is on the mother.
>
> I'm not ignoring the mother - but, to say that an innocent person has to
> die because of a wrong inflicted on yet another innocent person seems
> (to me) to be prolonging the evil.  A woman who conceives while being
> raped will likely not die from carrying that child to term - however,
> the baby definitely *will* die from an abortion.

Certainly this is a consistent position - if you believe all embryos are people,
then you should treat them all as you would treat infants.   The president's
father did not have this position, he believed in exceptions.    If you believe
they are not yet people, then the ethical questions are different.

Do you treat miscarriages and infant deaths the same?
0
howard (6283)
4/13/2005 2:57:38 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:9e66e$425c8a20$45491f85$27931@KNOLOGY.NET...

> > Demanding that the victim of rape be forced to deal with the
consequences of
> > that rape in the way *you* think they ought to deal with them is neither
> > sympathetic nor compassionate.  The child, too, is not just a
consequence
> > but a *victim* of that rape.
>
> So the victim should die?  That's compassionate...

I think a woman who has been infected by a parasite (look it up!) against
her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her sexuality
and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this violation
to whatever degree she deems necessary.  She has the choice to carry the
child to term, she even has the choice to raise it.  But I do not believe
you, or the law, should be in a position to say "Too bad, so sad.  I feel
your pain.  But the consequences you face as the result of a violent act by
another are that you are now relegated to the category of a bagful of garden
soil."

I am indeed more com-passionate -- I have more sym-pathy -- toward the being
in this instance who is capable of sentient memory than the one that can
only exist parasitically.

I have spent a number of hours talking to women who have been raped on the
nature of female sexuality, and the violation of a *female* rape victim
fundamentally affects, and is an invasion of, her fundamental sexuality as
well as her right to reject such unwanted invasions of her reproductive
organs in ways that males, even male rape victims, can only guess at.
Demanding that a female in such a circumstance accept her obligation to
carry the results of this heinous violation to term fundamentally denies her
the right to cleanse herself of the violation and the pollution inflicted on
her.

You may admit that the rape victim has suffered, but you deny her the right
to strive to lessen that suffering by cleansing herself of the very evidence
of this violence.  I do not agree that the "passion" -- the "pathy" -- of
which an embryo or a fetus is conscious is comparable to that which the rape
victim suffers, either as a direct result of the rape or as the result of
being required to live with the direct physical consequences of that rape
for nine months or even a lifetime.    I am more inclined to be
"com-passionate" and "sym-pathetic",  to the victim of this violence that is
capable of "passio" and "pathy" in the first place than I am to the one who
is not.  \

Why should the result of a rape be treated any differently than the result
of being force-fed a tapeworm or injected with anthrax?   To the direct
victim of rape, there's not a lot of difference.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/13/2005 3:56:55 PM
In article <3c4a8tF6j0v5gU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d3i9q4$rhc$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <vaX6e.981973$Xk.814414@pd7tw3no>,
>> James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Well we had a small paperback, 'penny catechism' so it was widely
>> >available to us young 'uns :-). The cover was red and I'm sure you will
>> >recall the first question :-
>> >
>> >Q: Who made you ?
>> >
>> >A: God made me to know Him, to serve Him and Love Him in this world and
>> >in the next.
>>
>> Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of
>>
>> Q: Where am I?
>>
>> A: In The Village.
>>
>ROFL! (That was without doubt one of your very best, Doc. At this rate you
>will be a shoe in for the new number 2...:-))

Shucks... you's jes' easily amused.

>
>Pete. (who is not a number...)

Ha HA ha ha ha ha ha!

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/13/2005 3:58:56 PM
In article <mgaq515s3av1kj1osml8qsamubgnf75kfq@4ax.com>,
Jeff York  <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <vaX6e.981973$Xk.814414@pd7tw3no>,
>>James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Well we had a small paperback, 'penny catechism' so it was widely 
>>>available to us young 'uns :-). The cover was red and I'm sure you will 
>>>recall the first question :-
>>>
>>>Q: Who made you ?
>>>
>>>A: God made me to know Him, to serve Him and Love Him in this world and 
>>>in the next.
>>
>>Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of 
>>
>>Q: Where am I?
>>
>>A: In The Village.
>
>ROFL...
>
>Ever been to Portmeirion, Doc?

I prefer to take vacations closer to the equator... but you know, enough 
time has passed so that neither I nor the staff there should be taking any 
of this... stuff from a forty-year-old television program with any great 
seriousness any more.  Perhaps I should visit.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/13/2005 4:03:53 PM
In article <d3jbpv$64a$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 12-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of
>>
>> Q: Where am I?
>>
>> A: In The Village.
>
>Is that from a recent movie that I didn't see?    Or is it from _The Prisoner_
>TV series?

One does not rule out the other, granted... but I typed it with the latter 
in mind.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
4/13/2005 4:06:02 PM
On 13-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> > So the victim should die?  That's compassionate...
>
> I think a woman who has been infected by a parasite (look it up!) against
> her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her sexuality
> and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this violation
> to whatever degree she deems necessary.

The trouble with this argument is that you both are starting off with different
basic assumptions.

To him, all abortion is homicide, and some is murder.   Do you believe that her
right extends to cleanse herself "to whatever degree she deems necessary"
includes murder?    If  so, you won't find much support.

If not, then your argument doesn't matter to him.

To win your argument you need to convince him of one of the following:
1.  She should be allowed to murder to cleanse herself.
2.  Abortion isn't murder (or in the case of self defense - justified homicide).

Some variances can be used:
2a.   Embryonic abortion isn't murder.

One argument can be to point out how his ethical source (the Bible)
differentiates unborn with infants.
Another argument can be to question whether he treats miscarriages and
infanticide the same.

But as long as his argument is that embryos and infants are the same - any
argument that you have based upon a different starting point won't succeed.
0
howard (6283)
4/13/2005 4:12:55 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <mgaq515s3av1kj1osml8qsamubgnf75kfq@4ax.com>,
>Jeff York  <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <vaX6e.981973$Xk.814414@pd7tw3no>,
>>>James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>Well we had a small paperback, 'penny catechism' so it was widely 
>>>>available to us young 'uns :-). The cover was red and I'm sure you will 
>>>>recall the first question :-
>>>>
>>>>Q: Who made you ?
>>>>
>>>>A: God made me to know Him, to serve Him and Love Him in this world and 
>>>>in the next.
>>>
>>>Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of 
>>>
>>>Q: Where am I?
>>>
>>>A: In The Village.
>>
>>ROFL...
>>
>>Ever been to Portmeirion, Doc?
>
>I prefer to take vacations closer to the equator... but you know, enough 
>time has passed so that neither I nor the staff there should be taking any 
>of this... stuff from a forty-year-old television program with any great 
>seriousness any more.  Perhaps I should visit.

I think that "The Prisoner Appreciation Society" - or whatever they
call themselves - still have annual get-togethers there.  And of
course, thanks to Clough Williams-Elliss's covenants etc, the place
simply doesn't change.  To the extent of when they re-paint any of the
buildings, they're painted to look scruffy (actually, that's a bit
harsh, "weathered" is more like the truth).

And the hotel...  Is *superb*.  As it's the building that was used as
the "Old Folks' Home" in the series, you would feel really comfortable
there.  :-)

-- 
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).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
4/13/2005 4:18:22 PM
On 13-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> I prefer to take vacations closer to the equator... but you know, enough
> time has passed so that neither I nor the staff there should be taking any
> of this... stuff from a forty-year-old television program with any great
> seriousness any more.  Perhaps I should visit.

Trouble is - I'm familiar with 40 year old television programs.   For some
reason, about 30 years ago, I lost interest in TV.    I believe in Sturgeon's
Law, indicating that there is more good stuff with a larger 10% today, but I
find I value my free time differently these days.

I did watch my alma mater (MBA version) win the NCAA Men's Hockey championship
this Saturday, and I watched the end of The Masters (I play golf).   And I
expect to watch the Nuggets in the post season instead of the Avalanche in the
post season as I have in the past.    But those are local interest stories.
0
howard (6283)
4/13/2005 4:23:33 PM
On 13-Apr-2005, Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:

> I think that "The Prisoner Appreciation Society" - or whatever they
> call themselves - still have annual get-togethers there.  And of
> course, thanks to Clough Williams-Elliss's covenants etc, the place
> simply doesn't change.  To the extent of when they re-paint any of the
> buildings, they're painted to look scruffy (actually, that's a bit
> harsh, "weathered" is more like the truth).
>
> And the hotel...  Is *superb*.  As it's the building that was used as
> the "Old Folks' Home" in the series, you would feel really comfortable
> there.  :-)

And I can let my grandchildren go swimming without being afraid that they will
go out too far?
0
howard (6283)
4/13/2005 4:56:21 PM
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:23:00 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> enlightened us:

>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d3gqsr$opv$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <af76e$425af5f4$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>
>> Leaving aside incidents of force... you *do* realise that you are, with
>> that statement, denying the Immaculate Conception, don't you?
>
>Ummm ... think maybe you've mixed up some terms here ...
>
>The doctrine of the "immaculate conception" is that Mary, as the Mother of
>God, was preserved from the stain of original sin at her conception.  This
>doctrine was made Roman Catholic dogma by Pope Leo IX in an "ex cathedra"
>declaration on December 8, 1854AD.
>
>What I think you're thinking of is Mary's virginity at the time of Jesus'
>birth.  Roman Catholic doctrine has held that she was a lifelong virgin
>since the time the contrary was defined as anathema during the Lateran
>Council under Pope Martin 1 in 649AD).
>

As a lifelong Catholic, I don't recall ever learning or hearing that
Mary was a "lifelong" virgin.  She was indeed a virgin at the time of
Jeasus' conception.  But, since Jeasus had a brother, Ya�aqov,
Anglicized as "James,"  I think it would be safe to assume that Mary
was not a lifelong virgin.  

There has been, as I'm sure you know, much debate about whether James
was Jeasus' brother or not.  In two gospels (Mark 6:3, Matthew
13:55-56) James is actually named as Jesus� brother, along with four
other men; at least two unnamed and unenumerated sisters are also
mentioned. 

St. Jerome (in his controversial work, Against Helvidius), argued that
although "brothers" and "sisters" are the terms used in Greek, the
reference is actually to cousins.  

Before St. Jerome, Helvidius himself had maintained during the fourth
century that the brothers and sisters were just what their name
implies -- siblings of Jesus: although he had been born of a virgin,
their father was Joseph and their mother was Mary.

In a recent work which received the Imprimatur, John P. Meier has
endorsed the Helvidian theory, to some extent on the basis of support
from second century Fathers. (see A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the
Historical Jesus I (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 332.) During that
century, a group referred to as the Ebionites even denied Jesus�
virgin birth in the technical sense; his "brothers" and "sisters" were
implicitly that in the full sense of those words (see Irenaeus,
Against Heresies 1.26.1-2).

There is also a theory developed by Epiphanius during the fourth
century (Panarion 1.29.3-4; 2.66.19; 3.78.7, 9, 13), and supported by
the second-century Protoevanglium of James 9.2 and perhaps the Gospel
of Peter (according to Origen�s Commentary on Matthew 10:17):11  Mary
was Jesus� mother, not James�, since Joseph had a wife prior to his
marriage to Mary. Joseph�s relatively advanced age is traditionally
held to account for his early departure from the narrative scene of
the Gospels, and that reasonable inference lends support to this
theory, while James� emphasis on the Davidic identity of the Church
(see Acts 15:16) is easily accommodated on this view. James� seniority
relative to Jesus might be reflected in the parable of the prodigal
(Luke 15:11-32). The story of those with Jesus seizing him in the
midst of exorcism (Mark 3:21; cf. 3:31-35) reflects the kind of almost
parental concern an older brother might feel for a younger brother.

Another, more pragmatic consideration provides support for Epiphanius�
theory, although in a modified form. As mentioned, Joseph disappears
from the scene of the Gospels from when Jesus was about twelve years
old. His death at that time has been the traditional surmise, and such
a chronology has implications for understanding Jesus� relationships
with his siblings. On the Helvidian view, Mary must have given birth
to at least seven children in twelve years (Jesus, his brothers, and
two or more sisters). Assuming that not every child she gave birth to
survived infancy, more than seven labors would be required during that
period, all this within a culture that confined women after childbirth
and prohibited intercourse with a woman with a flow of blood, and
despite the acknowledged prophylactic effect of lactation and Joseph�s
age.

For more on this whole debate see:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chilton_James.htm

Also another argument can be seen at:

http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb3.20.html

>Kind of like the *ascension* of Jesus into heaven, as contrasted with the
>*assumption* of Mary into heaven (finally declared dogma by Pope Pius XII
>"ex cathedra" on November 1, 1950).
>
>       -Chuck Stevens
>

Regards,

          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that 
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"   
--Robin Williams 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
0
swiegand4720 (202)
4/13/2005 5:07:12 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>
>On 13-Apr-2005, Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that "The Prisoner Appreciation Society" - or whatever they
>> call themselves - still have annual get-togethers there.  And of
>> course, thanks to Clough Williams-Elliss's covenants etc, the place
>> simply doesn't change.  To the extent of when they re-paint any of the
>> buildings, they're painted to look scruffy (actually, that's a bit
>> harsh, "weathered" is more like the truth).
>>
>> And the hotel...  Is *superb*.  As it's the building that was used as
>> the "Old Folks' Home" in the series, you would feel really comfortable
>> there.  :-)
>
>And I can let my grandchildren go swimming without being afraid that they will
>go out too far?

I think that the white weather balloon has been pensioned-off..  :-)

-- 
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).

 
0
ralf4 (132)
4/13/2005 5:33:51 PM
SkippyPB wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:23:00 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
> <charles.stevens@unisys.com> enlightened us:
> 
>>
>>The doctrine of the "immaculate conception" is that Mary, as the Mother of
>>God, was preserved from the stain of original sin at her conception.  This
>>doctrine was made Roman Catholic dogma by Pope Leo IX in an "ex cathedra"
>>declaration on December 8, 1854AD.
>>
>>What I think you're thinking of is Mary's virginity at the time of Jesus'
>>birth.  Roman Catholic doctrine has held that she was a lifelong virgin
>>since the time the contrary was defined as anathema during the Lateran
>>Council under Pope Martin 1 in 649AD).
>>
> 
> As a lifelong Catholic, I don't recall ever learning or hearing that
> Mary was a "lifelong" virgin.  She was indeed a virgin at the time of
> Jeasus' conception.  But, since Jeasus had a brother, Ya�aqov,
> Anglicized as "James,"  I think it would be safe to assume that Mary
> was not a lifelong virgin.

ZOWEE ! As a lifelong Catholic, I don't think you will recall ever 
learning or hearing that Mary WASN'T a "lifelong" virgin - certainly not 
from any official Church sources. Don't visit Rome any time soon, 
although in theory you could become the next Pope :-). Cardinal 
Ratzinger (nicknamed the Panzer Kardinal) and was head of the 
'Congregation of the Faith', whatever the correct name is, (another way 
of saying the Inquisition :-) ) - would just LUV you !

OK I'm going to give the plot away, but Dan Brown's 'da Vinci Code' - 
the premise is Jesus married Mary Magdalen - which over a period of 
2,000 years the Church has tried to keep hushed up. There's one of the 
Italian cardinals wants to publish a book to refute Brown's story. And 
it is a story, and a bloody good yarn. All the cardinal will achieve is 
doubling Brown's book sales !

As regards 'Immaculate Conception' - just another bit of hokum from a 
religious group. Where's the scientific evidence ?

Well just so happens about three months back I saw a 'Nature' TV program 
on the Pacific. Can't give you the species, but there's this fish, about 
goldfish size, that is SEXLESS. To propagate the species "it" 
self-impregnates to produce and hatch small fry. So if a teensy-weensy 
fish can do it, why not some human beings ?

I don't go near a church, but I think I can consider myself also a 
lifelong catholic. It changed for me when the austere Italian, Pius XII 
was eventually replaced by John XXIII - not necessarily his intent, but 
as a result of his papacy, so much of the questioning and current 
liberalism took place - non-celibacy, birth control, women priests, 
"banjo" masses - instead of Latin and Gregorian chant etc.

He's a long-short and probably wont get a look-in, but there's a 60-year 
old Quebec cardinal who is on the 20-odd list of possible 'Popes', who 
would like to switch back to the Latin Mass - there's my boy !

Another possible 'Papa' - perhaps not very compassionate, but when 
questioned about condoms as being the means of controlling the killer 
AIDS in Africa, the Nigerian cardinal responded, "Nobody died from 
chastity".

Jimmy
0
4/13/2005 6:02:36 PM
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:m0jq51pnrr7ntef5el54egfe6nkso1knsr@4ax.com...

> As a lifelong Catholic, I don't recall ever learning or hearing that
> Mary was a "lifelong" virgin.  She was indeed a virgin at the time of
> Jeasus' conception.  But, since Jeasus had a brother, Ya'aqov,
> Anglicized as "James,"  I think it would be safe to assume that Mary
> was not a lifelong virgin.

Well, I don't dispute that there may have been a shift in Roman Catholic
thought on this matter since the days of Vatican II.

But to say that as a lifelong Catholic you never heard or learned that Mary
was a "lifelong" virgin strikes me as strange, given the wording in the
Confiteor in the ordinary of the Roman Mass, which, so far as I know, still
includes the words "I confess to Almighty God, ... to blessed Mary ever
Virgin ... Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin ..." (or, if you
prefer the Latin version, "Confiteor Deo omnipotenti ... beatae Mariae
semper Virgini ... Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem ...").  Has the
wording of the Mass been changed recently in this area?

Whatever Msgr. Meier might argue as a possibility, I'd have to suggest that
the traditional view of the Church is represented by Tertullian, Jerome,
Augustine and several sainted Popes on the subject, and I'd be really
surprised if this view had changed in recent years without making big news
somewhere!

Out of curiosity, in Meier's "A Marginal Jew", who signed the Imprimatur?
Did it also receive a Nihil Obstat, and if so, from whom?

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/13/2005 7:12:15 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4c563$425c88cb$45491f85$27772@KNOLOGY.NET...

> Where does God say that the mother's rights outweigh the baby's rights?
>   My Bible is strangely silent about "rights"...

In Exodus 21:22-23, it says (NAB) "When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant
woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty
one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he
shall pay in the presence of the judges.  But if injury ensues, you shall
give him life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot
for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

My understanding of that passage is that if the injury results *only* in a
miscarriage -- and thus the *death* of the embryo/fetus -- it is not
regarded as nearly as serious a crime as a direct wound to the woman,
whether she suffers a miscarriage or not.

Matthew 5:38 mitigates the response in the latter case, not the relative
gravity of the two injuries.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/13/2005 7:44:56 PM
Judaism as a mindset generally opposes abortion, but takes the position that
a fetus isn't a person until its forehead is out of the birth canal (or, for
a breech birth, when half the body is out).

    -Chuck Stevens


"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d362g6$f15$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
> Former president Bush was against abortion - except in the case of rape,
incest,
> or to save the mother's life.    Self defense is an acceptable reason to
kill a
> person.    But killing a human being because he is the result of rape or
incest
> is not acceptable.   So obviously, he didn't think abortion kills a human
being.
>
>
> Or maybe this is the "good girls can have abortions - bad girls need to be
> punished with motherhood" argument.


0
4/13/2005 11:02:24 PM
jce wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
> news:4c563$425c88cb$45491f85$27772@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>>Supposing, just for the sake of this argument, that rape was hereditary.
>>>Would that change your position regarding the option to abort the foetus?
>>
>>No, not really (although you did make me sit back from the keyboard and 
>>think).  Just because someone is born with the propensity for something 
>>doesn't mean they can't be educated to go against those negative behaviors 
>>and become productive members of society.
> 
> 
> That's a very well crafted sentence - it says a lot and is substantially 
> loaded :-)

Why thank you - I'm flattered.  :)

> I suppose that what you are saying is that "after" committing a 
> crime the chances of this "education" working are nil.

Not necessarily "nil" - it's just a lot longer road if the propensity is 
followed.  An alcoholic has no trouble at all with the stuff until he 
takes that first drink.  From that point on, it'll be a struggle the 
rest of his life.

[snipped Folsom Prison stuff]

> If I suggest anything it's that everyone who asks deservingly for dignity 
> should receive it.  Sure you can kick them when they've done wrong, but we 
> should not judge them solely on what they did before we kicked them, but 
> also how they respond to that kick.

This is true.  This is also why, for all but the most heinous of crimes, 
lifetime sentences and/or death are not options.  We have suspended 
sentences, concurrent sentences, parole, etc.  The question society has 
to ask is what are the ramifications of someone being released when they 
*do* repeat the crime?  In certain cases, cities have been sued over the 
people they let out who committed the same crime again.  At some point, 
a judgment call has to be made for the safety of the society as a whole. 
  That's where the debate comes in about who's *actually* sorry for what 
they did, and who's just saying that because they know it'll get them 
out early.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/14/2005 12:04:54 AM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 12-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
> 
>>Not bad... but it lacks the simple elegance of
>>
>>Q: Where am I?
>>
>>A: In The Village.
> 
> 
> Is that from a recent movie that I didn't see?    Or is it from _The Prisoner_
> TV series?

It reminds me of some of the early RPG's on the Commodore Vic-20 and 64. 
  You'd ask questions or tell it what to do, and it would respond.  ("]" 
represents input, "[" represents response...)

] where am i
[ in the village
] go 10 paces forward
[ ok
] where am i
[ in the village

Not quite sure if that was the allusion the good Mr. Dwarf was making or 
not...


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/14/2005 12:17:51 AM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 12-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I notice there was no direct response to this. You are focusing on the
>>>conceived baby. My focus is on the mother.
>>
>>I'm not ignoring the mother - but, to say that an innocent person has to
>>die because of a wrong inflicted on yet another innocent person seems
>>(to me) to be prolonging the evil.  A woman who conceives while being
>>raped will likely not die from carrying that child to term - however,
>>the baby definitely *will* die from an abortion.
> 
> 
> Certainly this is a consistent position - if you believe all embryos are people,
> then you should treat them all as you would treat infants.   The president's
> father did not have this position, he believed in exceptions.    If you believe
> they are not yet people, then the ethical questions are different.
> 
> Do you treat miscarriages and infant deaths the same?

IMO, they're both equally as sad.  True, the emotions are more easily 
pulled over seeing a fully born baby who has passed from this life, but 
to the mother, I think it still hurts like crazy.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/14/2005 12:19:31 AM
Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:9e66e$425c8a20$45491f85$27931@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
> 
>>>Demanding that the victim of rape be forced to deal with the
> 
> consequences of
> 
>>>that rape in the way *you* think they ought to deal with them is neither
>>>sympathetic nor compassionate.  The child, too, is not just a
> 
> consequence
> 
>>>but a *victim* of that rape.
>>
>>So the victim should die?  That's compassionate...
> 
> 
> I think a woman who has been infected by a parasite (look it up!)

An unborn child is *not* a parasite.

> against
> her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her sexuality
> and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this violation
> to whatever degree she deems necessary.

Even if it is violation of the law?

> She has the choice to carry the
> child to term, she even has the choice to raise it.  But I do not believe
> you, or the law, should be in a position to say "Too bad, so sad.  I feel
> your pain.  But the consequences you face as the result of a violent act by
> another are that you are now relegated to the category of a bagful of garden
> soil."

Well, as your luck would have it, I am not.  The law is, and again, as 
your luck would have it, that's not what it currently says.  I'm pretty 
sure nothing would pass through Congress that decrees rape victims as 
garden soil.

I'm also sure that any modification of Roe v. Wade (and that 
modification *is* coming - science will see to that) will *probably* 
have exceptions for rape.  That still doesn't mean that it isn't a 
double standard.  (Of course, so are "blue laws" - can't sell beer on 
Sunday.  Why not?  If selling beer is wrong, don't sell it any days.  If 
it's okay, why restrict its sale on Sunday?)

> I have spent a number of hours talking to women who have been raped on the
> nature of female sexuality, and the violation of a *female* rape victim
> fundamentally affects, and is an invasion of, her fundamental sexuality as
> well as her right to reject such unwanted invasions of her reproductive
> organs in ways that males, even male rape victims, can only guess at.
> Demanding that a female in such a circumstance accept her obligation to
> carry the results of this heinous violation to term fundamentally denies her
> the right to cleanse herself of the violation and the pollution inflicted on
> her.

Have you never denied yourself of any "rights" you may have had, 
temporarily, for the good of another?  I have, and still do - anyone 
with children does!  What is wrong with suggesting that the same could 
be done in this situation?  Yes, a grievous wrong has been done - why 
compound it?

> You may admit that the rape victim has suffered, but you deny her the right
> to strive to lessen that suffering by cleansing herself of the very evidence
> of this violence.  I do not agree that the "passion" -- the "pathy" -- of
> which an embryo or a fetus is conscious is comparable to that which the rape
> victim suffers, either as a direct result of the rape or as the result of
> being required to live with the direct physical consequences of that rape
> for nine months or even a lifetime.    I am more inclined to be
> "com-passionate" and "sym-pathetic",  to the victim of this violence that is
> capable of "passio" and "pathy" in the first place than I am to the one who
> is not.  \

No, you are completely *ignoring* the one who is not.

> Why should the result of a rape be treated any differently than the result
> of being force-fed a tapeworm or injected with anthrax?   To the direct
> victim of rape, there's not a lot of difference.

But to dispassionate observers, there is a *big* difference.  Being 
emotionally invested in something is oftentimes *not* a good thing, 
because thoughts are controlled by feelings instead of facts.  A 
tapeworm is not innocent human life.  Anthrax is not innocent human 
life.  An unborn child *is* innocent human life.  To the unemotional 
eye, there is a *lot* of difference.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/14/2005 12:33:05 AM
In article <1ahq51hm7h33bkp6dvkvle073oug5d65qv@4ax.com>,
Jeff York  <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <mgaq515s3av1kj1osml8qsamubgnf75kfq@4ax.com>,
>>Jeff York  <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:

[snip]

>>>Ever been to Portmeirion, Doc?
>>
>>I prefer to take vacations closer to the equator... but you know, enough 
>>time has passed so that neither I nor the staff there should be taking any 
>>of this... stuff from a forty-year-old television program with any great 
>>seriousness any more.  Perhaps I should visit.
>
>I think that "The Prisoner Appreciation Society" - or whatever they
>call themselves - still have annual get-togethers there.

On the other hand... maybe there's more free-floating seriousness out 
there than I was aware of.

>And of
>course, thanks to Clough Williams-Elliss's covenants etc, the place
>simply doesn't change.  To the extent of when they re-paint any of the
>buildings, they're painted to look scruffy (actually, that's a bit
>harsh, "weathered" is more like the truth).

Nice touch.

>
>And the hotel...  Is *superb*.  As it's the building that was used as
>the "Old Folks' Home" in the series, you would feel really comfortable
>there.  :-)

Aye... we'd sit out upon the verandah and trade tales of our times at the 
Pondicherry Lodge.

DD
0
docdwarf (6044)
4/14/2005 1:32:49 AM
In article <d3jivk$ah5$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

[snip]

>And I can let my grandchildren go swimming without being afraid that they will
>go out too far?

I've heard tell, Mr Brazee, that in that part of the world the water - 
even during high summer - has a temperature some describe as 
'cryotesticular'... the trouble's not in getting the kids out but in 
getting them *in* in the first place.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/14/2005 1:36:34 AM
In article <d3jh25$8v9$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 13-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> I prefer to take vacations closer to the equator... but you know, enough
>> time has passed so that neither I nor the staff there should be taking any
>> of this... stuff from a forty-year-old television program with any great
>> seriousness any more.  Perhaps I should visit.
>
>Trouble is - I'm familiar with 40 year old television programs.   For some
>reason, about 30 years ago, I lost interest in TV.

Different thing catch interest at different times... for some reason I 
recall a recent comic-strip that featured a couple of Olde Phartes 
reminiscing about Dayse Gone By... 'Remember when milk got delivered to 
the door in glass bottles?'  'Remeber when you'd ask *any* nearby adult to 
hold your hand as you crossed the street?'  'Remember playing ball with 
just other kids around and no adults in sight?'

'Remember what day of the week it is today?... Nope!'

>I believe in Sturgeon's
>Law, indicating that there is more good stuff with a larger 10% today, but I
>find I value my free time differently these days.

I used to believe in Sturgeon's Law... but then I figures out that 90% of 
it was crap.

>
>I did watch my alma mater (MBA version) win the NCAA Men's Hockey championship
>this Saturday, and I watched the end of The Masters (I play golf).   And I
>expect to watch the Nuggets in the post season instead of the Avalanche in the
>post season as I have in the past.    But those are local interest stories.

Come Saturday, 23 April, I will head over to my alma mater for the 
post-game party which follows the only intramural event of the year... the 
annual Croquet Match with the Naval Academy.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/14/2005 1:42:19 AM
In article <7bc8f$425db587$45491f85$13596@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Chuck Stevens wrote:
>> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:9e66e$425c8a20$45491f85$27931@KNOLOGY.NET...
>> 
>> 
>>>>Demanding that the victim of rape be forced to deal with the
>> 
>> consequences of
>> 
>>>>that rape in the way *you* think they ought to deal with them is neither
>>>>sympathetic nor compassionate.  The child, too, is not just a
>> 
>> consequence
>> 
>>>>but a *victim* of that rape.
>>>
>>>So the victim should die?  That's compassionate...
>> 
>> 
>> I think a woman who has been infected by a parasite (look it up!)
>
>An unborn child is *not* a parasite.
>
>> against
>> her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her sexuality
>> and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this violation
>> to whatever degree she deems necessary.
>
>Even if it is violation of the law?

Ummmmm... if it is law you are concerned about then please remember that 
a fetus is *not* a child... according to the law (in some places).

DD


0
docdwarf (6044)
4/14/2005 1:54:45 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <7bc8f$425db587$45491f85$13596@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
>>Chuck Stevens wrote:
>>
>>>against
>>>her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her sexuality
>>>and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this violation
>>>to whatever degree she deems necessary.
>>
>>Even if it is violation of the law?
> 
> Ummmmm... if it is law you are concerned about then please remember that 
> a fetus is *not* a child... according to the law (in some places).

I'm not talking about the unborn child - I'm just wonder how far this 
cleansing "right" goes.  Does it go as far as cleansing the world from 
the perpetrator (vigilantism)?  Does it allow her to destroy other 
people's property if it reminds her of the event?


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/14/2005 2:35:21 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <d3jivk$ah5$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>And I can let my grandchildren go swimming without being afraid that they will
>>go out too far?
> 
> 
> I've heard tell, Mr Brazee, that in that part of the world the water - 
> even during high summer - has a temperature some describe as 
> 'cryotesticular'... the trouble's not in getting the kids out but in 
> getting them *in* in the first place.
> 
> DD
> 

Lost the thread here a bit, but are we still talking about Port Merrion 
? If so, some 35 plus years ago, down in Cornwall, tide was out about 
half a mile leaving a great swathe of rippled sand, some small pools 
with tiny shrimps etc., normally part of the seabed. Beautiful warm and 
sunny day. Couldn't take the kids into the sea, nor did we want to !

RN Fleet Air Arm helicopter above trying to shoo away a pod of some four 
or five basking sharks, not much more than 10-20 feet from the 
shoreline. Story is that species is harmless, (eats plankton) - but 
nobody was prepared to dip their toes into the sea to find out.

Jimmy
0
4/14/2005 2:58:17 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:b97ce$425dd6f9$45491f85$3161@KNOLOGY.NET...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <7bc8f$425db587$45491f85$13596@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Chuck Stevens wrote:
>>>
>>>>against
>>>>her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her 
>>>>sexuality
>>>>and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this 
>>>>violation
>>>>to whatever degree she deems necessary.
>>>
>>>Even if it is violation of the law?
>>
>> Ummmmm... if it is law you are concerned about then please remember that 
>> a fetus is *not* a child... according to the law (in some places).
>
> I'm not talking about the unborn child - I'm just wonder how far this 
> cleansing "right" goes.  Does it go as far as cleansing the world from the 
> perpetrator (vigilantism)?  Does it allow her to destroy other people's 
> property if it reminds her of the event?

Well apparently, for some crimes, it extends to dropping large bombs on 
sections of the populace whether or not those areas contain "innocents" or 
otherwise.

Then again, for similar crmes elsewhere it results in monetary handouts, and 
in other cases the "hear no, see no" response.

I wouldn't say that consistency in application of "laws" or consistency in 
the valuation of "life" is a strong point of the world at the moment.

I'd like to see life traded on the stockmarket....

This week in Daifur, the value of life dropped again as their plight was 
ignored.

In other news, it seems that the value in Pinellas Park has returned to its 
normal levels after reaching a 52 week high earlier in the month.  Investors 
in Washington have sold out after realizing further political gain was 
unlikely.

In recent weeks the value in CLC has been dramatically turbulent as the 
value enters it's 5 th week of strong debate.

Finally, we expect to see gains throughout the teen market share as Britney 
undertakes the task of bringing life to the fore for the teenie boppers.

JCE


JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
4/14/2005 5:50:45 AM
..    On  13.04.05
  wrote  swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com (SkippyPB)
     on  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
     in  m0jq51pnrr7ntef5el54egfe6nkso1knsr@4ax.com
  about  Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"


s> As a lifelong Catholic, I don't recall ever learning or hearing that
s> Mary was a "lifelong" virgin.  She was indeed a virgin at the time of
s> Jeasus' conception.

  So the earthly life of the founding god of that religion was  
conceived by artificial insemination, foetus transplant, or cloning.

  Why should that be forbidden for today's folks?

  Quod licet jovi non licet bovi?


Yours,
L�ko Willms                                     http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Der Verleger hat ihn in effigie vor sein Werk aufh�ngen lassen. -G.C.Lichtenberg
0
l.willms1 (637)
4/14/2005 7:13:00 AM
Lueko Willms wrote:
> .    On  13.04.05
>   wrote  swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com (SkippyPB)
>      on  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
>      in  m0jq51pnrr7ntef5el54egfe6nkso1knsr@4ax.com
>   about  Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
> 
> 
> s> As a lifelong Catholic, I don't recall ever learning or hearing that
> s> Mary was a "lifelong" virgin.  She was indeed a virgin at the time of
> s> Jeasus' conception.
> 
>   So the earthly life of the founding god of that religion was  
> conceived by artificial insemination, foetus transplant, or cloning.
> 
>   Why should that be forbidden for today's folks?
> 
>   Quod licet jovi non licet bovi?
> 
> 
> Yours,
> L�ko Willms                                     http://www.willms-edv.de
> /--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
> 
> Der Verleger hat ihn in effigie vor sein Werk aufh�ngen lassen. -G.C.Lichtenberg

By immaculate rape, actually.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
4/14/2005 12:00:00 PM
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:02:36 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> enlightened us:

>SkippyPB wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:23:00 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
>> <charles.stevens@unisys.com> enlightened us:
>> 
>>>
>>>The doctrine of the "immaculate conception" is that Mary, as the Mother of
>>>God, was preserved from the stain of original sin at her conception.  This
>>>doctrine was made Roman Catholic dogma by Pope Leo IX in an "ex cathedra"
>>>declaration on December 8, 1854AD.
>>>
>>>What I think you're thinking of is Mary's virginity at the time of Jesus'
>>>birth.  Roman Catholic doctrine has held that she was a lifelong virgin
>>>since the time the contrary was defined as anathema during the Lateran
>>>Council under Pope Martin 1 in 649AD).
>>>
>> 
>> As a lifelong Catholic, I don't recall ever learning or hearing that
>> Mary was a "lifelong" virgin.  She was indeed a virgin at the time of
>> Jeasus' conception.  But, since Jeasus had a brother, Ya�aqov,
>> Anglicized as "James,"  I think it would be safe to assume that Mary
>> was not a lifelong virgin.
>
>ZOWEE ! As a lifelong Catholic, I don't think you will recall ever 
>learning or hearing that Mary WASN'T a "lifelong" virgin - certainly not 
>from any official Church sources. Don't visit Rome any time soon, 
>although in theory you could become the next Pope :-). Cardinal 
>Ratzinger (nicknamed the Panzer Kardinal) and was head of the 
>'Congregation of the Faith', whatever the correct name is, (another way 
>of saying the Inquisition :-) ) - would just LUV you !
>

You know when I was looking at this, I came across something to the
effect that the "Baltimore Catechism", which I think is the one we
learned from in grade school, says Mary was a lifelong virgin.  But
for the life of me, I don't recall reading that or having ever heard
any priest say it or preach about it.  There is debate within the
Roman Catholic church about this issue, so maybe they've back off of
the hard line about that.  I'll need to quiz my pastor about it.

>OK I'm going to give the plot away, but Dan Brown's 'da Vinci Code' - 
>the premise is Jesus married Mary Magdalen - which over a period of 
>2,000 years the Church has tried to keep hushed up. There's one of the 
>Italian cardinals wants to publish a book to refute Brown's story. And 
>it is a story, and a bloody good yarn. All the cardinal will achieve is 
>doubling Brown's book sales !
>
>As regards 'Immaculate Conception' - just another bit of hokum from a 
>religious group. Where's the scientific evidence ?
>

It is a matter of faith as much as anything within religion is.  

>Well just so happens about three months back I saw a 'Nature' TV program 
>on the Pacific. Can't give you the species, but there's this fish, about 
>goldfish size, that is SEXLESS. To propagate the species "it" 
>self-impregnates to produce and hatch small fry. So if a teensy-weensy 
>fish can do it, why not some human beings ?
>
>I don't go near a church, but I think I can consider myself also a 
>lifelong catholic. It changed for me when the austere Italian, Pius XII 
>was eventually replaced by John XXIII - not necessarily his intent, but 
>as a result of his papacy, so much of the questioning and current 
>liberalism took place - non-celibacy, birth control, women priests, 
>"banjo" masses - instead of Latin and Gregorian chant etc.
>

I quit going to church when they stopped saying it in Latin.  It just
didn't feel right.  I stayed away for over 30 years but have gone back
and am a Eucharistic Minister now, something I couldn't have done back
in grade school days when I was an altar boy.


>He's a long-short and probably wont get a look-in, but there's a 60-year 
>old Quebec cardinal who is on the 20-odd list of possible 'Popes', who 
>would like to switch back to the Latin Mass - there's my boy !
>

There's still a lot of catholics around who remember the Latin Mass,
but there are whole generations who don't have a clue!  There is a
church in my area that does have 1 Latin Mass on Sunday.

>Another possible 'Papa' - perhaps not very compassionate, but when 
>questioned about condoms as being the means of controlling the killer 
>AIDS in Africa, the Nigerian cardinal responded, "Nobody died from 
>chastity".
>
>Jimmy

It will be very interesting to see who the next Pope will be.  I'm
wondering if they'll go back to an Italian pope or will it be soemone
from another country again.  To the best of my knowledge, there has
never been a North American pope or Asian for that matter.  

Regards,

          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that 
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"   
--Robin Williams 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
0
swiegand4720 (202)
4/14/2005 2:35:52 PM
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:12:15 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> enlightened us:

>
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:m0jq51pnrr7ntef5el54egfe6nkso1knsr@4ax.com...
>
>> As a lifelong Catholic, I don't recall ever learning or hearing that
>> Mary was a "lifelong" virgin.  She was indeed a virgin at the time of
>> Jeasus' conception.  But, since Jeasus had a brother, Ya'aqov,
>> Anglicized as "James,"  I think it would be safe to assume that Mary
>> was not a lifelong virgin.
>
>Well, I don't dispute that there may have been a shift in Roman Catholic
>thought on this matter since the days of Vatican II.
>
>But to say that as a lifelong Catholic you never heard or learned that Mary
>was a "lifelong" virgin strikes me as strange, given the wording in the
>Confiteor in the ordinary of the Roman Mass, which, so far as I know, still
>includes the words "I confess to Almighty God, ... to blessed Mary ever
>Virgin ... Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin ..." (or, if you
>prefer the Latin version, "Confiteor Deo omnipotenti ... beatae Mariae
>semper Virgini ... Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem ...").  Has the
>wording of the Mass been changed recently in this area?
>

As I noted in my reply to James, I just don't recall learning that
concept in catechism.  That's not to say they didn't teach it. And for
whatever reason, I just never put the words you quoted and the concept
of being a lifelong virigin together.  Now that you have stated it, I
see where "ever Virgin" implies lifelong.  

>Whatever Msgr. Meier might argue as a possibility, I'd have to suggest that
>the traditional view of the Church is represented by Tertullian, Jerome,
>Augustine and several sainted Popes on the subject, and I'd be really
>surprised if this view had changed in recent years without making big news
>somewhere!
>
>Out of curiosity, in Meier's "A Marginal Jew", who signed the Imprimatur?
>Did it also receive a Nihil Obstat, and if so, from whom?
>
>    -Chuck Stevens
>

Meier is a Roman Catholic Bible scholar and often signs the Imprimatur
himself.  In the case of this book, the Imprimatur was signed in New
York on June 25, 1991 by The Most Rev. Patrick J. Sheridan, V.G.

It did not receive a Nihil Obstat.

Regards,

          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that 
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"   
--Robin Williams 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
0
swiegand4720 (202)
4/14/2005 2:49:16 PM
On 13-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> Different thing catch interest at different times... for some reason I
> recall a recent comic-strip that featured a couple of Olde Phartes
> reminiscing about Dayse Gone By... 'Remember when milk got delivered to
> the door in glass bottles?'  'Remember when you'd ask *any* nearby adult to
> hold your hand as you crossed the street?'  'Remember playing ball with
> just other kids around and no adults in sight?'
>
> 'Remember what day of the week it is today?... Nope!'

Funny.

What's sad is that it isn't more dangerous today for a kid to ask an adult to
hold his hand while crossing a street.    There were at least as many perverts
per population back then (I suspect the percentage was much higher - certainly
there was more violence committed against kids then).    It's just that more
people are terrified these days.
0
howard (6283)
4/14/2005 3:10:37 PM
On 13-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> > Certainly this is a consistent position - if you believe all embryos are
> > people,
> > then you should treat them all as you would treat infants.   The president's
> > father did not have this position, he believed in exceptions.    If you
> > believe
> > they are not yet people, then the ethical questions are different.
> >
> > Do you treat miscarriages and infant deaths the same?
>
> IMO, they're both equally as sad.  True, the emotions are more easily
> pulled over seeing a fully born baby who has passed from this life, but
> to the mother, I think it still hurts like crazy.

Which do you have funerals for?
0
howard (6283)
4/14/2005 3:12:25 PM
In article <b97ce$425dd6f9$45491f85$3161@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <7bc8f$425db587$45491f85$13596@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>Chuck Stevens wrote:
>>>
>>>>against
>>>>her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her sexuality
>>>>and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this violation
>>>>to whatever degree she deems necessary.
>>>
>>>Even if it is violation of the law?
>> 
>> Ummmmm... if it is law you are concerned about then please remember that 
>> a fetus is *not* a child... according to the law (in some places).
>
>I'm not talking about the unborn child - I'm just wonder how far this 
>cleansing "right" goes.

According to law (in some places) there is no such thing as an 'unborn 
child'; just as a teenager does not attain certain statuses until certain 
events are accomplished - say, the 14th or 16th or 18th birthdays - so 
does a fetus not attain the status of 'child' until a certain event - 
known as 'birth' - is accomplished.

Try to remember that when you question something as 'a violation of law', 
as you did above.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/14/2005 4:05:15 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:7bc8f$425db587$45491f85$13596@KNOLOGY.NET...

> > I think a woman who has been infected by a parasite (look it up!)
>
> An unborn child is *not* a parasite.

I'm going by Webster's Ninth New Collegiate:  "3:  something that resembles
a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or
support without making a useful or adequate return."

To a woman who is a rape victim, how is the nonviable fetus *not* a
parasite?  It is 100% dependent on her for its continued existence, and it
does not provide a "useful or adequate return" *to its host*.  What's the
"useful or adequate return" to her?  The absolute joy of motherhood?

This is the argument that was used by a male adult of my acquaintance (now
dead) when he insisted that his eleven-year-old daughter give birth to his
child.  It's a wonder she was able to get her pregnant at all; he gave her
gonorrhea when she was nine.


> > against
> > her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her
sexuality
> > and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this
violation
> > to whatever degree she deems necessary.

> Even if it is violation of the law?

Which law?  Most places I know allow abortions in the first trimester if the
pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

> The law is, and again, as
> your luck would have it, that's not what it currently says.  I'm pretty
> sure nothing would pass through Congress that decrees rape victims as
> garden soil.

In what way does requiring the rape victim to carry the results of rape to
full term *not* treat her as fertilizer for the child?

> I'm also sure that any modification of Roe v. Wade (and that
> modification *is* coming - science will see to that) will *probably*
> have exceptions for rape.

Based on your other posts, you don't seem to think that's the way it ought
to be, and you would oppose efforts to ensure that that was the case.  Am I
right?

> That still doesn't mean that it isn't a
> double standard.  (Of course, so are "blue laws" - can't sell beer on
> Sunday.  Why not?  If selling beer is wrong, don't sell it any days.  If
> it's okay, why restrict its sale on Sunday?)

Why not require women to take an ectopic pregnancy to term?  Hey, it's a
*person* in there, and it's obviously the *mother's* fault she didn't
implant the egg in the right place!

> Have you never denied yourself of any "rights" you may have had,
> temporarily, for the good of another?  I have, and still do - anyone
> with children does!  What is wrong with suggesting that the same could
> be done in this situation?  Yes, a grievous wrong has been done - why
> compound it?

It is not as clear to me, as a point of law or as a point of ethics, *in a
case of rape*, that doing everything one can do to prevent the union of
sperm and egg, to prevent the implantation of the zygote, or indeed an early
termination of the pregnancy after implantation is necessarily "compounding
the wrong" than the extreme "God foreordained and intended that you would be
subjected to this act of violence so that you could bring forth this
particular one of His creatures and shower it with love."

NOTE WELL:

I have no problem with the idea of *suggesting* that the rape victim
*consider* carrying the pregnancy to term.

I would not demand that a person do so, nor would I suggest a person who did
so has contributed to the wrong inflicted upon her by such a choice.

I would merely suggest, without further moralizing on my part, that carrying
the pregnancy to term  was one of the alternatives to weigh.  As far as I am
concerned the choice is hers, and hers alone, to make in this case, and only
if she asked *my* opinions on the ethics of the situation would I offer
them.

*My personal* opinion on the subject of pregnancy as the result of rape is
this:

If the rape victim felt she had the emotional, spiritual and psychological
strength to carry the pregnancy to term, I would recommend she do so and
offer the child up for (closed) adoption, but I would recommend a *lot* of
counseling in the process.

I would *not* recommend that she try to raise the child as a single mom, or
marry to provide a white-picket-fence family unit for the child.

If she elected to terminate the pregnancy within the first trimester or so I
would respect her position and say no more about it.

If she decided later in term, I'd probably comment "I'd be a lot more
comfortable with this if you had been able to make this decision earlier."

I don't think it's right to impose my theological judgment of another's
behavior on them.

I have a HUGE problem with the implication "Well, I know this jerk did an
oopsie, but if you don't do everything you can to carry this child to term
YOU'RE A MURDERER!!!".

> No, you are completely *ignoring* the one who is not.

I am questioning the ability of a first-trimester fetus to *feel pain*.  I
am questioning even more the ability of a first-trimester fetus to *remember
pain*, or anything else, for that matter.

> > Why should the result of a rape be treated any differently than the
result
> > of being force-fed a tapeworm or injected with anthrax?   To the direct
> > victim of rape, there's not a lot of difference.
>
> But to dispassionate observers, there is a *big* difference.

A person who has neither been raped nor carried a child to term does not
have all the necessary information to be dispassionate.

And you indicated that you felt *com*passion for the rape victim; now you
seem to be asserting that those who have the right to pontificate on how the
rape victim must behave are those who are *dis*passionate, and thus as a
matter of course should *ignore* her feelings and perspectives on what to do
with her body?

> Being
> emotionally invested in something is oftentimes *not* a good thing,
> because thoughts are controlled by feelings instead of facts.  A
> tapeworm is not innocent human life.  Anthrax is not innocent human
> life.  An unborn child *is* innocent human life.

*In some theological perspectives*.   Murder requires killing a *person*.
As a Christian I am *very much* opposed to having the determination as to
when the *soul* enters the body be a point of law.  A sperm cell is
"innocent human life".  An egg is "innocent human life".  So are blood cells
and the epithelia shed during defecation.  To some sects of Buddhism, *any*
life is innocent, and the taking of *any* life is murder, including the use
of insecticides in one's garden.

 > To the unemotional eye, there is a *lot* of difference.

No emotion on the subject on your part, eh, Daniel?

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/14/2005 4:14:18 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b97ce$425dd6f9$45491f85$3161@KNOLOGY.NET...

> I'm not talking about the unborn child - I'm just wonder how far this
> cleansing "right" goes.  Does it go as far as cleansing the world from
> the perpetrator (vigilantism)?  Does it allow her to destroy other
> people's property if it reminds her of the event?

I believe the right extends to *her own body* and *her own belongings*.  I
do not believe it extends to committing any acts of violence or destruction
outside that environment.  I believe she has as much legal and moral right
to ensure that *her body* is cleansed of this intrusion as she does to pack
up those belongings that don't remind her of the rape, burn the rest, and
move to a place that does not refresh her memories of this event.  I think a
law that requires her to carry a pregnancy full term is analogous to
requiring her to be chained to the bed on which it occurred for that term.
I believe the rape victim has the *sole* right to decide whether to carry
the child to term.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/14/2005 4:20:22 PM
SkippyPB wrote:

> It will be very interesting to see who the next Pope will be.  I'm
> wondering if they'll go back to an Italian pope or will it be soemone
> from another country again.  To the best of my knowledge, there has
> never been a North American pope or Asian for that matter.  
> 
Interesting, yes. But it would be a DISASTER if the next Pope was an 
American. Can't you just anticipate the reaction from the USA's
enemies ?

Papa JP II will be a difficult act to follow. You can come up with all 
sorts of platitudes to describe him. Have to get Chuck the Latin scholar 
to confirm, but "Servitor servientum Dei" - "Servant of the servants of 
God".

Jimmy
0
4/14/2005 4:39:29 PM
On 14-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> *In some theological perspectives*.   Murder requires killing a *person*.
> As a Christian I am *very much* opposed to having the determination as to
> when the *soul* enters the body be a point of law.  A sperm cell is
> "innocent human life".  An egg is "innocent human life".  So are blood cells
> and the epithelia shed during defecation.  To some sects of Buddhism, *any*
> life is innocent, and the taking of *any* life is murder, including the use
> of insecticides in one's garden.

The law *does* consider birth as a dividing line for crimes such as murder.  
Whether it is because that's when the soul arrives, or because that is a
convenient point, it is a point determined in law.     Some people say
conception is a better point - and the historical time was when an embryo
quickened into a fetus.    But virtually nobody's 100% consistent about treating
embryos and fetuses the same as infants - (not counting those who practice
infanticide.)    People who want to define human life as starting at conception
are disagreeing with the Bible - but we have lots of practices and laws that
disagree with the Bible.    Lots of very religious Christians are very careful
to find parts of the Bible they agree with and disregard those parts they don't
care for.   (The Old Testament says don't eat pork, and homosexuality is bad,
therefore the Old Testament doesn't matter about pork but is absolutely correct
about homosexuality to people who like pork but don't care for homosexuality).
0
howard (6283)
4/14/2005 4:41:03 PM
On 14-Apr-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Interesting, yes. But it would be a DISASTER if the next Pope was an
> American. Can't you just anticipate the reaction from the USA's
> enemies ?

Yep.    What happens if he's black?


Politics cannot be separated from religious needs here.
0
howard (6283)
4/14/2005 4:42:15 PM
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:5d0t511ce81u7hl35107mhcga673its0fg@4ax.com...

> Meier is a Roman Catholic Bible scholar and often signs the Imprimatur
> himself.  In the case of this book, the Imprimatur was signed in New
> York on June 25, 1991 by The Most Rev. Patrick J. Sheridan, V.G.
>
> It did not receive a Nihil Obstat.

Aye, there's the rub.  Although the Bishop found nothing objectionable
(Imprimatur) the diocese's censor either didn't agree there was nothing
doctrinally wrong with it or wasn't offered the opportunity to examine it.
Where was Sheridan assigned?

Apparently Imprimatur doesn't mean what it used to.  See
http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/imprimatur.html .

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/14/2005 4:43:32 PM
Donald Tees wrote:
> Lueko Willms wrote:
> 
>> .    On  13.04.05
>>   wrote  swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com (SkippyPB)
>>      on  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
>>      in  m0jq51pnrr7ntef5el54egfe6nkso1knsr@4ax.com
>>   about  Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
>>
>>
>> s> As a lifelong Catholic, I don't recall ever learning or hearing that
>> s> Mary was a "lifelong" virgin.  She was indeed a virgin at the time of
>> s> Jeasus' conception.
>>
>>   So the earthly life of the founding god of that religion was  
>> conceived by artificial insemination, foetus transplant, or cloning.
>>
>>   Why should that be forbidden for today's folks?
>>
>>   Quod licet jovi non licet bovi?
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>> L�ko Willms                                     http://www.willms-edv.de
>> /--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
>>
>> Der Verleger hat ihn in effigie vor sein Werk aufh�ngen lassen. 
>> -G.C.Lichtenberg
> 
> 
> By immaculate rape, actually.

Interesting observation Donald. However, at least under civil law, a 
rape implies non-consentual sex with a female or sodomizing of a 
non-consenting male.

Not quite the story the New Testament puts forward. There were no 
surprises in Mary's case. She was initially visited by the Archangel to 
'advise' her she would 'be with child'. ("Hail Mary, full of grace, the 
Lord is with thee...."). Nothing quoted to suggest she didn't acquiesce 
to the idea/message.

Jimmy
0
4/14/2005 4:56:04 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:7bc8f$425db587$45491f85$13596@KNOLOGY.NET...

> That still doesn't mean that it isn't a
> double standard.  (Of course, so are "blue laws" - can't sell beer on
> Sunday.  Why not?  If selling beer is wrong, don't sell it any days.  If
> it's okay, why restrict its sale on Sunday?)

Texas was a hotbed of blue laws back in my youth.  Couldn't do this on
Sunday, couldn't do that on Sunday because it was the Lord's Day.

There was a sizeable Jewish community who said "Hey, wait a minute!  Why is
the state imposing this on us?  By our *religion* we can't work on Saturday,
by law, we can't work on Sunday.  Why can't we work six days a week like
Christians can?", so the law was changed so that any affected store had the
choice to be open on Saturday *OR* Sunday.

Then they changed the law again so that individual stores could be open both
days, but there was a (long) list of things that a store could only sell on
*one* of those two days.  Most stores stayed open both days, which led to
the bizarre convention that you could go to any single hardware store during
the week and buy a hammer and some nails, but on weekends you might have to
go to *two* of them (if indeed you could find two stores that offered the
restricted list on any day but Saturday).  If I recall correctly, the
lawmakers had thrown up their hands by the time I left Texas in '84.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/14/2005 4:57:45 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Egx7e.1010286$Xk.105206@pd7tw3no...

> Not quite the story the New Testament puts forward. There were no
> surprises in Mary's case. She was initially visited by the Archangel to
> 'advise' her she would 'be with child'. ("Hail Mary, full of grace, the
> Lord is with thee...."). Nothing quoted to suggest she didn't acquiesce
> to the idea/message.

It's not that citation, it's a bit later:  (KJV Luke 1:31)  "And, behold,
thou shalt conceive in thy womb ...", and still later (Luke 1:38) "And Mary
said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy
word.".  My brief perusal of the Greek of the TR indicates that the tenses
are accurately represented here.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/14/2005 5:07:12 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:51x7e.1012746$6l.796458@pd7tw2no...

> Papa JP II will be a difficult act to follow. You can come up with all
> sorts of platitudes to describe him. Have to get Chuck the Latin scholar
> to confirm, but "Servitor servientum Dei" - "Servant of the servants of
> God".

I think that's "Servus servorum Dei".  Translation's right, Title's been the
pope's alone since the ninth century, according to www.newadvent.org , a
handy reference for topics Catholic if not catholic.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/14/2005 5:16:11 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 14-Apr-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Interesting, yes. But it would be a DISASTER if the next Pope was an
>>American. Can't you just anticipate the reaction from the USA's
>>enemies ?
> 
> 
> Yep.    What happens if he's black?
> 
> 
> Politics cannot be separated from religious needs here.

To the best of my knowledge there isn't a black US cardinal. If the next 
pope is black (African), Asian, S.American or European - that's OK by me 
- not that my vote counts :-)

Jimmy
0
4/14/2005 5:43:08 PM
On 14-Apr-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> > Yep.    What happens if he's black?
> >
> >
> > Politics cannot be separated from religious needs here.
>
> To the best of my knowledge there isn't a black US cardinal. If the next
> pope is black (African), Asian, S.American or European - that's OK by me
> - not that my vote counts :-)

I don't think there is one.   I don't know what would happen to attendance if
there were one, nor if there were a black pope.    There has been some talk
about an African pope as being better able to outreach with Muslims, but I don't
know which candidates the press has.   My guess is that politically, a South
American Pope would work - depending on who fits the current
conservative/liberal trends.    There's an old Italian saying, "Always follow a
fat pope with a skinny pope", which may indicate a liberal turn.   On the other
hand, if they turn more inward (JPII was very outward looking), it's not likely
to be too extreme.
0
howard (6283)
4/14/2005 6:09:21 PM
I just read an article then looked it up on-line:
http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160503515

IT Confidential by John Soat

Includes:

.... BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BET ON ANYTHING. Speaking of online gambling, a
colleague at our sister online publication, TechWeb, contacted gambling sites to
find out the betting line on the new Pope. ("Online Gaming Sites May Have Inside
Track On Next Pope"). Odds-on favorite to win when the College of Cardinals
meets to pick a new leader for the Roman Catholic Church is Italy's Cardinal
Dionigi Tettamanzi, at anywhere from odds of 9-2 to 11-4. Antonia Sharpe, a
spokeswoman for Betfair.com, notes that Pope wagering on its site has been under
way for 18 months. Betting was slow initially, but has picked up sharply, with
some $70,000 wagered so far. The other Cardinals, in order of betting odds on
Betfair: Francis Arinze of Nigeria, at 15-to-2; O. Rodiguez Maradiaga of
Honduras, 8-to-1; Claudio Hummes of Brazil, also at 8-to-1; and J. Ratizinger of
Germany, 29-to-1.
0
howard (6283)
4/14/2005 6:20:16 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d3mbkh$2mr$1@peabody.colorado.edu...

> I don't think there is one.   I don't know what would happen to attendance
if
> there were one, nor if there were a black pope.    There has been some
talk
> about an African pope as being better able to outreach with Muslims, but I
don't
> know which candidates the press has.   My guess is that politically, a
South
> American Pope would work - depending on who fits the current
> conservative/liberal trends.

Among the "papabili" frequently mentioned is Hummes, Archbishop of Sao
Paulo, but I think Arinze of Nigeria and Ratzinger of Germany are more
likely.

Gotta admit, given the W. C. Fields history, I chuckle every time I see
Godfried Cardinal Daneels of Belgium mentioned as being among the papabili
....

     -Chuck Stevens


0
4/14/2005 6:32:01 PM
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:5d0t511ce81u7hl35107mhcga673its0fg@4ax.com...

> Meier is a Roman Catholic Bible scholar and often signs the Imprimatur
> himself.  In the case of this book, the Imprimatur was signed in New
> York on June 25, 1991 by The Most Rev. Patrick J. Sheridan, V.G.

Just found Sheridan on the internet.  Found this odd:  *appointed* auxiliary
Bishop of New York and titular bishop of Cursola (Italy) on 30 October 1990;
*ordained* Bishop six weeks later.

Retired 15 January 2001.  Apparently never had a "real" diocese of his own.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/14/2005 6:36:52 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> I just read an article then looked it up on-line:
> http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160503515
> 
> IT Confidential by John Soat
> 
> Includes:
> 
> ... BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BET ON ANYTHING. Speaking of online gambling, a
> colleague at our sister online publication, TechWeb, contacted gambling sites to
> find out the betting line on the new Pope. ("Online Gaming Sites May Have Inside
> Track On Next Pope"). Odds-on favorite to win when the College of Cardinals
> meets to pick a new leader for the Roman Catholic Church is Italy's Cardinal
> Dionigi Tettamanzi, at anywhere from odds of 9-2 to 11-4. Antonia Sharpe, a
> spokeswoman for Betfair.com, notes that Pope wagering on its site has been under
> way for 18 months. Betting was slow initially, but has picked up sharply, with
> some $70,000 wagered so far. The other Cardinals, in order of betting odds on
> Betfair: Francis Arinze of Nigeria, at 15-to-2; O. Rodiguez Maradiaga of
> Honduras, 8-to-1; Claudio Hummes of Brazil, also at 8-to-1; and J. Ratizinger of
> Germany, 29-to-1.

Granted human frailties come into it, but what the 'bookies' have
missed, is that, in theory at least, the conclave of cardinals is
*supposed* to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

OK so latter is translation from 'Sancte Spiritus' but in 'Anglo' I
still prefer Holy Ghost - no doubt from German Heilliger Geist. (If the
last bit is wrong - blame Babelfish !)

I had a time-out on my Server so couldn't post this earlier. So I see 
Chuck is favouring Ratzinger and Arinze. Like JPII they are both 'worldly'.

Prior to priesthood JPII was into amateur dramatics, quite a nice 
looking young man and always played the leading man opposite a rather 
attractive Polish girl. A very good two-hour retrospective on him by CBC 
illustrated this. According to his Jewish childhood friend they were 
'close'. Then it broke up; discretely none of their group asked why. Nor 
did the 'girl' offer any information, although on a subsequent visit to 
the Vatican the TV showed them hugging - not just your usual peck on the 
cheek. He also did time breaking up stones in a quarry - then became a 
seminarian.

Ratzinger - the Panzer Kardinal - that I think refers to the fact that 
he did his conscription service in the post-war Wermacht. Appears he was 
very close to JPII.

Arinze - son of a wealthy Nigerian business man. He converted to 
catholicism.

Just got to wait for the white smoke guys - plus, for first time, the 
peals of a joyful bell !

Jimmy
0
4/14/2005 8:10:22 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 13-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Certainly this is a consistent position - if you believe all embryos are
>>>people,
>>>then you should treat them all as you would treat infants.   The president's
>>>father did not have this position, he believed in exceptions.    If you
>>>believe
>>>they are not yet people, then the ethical questions are different.
>>>
>>>Do you treat miscarriages and infant deaths the same?
>>
>>IMO, they're both equally as sad.  True, the emotions are more easily
>>pulled over seeing a fully born baby who has passed from this life, but
>>to the mother, I think it still hurts like crazy.
> 
> 
> Which do you have funerals for?

I've heard of them for both.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/15/2005 1:27:15 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <b97ce$425dd6f9$45491f85$3161@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7bc8f$425db587$45491f85$13596@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>>>LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Chuck Stevens wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>against
>>>>>her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her sexuality
>>>>>and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this violation
>>>>>to whatever degree she deems necessary.
>>>>
>>>>Even if it is violation of the law?
>>>
>>>Ummmmm... if it is law you are concerned about then please remember that 
>>>a fetus is *not* a child... according to the law (in some places).
>>
>>I'm not talking about the unborn child - I'm just wonder how far this 
>>cleansing "right" goes.
> 
> 
> According to law (in some places) there is no such thing as an 'unborn 
> child'; just as a teenager does not attain certain statuses until certain 
> events are accomplished - say, the 14th or 16th or 18th birthdays - so 
> does a fetus not attain the status of 'child' until a certain event - 
> known as 'birth' - is accomplished.
> 
> Try to remember that when you question something as 'a violation of law', 
> as you did above.

I clarified, and you still refuse to understand what I said.  Read the 
first part of my quote, starting with the words "I'm not", and you'll 
see that I was *not* making any sort of legal claim as to the status of 
a child that has yet to be born.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/15/2005 1:28:31 AM
Chuck Stevens wrote:

[huge snip]

>>I'm also sure that any modification of Roe v. Wade (and that
>>modification *is* coming - science will see to that) will *probably*
>>have exceptions for rape.
> 
> Based on your other posts, you don't seem to think that's the way it ought
> to be, and you would oppose efforts to ensure that that was the case.  Am I
> right?

Yes.  And, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I'm not going to 
change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.  No one reading 
this is going to have their mind changed either.  As Mr. Brazee pointed 
out, we are coming at this from two entirely different perspectives. 
I've laid out my views, and you've laid out yours.  At best, maybe some 
folks have stopped and thought.

I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what 
they feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our 
throats".  I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/15/2005 1:32:25 AM
In article <6f638$425f13d6$45491f85$7644@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <b97ce$425dd6f9$45491f85$3161@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <7bc8f$425db587$45491f85$13596@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>>>>LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Chuck Stevens wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>against
>>>>>>her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her sexuality
>>>>>>and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this violation
>>>>>>to whatever degree she deems necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even if it is violation of the law?
>>>>
>>>>Ummmmm... if it is law you are concerned about then please remember that 
>>>>a fetus is *not* a child... according to the law (in some places).
>>>
>>>I'm not talking about the unborn child - I'm just wonder how far this 
>>>cleansing "right" goes.
>> 
>> 
>> According to law (in some places) there is no such thing as an 'unborn 
>> child'; just as a teenager does not attain certain statuses until certain 
>> events are accomplished - say, the 14th or 16th or 18th birthdays - so 
>> does a fetus not attain the status of 'child' until a certain event - 
>> known as 'birth' - is accomplished.
>> 
>> Try to remember that when you question something as 'a violation of law', 
>> as you did above.
>
>I clarified, and you still refuse to understand what I said.  Read the 
>first part of my quote, starting with the words "I'm not", and you'll 
>see that I was *not* making any sort of legal claim as to the status of 
>a child that has yet to be born.

You constantly refer to a fetus as a child... to say that a fetus is a 
child of any sort - unborn, yet to be born, pre-born or otherwise - is to 
give the fetus a legal status, that of 'child', to which it is not by law 
(in some places) entitled.  I do not know how I can make this more clear.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/15/2005 5:16:03 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
> [huge snip]
>
> >>I'm also sure that any modification of Roe v. Wade (and that
> >>modification *is* coming - science will see to that) will *probably*
> >>have exceptions for rape.
> >
> > Based on your other posts, you don't seem to think that's the way it
ought
> > to be, and you would oppose efforts to ensure that that was the case.
Am I
> > right?
>
> Yes.  And, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I'm not going to
> change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.  No one reading
> this is going to have their mind changed either.  As Mr. Brazee pointed
> out, we are coming at this from two entirely different perspectives.
> I've laid out my views, and you've laid out yours.  At best, maybe some
> folks have stopped and thought.
>
> I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what
> they feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our
> throats".  I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.
>

I don't understand how people can get so worked up about Religious
arguments. (Not just you, Daniel). There is an old saying that friends
should never debate Religion or Politics.

I watched some of the funeral of the Pope on TV and they claimed around 2
billion people were affected by it. It made me sad. Not for the death of a
kindly, idealistic, and well-intentioned old man, but for the fact that
Human Beings have still got  a long way to go in shaking off the
superstitions of the Dark and Middle Ages.(Sorry, I'm not trying to offend;
that is honestly how I see organised Religions, including
Christianity...However, I have enough respect for Human Beings in general,
and the participants here in particular, that I would accept their right to
believe whatever they want, and hope they would accord me the same
courtesy.)

All of us are products of our environments and our genes. If we are
indoctrinated in something from early childhood (whether it is Christianity,
Islam, Rationalism, or any other system of belief...) it is VERY hard to
establish patterns of independent thought in later life, and especially wih
regard to morals and ethics. To question can be seen as offensive, yet these
same 'believers' have no compunction in pouring scorn and derision on those
who don't agree with them. (At least they have moved on from burning them at
the stake and applying hot irons to sensitive parts of their anatomy, so I
guess there has been SOME progress.)

It is highly likely that if I had been born 400 - 500 years ago, (and given
I held then the beliefs I do now), I would have been thumbscrew fodder
before I was 25 and would almost certainly have not seen 30...

I have been interested to see the debate here and the way in which
intelligent people have grappled with hard moral questions.

You are right that no minds will be changed, but that is pretty normal for
CLC. If minds are not changed about putting full stops in COBOL, they are
extremely unlikely to be changed about what constitutes a person, or the
ethics of dealing with victims of rape.

The WAY in which arguments are presented is also revealing.

I noticed that Chuck presented some impassioned arguments against your
position on rape victims, which had already been covered in this same thread
in a discussion between you and me. The difference was that Chuck felt a lot
more strongly about it than I do. I was content as long as you agree that
the victim has the final say (and you did). Others seem to want more. I
can't tell whether your stated position is seen as 'fair game' for a bit of
kicking, or whether others generally have missed your bottom line. I cannot
agree with your position on God, the Universe and Everything, but I see you
have a belief system that works well for you, and you defend it honourably
and fairly. That is good enough for me.

I have never felt I had anything rammed down my throat in this forum, with
the possible exception of "Windows Bad; Unix Good" :-)

A number of people here have professed to Roman Catholic education and that
also merits respect. Religion is so closely woven into the fabric of
people's lives, and is such a personal and intense thing for many people,
that freely admitting your persuasion and discussing points of it publicly
is courageous.

I can't help noticing a more dogmatic stand from some of these people, but
maybe that's just me...

In NZ we have all kinds of religions, cults, belief systems, from fringe
(and I mean WAY out... :-)) to mainstream. For the most part, we get along.
It is part of our diversity, and, personally, I think that is valuable.
(The cardinal rule has to be, of course: "You are free to practise your
beliefs as long as you do not harm others, or the property of others.")

If my neighbours decide to sacrifice a goat and dance naked  around a
bonfire in their backyard, they will hear no complaints from me (as long as
the goat is killed humanely (and they don't go through too many goats...
maybe one a year is acceptable)  and the drumming stops by 10 pm...OK, 11 on
a Saturday night...:-))

(I probably won't feel so liberal if a certain recently formed Church  here
(born again Christianity with an overlay of Nazi-ism...no, really...right
down to the black shirts and clenched fist salutes... they staged a march
which was chillingly reminiscent of films I have seen of the Nuremburg
Rallies...Not everyone here appreciates diversity...)  which is vying for
political power, actually attains it, but if that happens the country will
be finished, and I would have to move to Australia (which is almost as bad,
without Religious government :-)). So, far the said Church has failed in its
bid, but it has appeal to the disaffected, and they claim they will have
more support before the next elections.

I remember when I first came to the UK and found that people were killing
each other in Ireland, I was stunned on being told it was between Catholics
and Protestants. (They are all supposed to be Christian...so what happened
to Ecumenicism, anyway?)

The bottom line is that as long as we debate moral issues from a Religious
viewpoint, there will never be conclusions (other than religious dogma and
'Holy Writ') and minds will cetainly NOT be changed.

But why change the habits of  a couple of Millenia... :-)

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/15/2005 9:49:13 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
> [huge snip]
> I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what they
> feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our throats".
> I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.

If it makes you feel better, as much as I choose to disagree or agree with
you, I believe you made it clear that you are merely pursuing your right to
try and convince people of the validity of your position.   Your position 
being a question of *life* and therefore being *important* to you.

I think we can all learn from the debate that there is always going to have
to be a middle ground in the application of laws.

The simple - stating the obvious - fact is that both polarizing sides are 
likely to be upset, or at least one
side will be most upset with whatever decision is made.   At the current
time it appears that at least in CLC you are somewhat outnumbered which is,
in your eyes, an unfortunate reality, and in the eyes of everyone else, a 
fortunate reality.  The
middle ground you appear to have found is that in "general" the members of
CLC don't trivialize the decision of abortion or life, but recognize their
*own* ethical exceptions.  I believe to you that doesn't represent any kind 
of victory at all but to people like myself it does.

There does appear to be a lack of female input into the matter which perhaps 
is not surprising in the old male dominated arena.

[This is not addressed to you in particular - just general statements]

The success of a nation, or people, or world even, is determined by the 
variety of its peoples.  Having
any group with a polarizing view dominating the landscape leads to more
issues than we will ever get through reasoned debate and a supposed 
compromise for the masses.
As an example, I cannot think of a war that was based on a "middle ground" 
argument.    In my mind a faith system [scientology, atheism, christianity, 
judaism etc] play a part in everyone's life: I do view atheism as a faith 
system...I think agnosticism probably is the only -ism that doesn't fit my 
criteria because it's point in being is a lack of faith.

It's an unfortunate side effect that *sometimes* [emphasis added] when that 
faith system is shared by a
large group, the lives of many outside that group tends to end up worse of 
where there is little gain for the group.   I never saw the lives of people 
get better because they forced because they refused two men to get married, 
or two women adopt a child.  A lot of the caustic arguments of faith systems 
don't serve to improve anyone's life, just to make the lives of others more 
difficult.  I chose marriage because it's an ultra politicized debate over a 
religious ceremony.  This is where I have my major issues.

It's not all negative though. Some faith based programs I donate to because 
they appear to be doing good things.  I don't deny charity to a group that 
helps only christians -which some do-because most charity is good charity. 
I do not give to charities that I feel pay their executive levels too much 
(the "to get the best executives we have to pay the going rate" argument 
doesn't work with me), and I do not give where the use of the money is put 
towards something that I disapprove of.  So I don't like organized religion 
in total, but there are aspects of organized religion that I do appreciate. 
I don't base friendships on a religion so it doesn't really matter to me - I 
rarely discuss the subject with friends and when I do I have a very distinct 
line I draw - at the first sign of personal affront, the conversation ends. 
[In the case of Daniel, I never got the feeling I offended him - apologies 
if I did - it just seemed to be friendly dialogue (is that the correct 
usage?! ;-))]

The problem with the application of laws in these situations is that there 
is always a higher law argument.  The Germans were not tried for crimes 
against Germans, or crimes against Jews because it wasn't illegal.  There 
were no laws against genocide.  They ultimately were tried for crimes 
against "humanity."   This would be a difficult result to justify in the US 
today because it was applying a law retroactively......Laws have their 
purpose but don't resolve all the issues - there is always a moral and 
ethical consideration.   This is unfortunately a "grey" area...and debating 
the issues is interesting and educational.  The theory is that this will 
enable each of us to more accurately understand our own lines and those of 
others.

I like to think that he moral victory is that everyone learns to widen their 
scope of thinking.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
4/15/2005 2:53:04 PM
On 14-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> > Which do you have funerals for?
>
> I've heard of them for both.

I've heard of lots of things.   I'm just trying to determine what you believe an
embryo is.    If your wife or daughter had a first trimester miscarriage, would
you push for the same kind of funeral you would have for an infant death?
0
howard (6283)
4/15/2005 3:24:18 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b73d7$425f138a$45491f85$7644@KNOLOGY.NET...

> > Which do you have funerals for?
>
> I've heard of them for both.

That's not an answer that responds to the question; I've heard of funerals
for goldfish, too.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/15/2005 3:27:07 PM
On 15-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> I don't understand how people can get so worked up about Religious
> arguments. (Not just you, Daniel). There is an old saying that friends
> should never debate Religion or Politics.

There are some people who believe that the majority of the world will be
tortured beyond all understanding forever and ever without hope of parole.   If
I believed there was even one person likely to suffer such a terrible fate, I
would be very miserable and I would do everything I possibly could to change
this.    Although many of them believe in an all loving, omnipotent God, which
doesn't fit, so I'd be confused as well.

What would you do to stop a child from burning up in a house fire next door?  
Most of us would risk our lives to save that child a couple of minutes of
misery.    How much more would any decent person do to save someone from a much
more terrible pain that lasts forever and ever?
0
howard (6283)
4/15/2005 3:30:12 PM
On 15-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> I watched some of the funeral of the Pope on TV and they claimed around 2
> billion people were affected by it.

What does "affected by it" mean?    People were affected by JFK's death as well,
not to mention Joe DiMagio's divorce.
0
howard (6283)
4/15/2005 3:31:37 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOGY.NET...

> I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what
> they feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our
> throats".  I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.

If someone works to get what "ought to" be, on the basis of their particular
theology/religion (in contrast to other patterns of theology) passed as the
Law of the Land, they work to establish a particular theology/religion as
state-approved, and to denigrate other theologies/religions as inferior in
the eyes of the state.  I'm *really* uncomfortable with that.

As another example, the current President of the United States has on
several occasions (including the 2004 State of the Union address and the
Bush/Kerry debate)  made it clear that he supports a constitutional
amendment defending the "sanctity" of marriage. I have heard various folks
declare this desire as a matter of *theological* perspective, but to have a
government official propose that the government involve itself with
preserving *sanctity* (sacredness) as the term is viewed from a particular
theological/religous perspective strikes me as an absolutely appalling
violation of the principles behind the Bill of Rights.

I think any law that favors one theological perspective over another
represents such a violation, even when I agree with the theological
perspective for which support is being proposed as law.

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/15/2005 3:48:47 PM
On 15-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> If someone works to get what "ought to" be, on the basis of their particular
> theology/religion (in contrast to other patterns of theology) passed as the
> Law of the Land, they work to establish a particular theology/religion as
> state-approved, and to denigrate other theologies/religions as inferior in
> the eyes of the state.  I'm *really* uncomfortable with that.

But we all do this.    Murder is illegal because we believe it is wrong.    Our
problem is in determining which "sins" we can agree should be the state's job to
regulate.   It is not as straightforward as we would like.

> As another example, the current President of the United States has on
> several occasions (including the 2004 State of the Union address and the
> Bush/Kerry debate)  made it clear that he supports a constitutional
> amendment defending the "sanctity" of marriage.

Someone's gay marriage doesn't threaten mine.   And gay marriages in general do
not have nearly the impact on the "sanctity of marriage" as divorce does.   Not
even close.

IMHO, the state should get out of the business of caring about whether we are
married or not.   Leave that to the churches.   Contracts such as marriage can
be legally binding - but Palimony and Child Support work without traditional
marriages.    And if I want to make my social security partner my disabled
brother, mother, or neighbor, I shouldn't have to have a sexual relationship
with him to do so.
0
howard (6283)
4/15/2005 4:40:04 PM
On 15-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> I think any law that favors one theological perspective over another
> represents such a violation, even when I agree with the theological
> perspective for which support is being proposed as law.

Not quite.   A theology that's in favor of human sacrifice doesn't get my
support the same as one that that's in favor of making murder illegal.
0
howard (6283)
4/15/2005 4:53:39 PM
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:43:08 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> enlightened us:

>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On 14-Apr-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Interesting, yes. But it would be a DISASTER if the next Pope was an
>>>American. Can't you just anticipate the reaction from the USA's
>>>enemies ?
>> 
>> 
>> Yep.    What happens if he's black?
>> 
>> 
>> Politics cannot be separated from religious needs here.
>
>To the best of my knowledge there isn't a black US cardinal. If the next 
>pope is black (African), Asian, S.American or European - that's OK by me 
>- not that my vote counts :-)
>
>Jimmy

The pope doesn't necessarily come from the ranks of the cardinals
although that is the more common route.  There are black bishops from
the United States and Africa.  One from Nigeria has been mentioned as
a possible papal candidate.

A North American pope wouldn't have to be a US citizen.  Could be
Canadian or Mexican.   Given the huge number of Catholics that are
Hispanic, a Mexican pope is not out of the realm of possibility
either.

Regards,


          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that 
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"   
--Robin Williams 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
0
swiegand4720 (202)
4/15/2005 6:02:21 PM
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:36:52 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> enlightened us:

>
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:5d0t511ce81u7hl35107mhcga673its0fg@4ax.com...
>
>> Meier is a Roman Catholic Bible scholar and often signs the Imprimatur
>> himself.  In the case of this book, the Imprimatur was signed in New
>> York on June 25, 1991 by The Most Rev. Patrick J. Sheridan, V.G.
>
>Just found Sheridan on the internet.  Found this odd:  *appointed* auxiliary
>Bishop of New York and titular bishop of Cursola (Italy) on 30 October 1990;
>*ordained* Bishop six weeks later.
>
>Retired 15 January 2001.  Apparently never had a "real" diocese of his own.
>
>    -Chuck Stevens
>

That is odd.  So in effect, he was a bishop when he acted as
Imprimatur for Meier's book.  

Regards,



          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that 
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"   
--Robin Williams 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
0
swiegand4720 (202)
4/15/2005 6:11:37 PM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
> I remember when I first came to the UK and found that people were killing
> each other in Ireland, I was stunned on being told it was between Catholics
> and Protestants. (They are all supposed to be Christian...so what happened
> to Ecumenicism, anyway?)

Sorry, but you've done this before. The above is a much too simplistic 
observation, from an 'Anglo' perspective. So Oliver Cromwell did his 
thing at Drogheda and elsewhere in the name of religion, and one of your 
previous comments was, "So Ollie was bad. Irish get over it".

That's parallel to saying "Jews, so there was a Holocaust, get over it".

Religion if you like - but the 'southern' Irish supported their legal 
king, James II, (who had converted back to catholicism), as opposed to 
the usurping son-in-law King Billie. (Bearing in mind Ollie had 
encouraged Scots to settle in the North).

Move froward to the early years of 20th century. Michael Collins and de 
Valera. Absolutely nothing to do with religion - but Irish nationalism 
after a 1,000 years of imposed English rule. The creation of a separate 
Irish State, (Eire), and with very vocal support from Churchill's 
father, Randolph, the island became two countries with the six provinces 
of Ulster.

I don't keep tabs, but presumably there was some activity by the 'IRA' 
after independence and probably through to after WWII. Now move to 
mid-60's to Ulster - certainly there were those who considered 
themselves 'Irish' (and not surprisingly were catholics), who wanted a 
fairer deal out of the N. Ireland economy.

Meanwhile you have the other faction "We are Britt-issssh !", exhort 
loud mouths like Ian Paisley. (Such a nice "Irish" surname). No brownie 
points for guessing his religion. You got a job in N. Ireland, yes, 
depending upon your religion, but primarily, "You scratch my back, and 
I'll scratch yours".

So when did the IRA become truly active ? Before you hit Blighty's 
shores. Dennis Hume (?), now retired but a non-rabid politician was 
interviewed by David Frost on his TV Show. The complaint - there was 
unfair allocation of public housing in the Belfast area, preference 
going to the descendants of King Billie's loyalists.

Hume and company got nowhere. So sat in the background, the murderous 
IRA were watching. (Nothing 'nationalistic' about them - they are just 
thugs). They took that incident as a key point to start a 'militaristic' 
approach to the problem of 'fairness'. Has just exacerbated, with the 
loyalists giving measure-for-measure. A little quiet at the moment, but 
who knows when the situation will end. Be interesting to see which 
happens first (a) Eire/N.Ireland or (b)Palestine/Israel. Note both the 
problems (a) and (b) were created by the British !

Do you think old Man Joseph Kennedy was ant-British because he and his 
clan were catholics ? No. He was anti-British because his roots made him 
pro-Irish. JFK, with Dad in mind, made a very, very short visit to UK, 
(just the airport I believe), on his way back from saying "Ich bin ein 
Berliner".

So the southern Irish should forget and get over perceived grievances. 
My father's youngest brother, Chris, was office manager for a BR hotel 
in Liverpool. He had a young girl working for him, no direct relation 
but same family name. But to hide her 'Irishness" back in the 50/60's 
she insisted it be pronounced "GAVE-'N" - and in Liverpool of all 
places, the capital of Ireland !

Don't know about you, but like Richard I've been on the London 
Underground when a voice comes over the speaker, "Everybody off. There's 
an IRA bomb scare". A 'rat-catcher' with shamrock peeking out 'o me ears 
from both sides of the family - my thoughts about the IRA, "Charming, 
bloody charming !".

BTW - don't conclude that I am anti-British. My whole life is so 
intertwined with British values, but with an Irish ancestry I can keep 
my mind open and try and measure the problem from the two points of view.

If you reflect there's an "Irishman", here Joe, who probably wont be in 
too much disagreement with what I've written above.

Jimmy
0
4/15/2005 6:21:13 PM
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:43:32 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> enlightened us:

>
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:5d0t511ce81u7hl35107mhcga673its0fg@4ax.com...
>
>> Meier is a Roman Catholic Bible scholar and often signs the Imprimatur
>> himself.  In the case of this book, the Imprimatur was signed in New
>> York on June 25, 1991 by The Most Rev. Patrick J. Sheridan, V.G.
>>
>> It did not receive a Nihil Obstat.
>
>Aye, there's the rub.  Although the Bishop found nothing objectionable
>(Imprimatur) the diocese's censor either didn't agree there was nothing
>doctrinally wrong with it or wasn't offered the opportunity to examine it.
>Where was Sheridan assigned?
>
>Apparently Imprimatur doesn't mean what it used to.  See
>http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/imprimatur.html .
>
>    -Chuck Stevens
>

No, I think it has always meant, "Let it be printed".  What the
web-site implies is that the document in quesiton have the Nihil
Obstat (nothing stands in the way) which is obtained from the censor,
before it gets the Imprimatur.  Yet I've seen many Catholic books and
documents than only have the Imprimatur.

According to:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/Imprimatur.asp

it says, "When a Roman Catholic bishop grants his imprimatur to a
printed work, he assures the reader that nothing therein is contrary
to Catholic faith or morals. This imprimatur is not given lightly;
only after a thorough review process." 

No mention of Nihil Obstat.

Another reference, http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd01811.htm
also seems to imply that the Nihil Obstat needs to be given before the
Imprimatur.

However, I think the best explanation can be found at:
http://www.answers.com/topic/imprimatur

under the Wikipedia entry.

Regards,

          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that 
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"   
--Robin Williams 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
0
swiegand4720 (202)
4/15/2005 6:31:32 PM
On 15 Apr 2005 01:16:03 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com enlightened us:

>In article <6f638$425f13d6$45491f85$7644@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>> In article <b97ce$425dd6f9$45491f85$3161@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>>> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <7bc8f$425db587$45491f85$13596@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>>>>>LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Chuck Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>against
>>>>>>>her will in a fundamental violation and deliberate invasion of her sexuality
>>>>>>>and her right to say "no" has the right to cleanse herself of this violation
>>>>>>>to whatever degree she deems necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Even if it is violation of the law?
>>>>>
>>>>>Ummmmm... if it is law you are concerned about then please remember that 
>>>>>a fetus is *not* a child... according to the law (in some places).
>>>>
>>>>I'm not talking about the unborn child - I'm just wonder how far this 
>>>>cleansing "right" goes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> According to law (in some places) there is no such thing as an 'unborn 
>>> child'; just as a teenager does not attain certain statuses until certain 
>>> events are accomplished - say, the 14th or 16th or 18th birthdays - so 
>>> does a fetus not attain the status of 'child' until a certain event - 
>>> known as 'birth' - is accomplished.
>>> 
>>> Try to remember that when you question something as 'a violation of law', 
>>> as you did above.
>>
>>I clarified, and you still refuse to understand what I said.  Read the 
>>first part of my quote, starting with the words "I'm not", and you'll 
>>see that I was *not* making any sort of legal claim as to the status of 
>>a child that has yet to be born.
>
>You constantly refer to a fetus as a child... to say that a fetus is a 
>child of any sort - unborn, yet to be born, pre-born or otherwise - is to 
>give the fetus a legal status, that of 'child', to which it is not by law 
>(in some places) entitled.  I do not know how I can make this more clear.
>
>DD

Under Federal Law, it appears the rules are constant.  Refer to:
http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0201/31/politics-404824.htm

Regards,

          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that 
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"   
--Robin Williams 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
0
swiegand4720 (202)
4/15/2005 6:35:38 PM
What I was reacting to was that he seems to have been *acting* as a bishop
before he was *ordained* a bishop.
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:gr00619r1bnhs5urfcusc15ioo2oq9g4p8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:36:52 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
> <charles.stevens@unisys.com> enlightened us:
>
> >
> >"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> >news:5d0t511ce81u7hl35107mhcga673its0fg@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Meier is a Roman Catholic Bible scholar and often signs the Imprimatur
> >> himself.  In the case of this book, the Imprimatur was signed in New
> >> York on June 25, 1991 by The Most Rev. Patrick J. Sheridan, V.G.
> >
> >Just found Sheridan on the internet.  Found this odd:  *appointed*
auxiliary
> >Bishop of New York and titular bishop of Cursola (Italy) on 30 October
1990;
> >*ordained* Bishop six weeks later.
> >
> >Retired 15 January 2001.  Apparently never had a "real" diocese of his
own.
> >
> >    -Chuck Stevens
> >
>
> That is odd.  So in effect, he was a bishop when he acted as
> Imprimatur for Meier's book.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>           ////
>          (o o)
> -oOO--(_)--OOo-
>
>
> "When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that
> someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"
> --Robin Williams
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Remove nospam to email me.
>
> Steve


0
4/15/2005 7:16:13 PM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
> I don't understand how people can get so worked up about Religious
> arguments. (Not just you, Daniel). There is an old saying that friends
> should never debate Religion or Politics.

In this case, though, it's not about religion or politics - it's about 
science.  (The fact that these views coincide with my religious views 
seems to be a handicap in this group - it's easy to write off what I say 
as "theology" instead of refuting it with another scientific claim.) 
The free-love me-me-me sixties produced a problem - the "make love" part 
of "make love not war" has this nasty side effect called pregnancy. 
Well, we can figure out a way to make that baby die and come out early 
(it's not really a baby then, is it?).  It couldn't survive outside my 
body, so it must *be* my body - and there aren't any laws against 
self-mutilation.

Enter the early 70's - civil rights for black folks in this country were 
really taking off, and abortion was spun as a civil right for women. 
The Supreme Court was convinced, somehow finding something in our 
Constitution that simply isn't there, and said that our individual 
states do not have the right to prohibit this practice.

Thirty years later, an entire generation of people have been killed by 
this practice.  Recent talks about social security bemoan the fact that 
it twenty-whenever our recipients will outnumber those who are paying 
into the system.  Wonder why?

The Democrat party, the ones who pushed for this, is seeing its 
registered voters decline in comparison to the Republican party, who is 
pushing for (among other things, of course) a reevaluation of Roe v. 
Wade.  You are more likely to get your beliefs from your immediate 
family than from anywhere else.  Democrat's children think abortion is 
okay, "my right", while Republican's children do not, and carry their 
offspring to term.  Could this be a reason?

However, 30 years later, we also have a window to the womb that we did 
not have when Roe v. Wade was decided.  But, so many folks have drunk 
the kool-aid of "it's my body, it's my right" that they cannot look at 
the scientific evidence with an open mind.  The words "embryo" and 
"fetus", which used to just be used a delimiters of age of the unborn, 
have somehow been devalued and is now used as a slur - "it's *just* a 
fetus".

We now know that those who said it is a child were right, and those that 
said it was nothing more valuable than a tumor were wrong.  But, 
evidently, I can't be the one to say that, since it also coincides with 
my religious beliefs.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/15/2005 9:40:44 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d3omm4$dkl$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 15-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > I don't understand how people can get so worked up about Religious
> > arguments. (Not just you, Daniel). There is an old saying that friends
> > should never debate Religion or Politics.
>
> There are some people who believe that the majority of the world will be
> tortured beyond all understanding forever and ever without hope of parole.
If
> I believed there was even one person likely to suffer such a terrible
fate, I
> would be very miserable and I would do everything I possibly could to
change
> this.

So would I. Fortunately, I hold no such belief.

>   Although many of them believe in an all loving, omnipotent God, which
> doesn't fit, so I'd be confused as well.
>
> What would you do to stop a child from burning up in a house fire next
door?
> Most of us would risk our lives to save that child a couple of minutes of
> misery.    How much more would any decent person do to save someone from a
much
> more terrible pain that lasts forever and ever?
>
The fire next door is real. Hell is not.

One reason I am atheist is because to admit the existence of God would
require admitting the existence of Satan and I find that just ludicrous.

There is evil in the world. It is caused by Humans, who invariably will not
take responsibility for it and fix it, not by some  frightening invention of
a darker time when Men had no ideas about the Universe and ascribed events
beyond their control to Magical forces that must be appeased (often by human
sacrifice). I live in the 21st century (whatever that means). We are
supposed to know better.

I don't need a crutch; I have had severe trauma and faced death in my life
and have NEVER turned to 'God' to save me or promised to be 'good' if I
survived. I can deal with the grave being the end; it encourages me to do
the best I can in the time my window of awareness is open. I LIKE the idea
that when I die the atoms of my body will return to the Universe where they
were created, aeons ago in a star factory.  That is the 'nature of things'
and I have no problem with it.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/15/2005 10:30:01 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d3omop$dp5$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 15-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > I watched some of the funeral of the Pope on TV and they claimed around
2
> > billion people were affected by it.
>
> What does "affected by it" mean?    People were affected by JFK's death as
well,
> not to mention Joe DiMagio's divorce.
>
I simply relayed what the reporter said. I have no opinion about it. I don't
know whether it was meant to imply there are 2 billion Catholics in the
world or just 2 billion people who get upset by funerals.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/15/2005 10:31:32 PM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:tCT7e.1024808$Xk.958215@pd7tw3no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> >
> > I remember when I first came to the UK and found that people were
killing
> > each other in Ireland, I was stunned on being told it was between
Catholics
> > and Protestants. (They are all supposed to be Christian...so what
happened
> > to Ecumenicism, anyway?)
>
> Sorry, but you've done this before. The above is a much too simplistic
> observation, from an 'Anglo' perspective. So Oliver Cromwell did his
> thing at Drogheda and elsewhere in the name of religion, and one of your
> previous comments was, "So Ollie was bad. Irish get over it".

Please provide the source for this quote attributed to me. It is not
something I would THINK, let alone say.

I also have spent enough time studying and discussing the Irish question to
realise it is not as simple as that. Read what it says: "When I first..."
It was the impression of a young man who had been raised on a country where
Christians don't kill each other on religious grounds. That was 1975. Thirty
years is a long time, and, for someone who learns relatively quickly, my
opinions on the subject then were completely irrelevant to the opinions I
hold on it now. I was in London during the IRA bombing campaigns and had a
number of narrow escapes. I was within earshot of at least three explosions.
Friends of mine were injured in explosions which I almost attended. This
experience tends to focus the mind and encourage one to do some research.

>
> That's parallel to saying "Jews, so there was a Holocaust, get over it".
>

As I deny saying it, it's irrelevant.

<snip>
>
> So the southern Irish should forget and get over perceived grievances.

I never said that and do not believe it. The problems, thankfully, are being
worked out.

<snip>



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/15/2005 10:42:52 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:56dae$426034f0$45491f85$21582@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand how people can get so worked up about Religious
> > arguments. (Not just you, Daniel). There is an old saying that friends
> > should never debate Religion or Politics.
>
> In this case, though, it's not about religion or politics - it's about
> science.  (The fact that these views coincide with my religious views
> seems to be a handicap in this group - it's easy to write off what I say
> as "theology" instead of refuting it with another scientific claim.)
> The free-love me-me-me sixties produced a problem - the "make love" part
> of "make love not war" has this nasty side effect called pregnancy.
> Well, we can figure out a way to make that baby die and come out early
> (it's not really a baby then, is it?).  It couldn't survive outside my
> body, so it must *be* my body - and there aren't any laws against
> self-mutilation.

It's funny how our beliefs colour our memory. I recall the 60s as the decade
which produced the birth control pill.
>
> Enter the early 70's - civil rights for black folks in this country were
> really taking off, and abortion was spun as a civil right for women.

I believe it is.

> The Supreme Court was convinced, somehow finding something in our
> Constitution that simply isn't there, and said that our individual
> states do not have the right to prohibit this practice.
>
> Thirty years later, an entire generation of people have been killed by
> this practice.  Recent talks about social security bemoan the fact that
> it twenty-whenever our recipients will outnumber those who are paying
> into the system.  Wonder why?
>
> The Democrat party, the ones who pushed for this, is seeing its
> registered voters decline in comparison to the Republican party, who is
> pushing for (among other things, of course) a reevaluation of Roe v.
> Wade.  You are more likely to get your beliefs from your immediate
> family than from anywhere else.  Democrat's children think abortion is
> okay, "my right", while Republican's children do not, and carry their
> offspring to term.  Could this be a reason?
>

As the last above are sweeping statements, they have no credence and I
cannot comment.

> However, 30 years later, we also have a window to the womb that we did
> not have when Roe v. Wade was decided.  But, so many folks have drunk
> the kool-aid of "it's my body, it's my right" that they cannot look at
> the scientific evidence with an open mind.  The words "embryo" and
> "fetus", which used to just be used a delimiters of age of the unborn,
> have somehow been devalued and is now used as a slur - "it's *just* a
> fetus".
>
> We now know that those who said it is a child were right, and those that
> said it was nothing more valuable than a tumor were wrong.  But,
> evidently, I can't be the one to say that, since it also coincides with
> my religious beliefs.
>

Well, I have yet to see Scientific evidence that supports your view. I
believe it is axiomatic that there is a difference between a child and a
foetus. Nevertheless, because of the potential a foetus has to become a
child, we certainly should consider its rights and protect it where possible
and reasonable. The rights of the mother have preference where these two
things come into conflict. I really don't see it as a mjor problem that
warrants threatening doctors and burning abortion clinics. There is far too
much religious based emotion on this subject.

Pete.




0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/15/2005 10:49:33 PM
Excellent post from JCE.

Some very quick comments below...


"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kzQ7e.6$716.0@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOGY.NET...
> > Chuck Stevens wrote:
> >
> > [huge snip]
> > I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what
they
> > feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our
throats".
> > I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.
>
> If it makes you feel better, as much as I choose to disagree or agree with
> you, I believe you made it clear that you are merely pursuing your right
to
> try and convince people of the validity of your position.   Your position
> being a question of *life* and therefore being *important* to you.
>
> I think we can all learn from the debate that there is always going to
have
> to be a middle ground in the application of laws.
>

I completely agree.

In a Democracy, where one group achieves ascendancy, it isn't always easy.

> The simple - stating the obvious - fact is that both polarizing sides are
> likely to be upset, or at least one
> side will be most upset with whatever decision is made.   At the current
> time it appears that at least in CLC you are somewhat outnumbered which
is,
> in your eyes, an unfortunate reality, and in the eyes of everyone else, a
> fortunate reality.  The
> middle ground you appear to have found is that in "general" the members of
> CLC don't trivialize the decision of abortion or life, but recognize their
> *own* ethical exceptions.  I believe to you that doesn't represent any
kind
> of victory at all but to people like myself it does.
>
> There does appear to be a lack of female input into the matter which
perhaps
> is not surprising in the old male dominated arena.
>
> [This is not addressed to you in particular - just general statements]
>
> The success of a nation, or people, or world even, is determined by the
> variety of its peoples.

Diversity.

We should value, cherish, and protect it. "I may not agree with what you
say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Does free speech open the floodgates for hate?

Can/should we tolerate ravings and incitement in the name of free speech?

Yes. But only if we're grown up. If we have the maturity to make our own
judgements, not carried away by the emotion of the crowd, equipped to think
for ourselves and draw our own conclusions, there is no danger in permitting
free speech. The lunatic ravings will simply be refuted by people of more
balanced opinion.

So what about those who WILL be affected by the oratory of a Hitler (for
instance)?

I have given much thought to this. There is no easy answer, but I am
persuaded that the right to free speech is so precious we simply have to
take the chance. It is also an encouragement to instil in our young people a
capacity to make value judgements and to understand argument and rhetoric.

What happens, of course, is that the basis for these value judgements is all
too often rooted in their religious persuasion, so instead of logic we
simply get dogma and the 'party line'.

Before too long there is a jihad or crusade against the unbelievers...

Mao Tse Tung observed that power grows from the barrel of a gun; that may be
true, but I still cling to the belief that the pen is mightier than the
sword.

Differences are best resolved around a table than around a battlefield.

>Having
> any group with a polarizing view dominating the landscape leads to more
> issues than we will ever get through reasoned debate and a supposed
> compromise for the masses.
> As an example, I cannot think of a war that was based on a "middle ground"
> argument.    In my mind a faith system [scientology, atheism,
christianity,
> judaism etc] play a part in everyone's life: I do view atheism as a faith
> system...I think agnosticism probably is the only -ism that doesn't fit my
> criteria because it's point in being is a lack of faith.

Interesting observation. I don't consider myself one of the 'faithful'
atheists; I hold my belief because a long term investigation led me to it,
but I accept that others will have different experiences.

>
> It's an unfortunate side effect that *sometimes* [emphasis added] when
that
> faith system is shared by a
> large group, the lives of many outside that group tends to end up worse of
> where there is little gain for the group.   I never saw the lives of
people
> get better because they forced because they refused two men to get
married,
> or two women adopt a child.  A lot of the caustic arguments of faith
systems
> don't serve to improve anyone's life, just to make the lives of others
more
> difficult.  I chose marriage because it's an ultra politicized debate over
a
> religious ceremony.  This is where I have my major issues.
>
> It's not all negative though. Some faith based programs I donate to
because
> they appear to be doing good things.  I don't deny charity to a group that
> helps only christians -which some do-because most charity is good charity.

Yes, I wouldn't let the fact that a charity group was based in any
particular religion stop me contributing, either. Charity is based on need
and need is greater than belief.

Having said that, (and without giving details of my own charitable
donations) I tend to support groups that will show exactly what percentage
of my money actually gets to the needy, and have publicly accessible
accounts. Oxfam are good in this regard, around 83% of your cash gets to the
people who need it. In some charities it is less than 50%, the rest being
absorbed by fund raisers and overheads. Charity is actually a good business
for some organisations. And I see exactly the same arguments being
applicable to organized religions. (I'm not suggesting that churches must
all be poor; funds are needed to help the faithful. It is when these funds
are used to build edifices to the glory of God while the peasants are
starving, that I have some problem with it...)

> I do not give to charities that I feel pay their executive levels too much
> (the "to get the best executives we have to pay the going rate" argument
> doesn't work with me), and I do not give where the use of the money is put
> towards something that I disapprove of.  So I don't like organized
religion
> in total, but there are aspects of organized religion that I do
appreciate.
> I don't base friendships on a religion so it doesn't really matter to me -
I
> rarely discuss the subject with friends and when I do I have a very
distinct
> line I draw - at the first sign of personal affront, the conversation
ends.
> [In the case of Daniel, I never got the feeling I offended him - apologies
> if I did - it just seemed to be friendly dialogue (is that the correct
> usage?! ;-))]
>
> The problem with the application of laws in these situations is that there
> is always a higher law argument.  The Germans were not tried for crimes
> against Germans, or crimes against Jews because it wasn't illegal.  There
> were no laws against genocide.  They ultimately were tried for crimes
> against "humanity."   This would be a difficult result to justify in the
US
> today because it was applying a law retroactively......Laws have their
> purpose but don't resolve all the issues - there is always a moral and
> ethical consideration.   This is unfortunately a "grey" area...and
debating
> the issues is interesting and educational.  The theory is that this will
> enable each of us to more accurately understand our own lines and those of
> others.
>
> I like to think that he moral victory is that everyone learns to widen
their
> scope of thinking.
>
Man! I wish that were true... :-)

Interesting and thoughtful post. Thanks for that.

Pete.




0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/15/2005 11:16:45 PM
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3catjgF6m1i1aU1@individual.net...

> One reason I am atheist is because to admit the existence of God would
> require admitting the existence of Satan and I find that just ludicrous.

Not necessarily.  Christian Science, Religious Science, Divine Science and
Unity Church are very much theistic (although arguably nontrinitarian) and
focus on the teachings of Jesus Christ.  They deny  the idea of intrinsic
evil, and even more so the idea of a personification of it. .

 > There is evil in the world. It is caused by Humans, who invariably will
not
> take responsibility for it and fix it,

Again, these groups focus on alignment with that which is universally
harmonious, and they also believe that's what Jesus Christ taught.

Maybe you're just not looking in the right places!

        -Chuck Stevens


0
4/15/2005 11:18:46 PM
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d3onp0$1jp0$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
> > I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what
> > they feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our
> > throats".  I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.
>
> If someone works to get what "ought to" be, on the basis of their
particular
> theology/religion (in contrast to other patterns of theology) passed as
the
> Law of the Land, they work to establish a particular theology/religion as
> state-approved, and to denigrate other theologies/religions as inferior in
> the eyes of the state.  I'm *really* uncomfortable with that.

Yep. Me too. (And you expressed it succinctly and elegantly.)
>
> As another example, the current President of the United States has on
> several occasions (including the 2004 State of the Union address and the
> Bush/Kerry debate)  made it clear that he supports a constitutional
> amendment defending the "sanctity" of marriage. I have heard various folks
> declare this desire as a matter of *theological* perspective, but to have
a
> government official propose that the government involve itself with
> preserving *sanctity* (sacredness) as the term is viewed from a particular
> theological/religous perspective strikes me as an absolutely appalling
> violation of the principles behind the Bill of Rights.
>
Exactly. Is it the thin edge of the wedge? Where does it end?

> I think any law that favors one theological perspective over another
> represents such a violation, even when I agree with the theological
> perspective for which support is being proposed as law.
>

I wish more of the faithful were as fair minded as you, Chuck.

Pete.




0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/15/2005 11:19:16 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d3oqp3$h85$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 15-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
> > If someone works to get what "ought to" be, on the basis of their
particular
> > theology/religion (in contrast to other patterns of theology) passed as
the
> > Law of the Land, they work to establish a particular theology/religion
as
> > state-approved, and to denigrate other theologies/religions as inferior
in
> > the eyes of the state.  I'm *really* uncomfortable with that.
>
> But we all do this.    Murder is illegal because we believe it is wrong.

We believe it is wrong because it is counter productive to go around killing
people. Common sense, not necessarily based in religious belief. It is
self-evidently not good to have some people killing others. Hence a law.

>Our
> problem is in determining which "sins" we can agree should be the state's
job to
> regulate.   It is not as straightforward as we would like.

It is, if the 'sins' are assessed based on logic and not on dogma. The legal
system is SUPPOSED to be built that way.

>
> > As another example, the current President of the United States has on
> > several occasions (including the 2004 State of the Union address and the
> > Bush/Kerry debate)  made it clear that he supports a constitutional
> > amendment defending the "sanctity" of marriage.
>
> Someone's gay marriage doesn't threaten mine.   And gay marriages in
general do
> not have nearly the impact on the "sanctity of marriage" as divorce does.
Not
> even close.
>
> IMHO, the state should get out of the business of caring about whether we
are
> married or not.   Leave that to the churches.   Contracts such as marriage
can
> be legally binding - but Palimony and Child Support work without
traditional
> marriages.    And if I want to make my social security partner my disabled
> brother, mother, or neighbor, I shouldn't have to have a sexual
relationship
> with him to do so.
>
Excellent, Howard. You have pointed out that there are secular consequences
when people get together and the State has to ensure the protection of
children. However, your idea of being able to nominate who your Social
Security should benefit, kind of negates the idea of Social Security.  If
everyone just took care of their own, you could argue there would be no need
for Social Security. The fact is that some people have no-one, others
actually need a hand, and Humanity (over and above any religious conviction)
requires us to do somethng about it. If you live in an affluent country, and
you see people who have 'fallen through the cracks' do you need religious
convictions in order to want to do something about it? I don't think so.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/15/2005 11:31:30 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d3orij$i1u$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 15-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
> > I think any law that favors one theological perspective over another
> > represents such a violation, even when I agree with the theological
> > perspective for which support is being proposed as law.
>
> Not quite.   A theology that's in favor of human sacrifice doesn't get my
> support the same as one that that's in favor of making murder illegal.
>
I don't think that is what he's saying, Howard.

If Chuck happened to ascribe to a cult that sacrified maidens at the new
moon, but another religion said: "No, we can't countenance that...", and the
law decided it must rule on this, Chuck would want both opinions to be
judged with equal seriousness by the law makers, rather than favouring his
own position. It is not about what an individual supports, it is about
ensuring that the PROCESS is equitable.

I agree with him. (Not about the sacrifice, about the process... :-))

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/15/2005 11:37:32 PM
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3cauo4F6jtsqaU1@individual.net...

> Well, I have yet to see Scientific evidence that supports your view. I
> believe it is axiomatic that there is a difference between a child and a
> foetus. Nevertheless, because of the potential a foetus has to become a
> child, we certainly should consider its rights and protect it where
possible
> and reasonable. The rights of the mother have preference where these two
> things come into conflict. I really don't see it as a mjor problem that
> warrants threatening doctors and burning abortion clinics. There is far
too
> much religious based emotion on this subject.

I agree, Pete; and my concern here is that there's so much sentiment about
encoding a *particular* religious view on the subject as Law.

There are, as I've stated before, some generally-considered-conservative
religious groups that would agree with your summary.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm :

"The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to
be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman
until it is born."

and

"Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to
government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest
with the woman, her husband, doctor and clergyperson. Some Orthodox
authorities agree with this stance.  All recognize that the decision to have
an abortion is a difficult one, and is not to be undertaken without
considerable thought."

From http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html (a Canadian source, if it
matters), about Judaism:

"Abortion for therapeutic reasons, when the woman's life is clearly in
danger, is mandatory in Judaism. Her life takes absolute precedence over the
potential life of the fetus, which is not regarded as full life until late
in the process of birth.

"Otherwise, there is no unified Jewish position on abortion. Conservative
rabbis do not follow a single view. Most hold that mental distress is
sufficient for the woman to obtain an abortion. Neither do the Orthodox
authorities agree, and Orthodox women must consult their rabbis. Rabbis in
Reform Judaism generally take a pro-choice stance toward a woman's decision
for abortion.
"No one group officially speaks for all of Judaism, but the Central
Conference of American Rabbis, as well as the Union of American Hebrew
Congregations, which represents the Reform movement, formally support the
woman's right to moral and responsible choice."

That same source says, about Islam:

"The majority of Muslim scholars permit abortion, although they differ on
the stage of fetal development beyond which it becomes prohibited.

"Scholars agree that abortion at or after the ensoulment stage is
prohibited, except to save the woman's life. One group permits abortion up
to 120 days after conception. Another prohibits it as early as eighty or
even forty days after conception. In either case, many take the view that
abortion does not abruptly become prohibited at a certain stage, but becomes
increasingly disfavoured as the fetus develops, until it becomes finally
prohibited.

"On the other hand, a minority of scholars hold a very strict view which
prohibits abortion the minute the semen attaches to the uterus, on the
theory that it is already on its way to being ensouled. These scholars also
view abortions performed at later stages of pregnancy as more serious than
those performed at the earlier stages."



    -Chuck Stevens






0
4/15/2005 11:42:30 PM
Thanks Chuck, I found that fascinating.

I'm kind of relieved to see that in at least some religions there is still a
place for common sense.

Pete.

TOP POST no more below (but read it anyway... it's good :-))
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d3pjh7$24g6$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3cauo4F6jtsqaU1@individual.net...
>
> > Well, I have yet to see Scientific evidence that supports your view. I
> > believe it is axiomatic that there is a difference between a child and a
> > foetus. Nevertheless, because of the potential a foetus has to become a
> > child, we certainly should consider its rights and protect it where
> possible
> > and reasonable. The rights of the mother have preference where these two
> > things come into conflict. I really don't see it as a mjor problem that
> > warrants threatening doctors and burning abortion clinics. There is far
> too
> > much religious based emotion on this subject.
>
> I agree, Pete; and my concern here is that there's so much sentiment about
> encoding a *particular* religious view on the subject as Law.
>
> There are, as I've stated before, some generally-considered-conservative
> religious groups that would agree with your summary.
>
> From http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm :
>
> "The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered
to
> be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered
subhuman
> until it is born."
>
> and
>
> "Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed
to
> government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest
> with the woman, her husband, doctor and clergyperson. Some Orthodox
> authorities agree with this stance.  All recognize that the decision to
have
> an abortion is a difficult one, and is not to be undertaken without
> considerable thought."
>
> From http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html (a Canadian source, if it
> matters), about Judaism:
>
> "Abortion for therapeutic reasons, when the woman's life is clearly in
> danger, is mandatory in Judaism. Her life takes absolute precedence over
the
> potential life of the fetus, which is not regarded as full life until late
> in the process of birth.
>
> "Otherwise, there is no unified Jewish position on abortion. Conservative
> rabbis do not follow a single view. Most hold that mental distress is
> sufficient for the woman to obtain an abortion. Neither do the Orthodox
> authorities agree, and Orthodox women must consult their rabbis. Rabbis in
> Reform Judaism generally take a pro-choice stance toward a woman's
decision
> for abortion.
> "No one group officially speaks for all of Judaism, but the Central
> Conference of American Rabbis, as well as the Union of American Hebrew
> Congregations, which represents the Reform movement, formally support the
> woman's right to moral and responsible choice."
>
> That same source says, about Islam:
>
> "The majority of Muslim scholars permit abortion, although they differ on
> the stage of fetal development beyond which it becomes prohibited.
>
> "Scholars agree that abortion at or after the ensoulment stage is
> prohibited, except to save the woman's life. One group permits abortion up
> to 120 days after conception. Another prohibits it as early as eighty or
> even forty days after conception. In either case, many take the view that
> abortion does not abruptly become prohibited at a certain stage, but
becomes
> increasingly disfavoured as the fetus develops, until it becomes finally
> prohibited.
>
> "On the other hand, a minority of scholars hold a very strict view which
> prohibits abortion the minute the semen attaches to the uterus, on the
> theory that it is already on its way to being ensouled. These scholars
also
> view abortions performed at later stages of pregnancy as more serious than
> those performed at the earlier stages."
>
>
>
>     -Chuck Stevens
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/15/2005 11:49:09 PM
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d3pi4n$23nh$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3catjgF6m1i1aU1@individual.net...
>
> > One reason I am atheist is because to admit the existence of God would
> > require admitting the existence of Satan and I find that just ludicrous.
>
> Not necessarily.  Christian Science, Religious Science, Divine Science and
> Unity Church are very much theistic (although arguably nontrinitarian) and
> focus on the teachings of Jesus Christ.  They deny  the idea of intrinsic
> evil, and even more so the idea of a personification of it. .
>
>  > There is evil in the world. It is caused by Humans, who invariably will
> not
> > take responsibility for it and fix it,
>
> Again, these groups focus on alignment with that which is universally
> harmonious, and they also believe that's what Jesus Christ taught.
>
> Maybe you're just not looking in the right places!
>

Well, I have to confess (appropriate, that :-)) that in 25 years of
intensively searching for answers to some fundamental questions, followed by
casual research that continues to this day, I did not look at the
organisations you mentioned.

I reached a point where I decided that the concept of a Supreme Being is
really not necessary to explain what we see around us, and it has caused
more trouble than it has ever sorted out. So, as I said initially above, the
requirement for Satan to be part of any theology I embraced was just ONE
reason for not embracing such belief system.(There are many, but I'm not
going into them here...)

Of all the religions I DID look at, I found Buddhism to have the most appeal
for me. They preach personal responsibility. I like that. The Buddha never
claimed to be God, he just said: "Look, about this suffering you're going
through, I've given it some serious thought and I think it can be sorted.
Here's 8 basic rules that should improve your life."  (A free translation
into modern English; no offense to any Buddhists reading this... and no, I
am NOT a Buddhist (before Mr. Gavan paints black and white over my
grey...:-) )

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/16/2005 12:04:06 AM
LX-i wrote:

A note of encouragement Daniel. I think you are doing pretty good in 
flogging this one by yourself. This whole question of life/death is so 
complex, plus it is very much tied into beliefs, religious or otherwise.

Just so you know your position or your Baptist tradition is not one iota 
out of step with the Catholic Church. My tendency was to accept *most* - 
although I felt that with 'Terri', perhaps there was justification for 
removing tubes which just allowed her to live.

Now I'm not so sure, and am reaching a stage of being more 'faithful' to 
catholic doctrine. It's largely based on reading an article in last 
Saturday's Calgary Herald on Religion. Very well done and I've no idea 
of the page editor's religion - he may or may not be a catholic, I just 
don't know. But he is an excellent writer across the religious spectrum, 
Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and of course Christianity, all denominations.

I wish I could neatly summarize his article succinctly, but I can't, so 
you'll have to take the following as a limp attempt. He interviewed many 
people, local Catholic bishop, other theologians, medical professors and 
the outgoing president of the local chapter of the Society of Secular 
Humanists. (It's a whole damn page - otherwise I would have attempted to 
type and just quote it here and be done with it). The secularist did 
have concern about the notion that life in itself is valueless 
encourages despair and nihilism in some youth, even 'spasmodic violence'.

In essence, the Editor is illustrating there are two schools of thought; 
those derived from a religious conviction, and the secularists, the 
free-wheelers who arrive at their own moral stance. Certainly a lot of 
the latter in this group and I'm sure, like me, even if you don't agree, 
you can understand where they are coming from.

To religionists they query has the 'quality of life' changed, citing a 
series of recent crimes, including that kid Jeff Wise in Red Lake Minn. 
It asks, "Has life become cheap ?". and goes on to quote "In the 
mid-'60s the American Medical Association Journal warned that if we ever 
allowed widespread abortion, we would loose our commitment to the value 
of the individual human life, and that has come true".

As regards Terri, the catholic position is quite clear from the local 
bishop and quotes from John Paul II. The Bishop, (and this guy with a 
snazzy mustache and a somewhat liberal activist, particularly as regards 
the have-nots) mocked the idea that starving Terri Schiavo somehow 
showed her greater respect: "We wouldn't starve a condemned criminal. We 
wouldn't starve an animal. But we starved her for the sole reason that 
she was incapable of feeding herself"

He went on to say that Catholic teaching has been completely clear - 
most recently in a letter from JP II last year - that food and water 
"always represent natural means of preserving life and not some dramatic 
medical intervention". People can in good conscience remove someone from 
truly artificial life support, letting them have a natural death, "but 
it is always morally obligatory to provide food and water. Reflect, in 
the Pope's very last days, as quoted, this was the attitude he took to 
his own death.

A Psychology Professor at Vancouver's Cartey College, and a Baptist, and 
having worked in the judicial system - "I don't think life has become 
cheap. so much as life has become elite. We devalue human life itself by 
ranking lives according to their worth". He goes on, "I think that's why 
you saw such popular affection for the Pope. He lived out his belief in 
the dignity of every single soul. He didn't play the hierarchy game".

(As a sidebar on the TV program I saw about the Pope's life. An 
interview with Henry Kissinger. He met the Pope on a visit to the US. 
Says Henry, "Well I'm not a Catholic", (Well I'll be damned Henry - Oi 
vey, I never would have guessed :-) ). "But I asked the Pope, why did he 
tackle such controversial topics in his homilies ?". Jean Paul replied 
to the effect, "I'm not a politician, I'm a spiritual leader. I can't 
just change the rules to suit current modern thought, otherwise the 
Catholic Church just becomes like a welfare organization". And that ties 
back to the last sentence in the previous paragraph).

Continues the Psychologist, "The cold compassion shown for living 
perpetrators rather than their dead victims is the flip side of contempt 
shown for the mentally handicapped or disabled. This unhinging of 
morality from life has accelerated the trend towards post-modern 
subjectivism and relativism. When we say that every value system is 
equal, when we say every kid has the right to choose his own values, we 
can't be surprised when some of them pick nihilistic violence".

So where are we at, after I've quoted the above. Not too dissimilar to 
the right politically and main religious groups being adamant that 
'marriage' means "Adam and Eve' and not 'Adam and Steve'. As I've said 
before I'll quite happily go for a state instituted 'Civil marriage' for 
ALL - and don't try and shove your secular beliefs down my throat on 
this one.

Same with abortion and death - those of a religious persuasion have 
their own set of beliefs. Considering the majority of my time is delving 
in COBOL, I'll quite happily leave this hot topic to full-time devoted 
religious/psychological/medical folks to give me a set or rules to live 
by. BUT - I'm talking about a spiritual set of rules. The 
secularists/modernists want to arrive at their own set of rules. 
Seriously, do they have more time on their hands to consider these soul 
searching topics and conclude their own rules - what about inter-action 
? So be it. Again the State has to craft laws that can accommodate both.

Just assume there was a concrete law that allowed Terri's death, (i.e. 
pull the tubes and refuse food and water), according to the wishes of a 
'guardian' :-

1. If she was married - husband makes such choice

2. If they were common-law - were they just an 'item' a few weeks before 
her illness occurred or was this a long-term relationship - now who 
makes the choice ? Proof of relationship under law might prove to be a 
grey area.

3. She's not married - Dead easy - her parents are only too happy to let 
their daughter survive.

But even simplistic 'conditions' like above also have their caveats, no 
doubt.

I'm out of here. No more on this topic. But Daniel, I think I'm 99.9% of 
the way with you on this one. There you are JCE he's not totally in the 
minority - perhaps the average God-believing people just don't program 
in COBOL !

And looking at the quote from Pete just below, it ISN'T a religious 
argument/discussion - it's about your moral set of beliefs, which very 
much impacts on how society evolves.

(What a beautiful world. Was the movie called 'Blade Runner" ? A lot of 
healthy young people living in a sterile world in a huge greenhouse. You 
want your 'jollies' - just get Jenny Agutter as the next 'dolly' on the 
list. One problem - when you hit 30 years of age you were gonzo ! Peter 
Ustinov starred as the only old fart in the movie appearing in the end 
scene, sat there like Methusala).

Jimmy

> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
>>
>> I don't understand how people can get so worked up about Religious
>> arguments. (Not just you, Daniel). There is an old saying that friends
>> should never debate Religion or Politics.
> 
> 
> In this case, though, it's not about religion or politics - it's about 
> science.  (The fact that these views coincide with my religious views 
> seems to be a handicap in this group - it's easy to write off what I say 
> as "theology" instead of refuting it with another scientific claim.) The 
> free-love me-me-me sixties produced a problem - the "make love" part of 
> "make love not war" has this nasty side effect called pregnancy. Well, 
> we can figure out a way to make that baby die and come out early (it's 
> not really a baby then, is it?).  It couldn't survive outside my body, 
> so it must *be* my body - and there aren't any laws against 
> self-mutilation.
> 
> Enter the early 70's - civil rights for black folks in this country were 
> really taking off, and abortion was spun as a civil right for women. The 
> Supreme Court was convinced, somehow finding something in our 
> Constitution that simply isn't there, and said that our individual 
> states do not have the right to prohibit this practice.
> 
> Thirty years later, an entire generation of people have been killed by 
> this practice.  Recent talks about social security bemoan the fact that 
> it twenty-whenever our recipients will outnumber those who are paying 
> into the system.  Wonder why?
> 
> The Democrat party, the ones who pushed for this, is seeing its 
> registered voters decline in comparison to the Republican party, who is 
> pushing for (among other things, of course) a reevaluation of Roe v. 
> Wade.  You are more likely to get your beliefs from your immediate 
> family than from anywhere else.  Democrat's children think abortion is 
> okay, "my right", while Republican's children do not, and carry their 
> offspring to term.  Could this be a reason?
> 
> However, 30 years later, we also have a window to the womb that we did 
> not have when Roe v. Wade was decided.  But, so many folks have drunk 
> the kool-aid of "it's my body, it's my right" that they cannot look at 
> the scientific evidence with an open mind.  The words "embryo" and 
> "fetus", which used to just be used a delimiters of age of the unborn, 
> have somehow been devalued and is now used as a slur - "it's *just* a 
> fetus".
> 
> We now know that those who said it is a child were right, and those that 
> said it was nothing more valuable than a tumor were wrong.  But, 
> evidently, I can't be the one to say that, since it also coincides with 
> my religious beliefs.
> 
> 
0
4/16/2005 12:09:48 AM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:tCT7e.1024808$Xk.958215@pd7tw3no...
> 
>>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>>>I remember when I first came to the UK and found that people were
> 
> killing
> 
>>>each other in Ireland, I was stunned on being told it was between
> 
> Catholics
> 
>>>and Protestants. (They are all supposed to be Christian...so what
> 
> happened
> 
>>>to Ecumenicism, anyway?)
>>
>>Sorry, but you've done this before. The above is a much too simplistic
>>observation, from an 'Anglo' perspective. So Oliver Cromwell did his
>>thing at Drogheda and elsewhere in the name of religion, and one of your
>>previous comments was, "So Ollie was bad. Irish get over it".
> 
> 
> Please provide the source for this quote attributed to me. It is not
> something I would THINK, let alone say.
> 

No can do. I've told you before I do not squirrel away messages to throw 
back at people. But I do take note of things said.

So the situation is (a) Your memory isn't that great, or more 
charitably, it was such a throwaway remark that you have just plain 
forgotten that you wrote it - AND you have replied to me in a denial 
vein before, OR (b) Then I am just plain lying or inventing.

Guess you'll settle for (b), whereas on a Bible, Talmud or any Atheist 
'sacred book' you care to produce, I will attest to (a).
0
4/16/2005 12:38:41 AM
In article <qa20611nv08nc0u0damcj959vj20ml273t@4ax.com>,
SkippyPB  <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>On 15 Apr 2005 01:16:03 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com enlightened us:

[snip]

>>You constantly refer to a fetus as a child... to say that a fetus is a 
>>child of any sort - unborn, yet to be born, pre-born or otherwise - is to 
>>give the fetus a legal status, that of 'child', to which it is not by law 
>>(in some places) entitled.  I do not know how I can make this more clear.
>>
>
>Under Federal Law, it appears the rules are constant.  Refer to:
>http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0201/31/politics-404824.htm

From the above: 

--begin quoted text:

Officials expect the new policy to be published in the Federal Register as 
early as next week. After a 60-day comment period, it would take effect. 

--end quoted text

Still early, as yet.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/16/2005 2:58:13 AM
In article <qa20611nv08nc0u0damcj959vj20ml273t@4ax.com>,
SkippyPB  <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>On 15 Apr 2005 01:16:03 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com enlightened us:

[snip]

>>You constantly refer to a fetus as a child... to say that a fetus is a 
>>child of any sort - unborn, yet to be born, pre-born or otherwise - is to 
>>give the fetus a legal status, that of 'child', to which it is not by law 
>>(in some places) entitled.  I do not know how I can make this more clear.
>>
>
>Under Federal Law, it appears the rules are constant.  Refer to:
>http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0201/31/politics-404824.htm

From the above:

--begin quoted text:

Because CHIP is aimed at kids, it does not typically cover parents or 
pregnant women, although states can get permission to include adults if 
they ask for it.

--end quoted text

Seems like an adult can be a child, as well... fascinating!

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/16/2005 3:04:42 AM
Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
> 
>>I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what
>>they feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our
>>throats".  I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.
> 
> 
> If someone works to get what "ought to" be, on the basis of their particular
> theology/religion (in contrast to other patterns of theology) passed as the
> Law of the Land, they work to establish a particular theology/religion as
> state-approved, and to denigrate other theologies/religions as inferior in
> the eyes of the state.  I'm *really* uncomfortable with that.

Name me a single religion (to the exclusion of *all* others) that is 
opposed to abortion and/or gay marriage.  Can't do it?  Then laws 
against them do not constitute a "state religion" or the creation of a 
theocracy.  And, if "someone works" on their side, then the other side 
better be working too.  Don't act as though the 
Republicans/pro-lifers/etc are the only ones lobbying for change.

If the Congress approves it, the President signs it, and the Supreme 
Court doesn't overturn it, it's law.  That's the way things work in this 
representative republic of ours.  In the case of a Constitutional 
amendment, take the Supremes out of the picture.  In the case of almost 
every bad judgment call in the last three decades, look at the judicial 
branch that thinks it's a legislature...

> As another example, the current President of the United States has on
> several occasions (including the 2004 State of the Union address and the
> Bush/Kerry debate)  made it clear that he supports a constitutional
> amendment defending the "sanctity" of marriage. I have heard various folks
> declare this desire as a matter of *theological* perspective, but to have a
> government official propose that the government involve itself with
> preserving *sanctity* (sacredness) as the term is viewed from a particular
> theological/religous perspective strikes me as an absolutely appalling
> violation of the principles behind the Bill of Rights.

The assault on the traditional meaning of marriage is what's inspired 
this in the first place.  See - "they" fight/push/etc for what "they" 
believe, other people will fight/push/etc back.  Would we ever, of our 
own accord, attacked Afghanistan and removed the Taliban?  Probably not. 
  But, they go on the offensive first, our nation struck back.

On either side, an offensive by the other side is going to draw fire. 
And, I believe that we have 67% of the state legislatures that would 
ratify such an amendment - at least judging from the election 2004 results.

> I think any law that favors one theological perspective over another
> represents such a violation, even when I agree with the theological
> perspective for which support is being proposed as law.

Then you'll never have any laws.  Just because an idea is contained in a 
religion's theological perspective does not mean it does not have value 
outside of that context.  Look at the first part of the book of Daniel - 
he and the three Hebrews ate a "balanced" meal, while the others pigged 
out on steak and wine.  In the end, the balanced diet proved to be the 
one that made them stronger.  Should we not encourage people to eat a 
balanced diet, because it's in the King James Version of the Bible, and 
as such, excludes Jews and Muslims?  Of course not.

"Freedom of religion" is not the same as "freedom from religion" or 
"freedom from being offended".  Believe me - I find a lot of things that 
go on in this country offensive!  :)  The First Amendment was put in to 
prevent a "Church of England" type scenario, where the head of the 
country was also the head of the church, and there was an official state 
religion.  It was never intended to mean that people of faith had no 
standing in the public square.

Does it scare you because it seems to be catching on with a lot of people?


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/16/2005 3:05:57 AM
SkippyPB wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2005 01:16:03 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com enlightened us:
> 
> 
>>You constantly refer to a fetus as a child... to say that a fetus is a 
>>child of any sort - unborn, yet to be born, pre-born or otherwise - is to 
>>give the fetus a legal status, that of 'child', to which it is not by law 
>>(in some places) entitled.  I do not know how I can make this more clear.
>>
>>DD
> 
> 
> Under Federal Law, it appears the rules are constant.  Refer to:
> http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0201/31/politics-404824.htm

Interesting link - thanks...


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/16/2005 3:06:40 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <qa20611nv08nc0u0damcj959vj20ml273t@4ax.com>,
> SkippyPB  <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> 
>>On 15 Apr 2005 01:16:03 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com enlightened us:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>>You constantly refer to a fetus as a child... to say that a fetus is a 
>>>child of any sort - unborn, yet to be born, pre-born or otherwise - is to 
>>>give the fetus a legal status, that of 'child', to which it is not by law 
>>>(in some places) entitled.  I do not know how I can make this more clear.
>>>
>>
>>Under Federal Law, it appears the rules are constant.  Refer to:
>>http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0201/31/politics-404824.htm
> 
> 
> From the above: 
> 
> --begin quoted text:
> 
> Officials expect the new policy to be published in the Federal Register as 
> early as next week. After a 60-day comment period, it would take effect. 
> 
> --end quoted text
> 
> Still early, as yet.

Also from the above:

--begin quoted text:

February 1, 2002

--end quoted text

:)

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/16/2005 3:54:48 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:l8Z7e.1026842$Xk.610126@pd7tw3no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:tCT7e.1024808$Xk.958215@pd7tw3no...
> >
> >>Pete Dashwood wrote:
> >>
> >>>I remember when I first came to the UK and found that people were
> >
> > killing
> >
> >>>each other in Ireland, I was stunned on being told it was between
> >
> > Catholics
> >
> >>>and Protestants. (They are all supposed to be Christian...so what
> >
> > happened
> >
> >>>to Ecumenicism, anyway?)
> >>
> >>Sorry, but you've done this before. The above is a much too simplistic
> >>observation, from an 'Anglo' perspective. So Oliver Cromwell did his
> >>thing at Drogheda and elsewhere in the name of religion, and one of your
> >>previous comments was, "So Ollie was bad. Irish get over it".
> >
> >
> > Please provide the source for this quote attributed to me. It is not
> > something I would THINK, let alone say.
> >
>
> No can do. I've told you before I do not squirrel away messages to throw
> back at people. But I do take note of things said.

That's my whole point. You consistently misunderstand and misquote, put your
own spin on stuff, push stated positions beyond where they were intended to
go,  add some of your own spite to make it look as bad as possible, and then
honestly believe that your black and white simplistic interpretation is what
was said. That was what led to me asking you not to comment on my
posts in the past. It wasn't 'enemy action', just tired of being misquoted
and misunderstood (either deliberately or accidentally) by you.

If you do not squirrel messages away (and there is no need to, the GOOGLE
archives will find almost anything I have said over the past 14 years or so)
then you are asking the forum to accept YOUR interpretation and memory of
what was said by ME.

That is unfair and unreasonable. Either quote it  (so that the world at
large can draw their own conclusions) or admit that you may have it wrong.
Even the good Doc admits to his memory being porous when he is not providing
a quote.

> So the situation is (a) Your memory isn't that great, or more
> charitably, it was such a throwaway remark that you have just plain
> forgotten that you wrote it - AND you have replied to me in a denial
> vein before, OR (b) Then I am just plain lying or inventing.
>
Such limited imagination... Those are not the only options at all. I don't
think you are lying or inventing because I do know what you are referring
to. BUT you have it totally wrong! (It is quite revealing that none of the
options above accept responsibility for the possibility of error on your
part... MY memory is bad, it was so unimportant to ME, I forgot that I wrote
it...)

My memory is excellent. But I did a search just to be sure.

> Guess you'll settle for (b), whereas on a Bible, Talmud or any Atheist
> 'sacred book' you care to produce, I will attest to (a).

Swearing something you believe to be true, is true, makes it no truer. It
simply attests that you are sincerely wrong.

OK, here are the quotes you couldn't be bothered to find:

12th November, 2001 - the day after 9/11, responding to a post which implied
America had it coming...
======================================================================
"First off, this is NOT the time to be making such observations. At the very
least you are demonstrating EXTREME bad taste, and there is no evidence that
"understanding" the problem will resolve it. Some political problems are
incapable of comprehension. The Irish are bombing the U.K in "payment" for
what Cromwell did 350 years ago... (at least that is what some would have us
believe; the fact that the IRA is a HUGE economic enterprise that robs Banks
and commits thuggery under the umbrella of "political" action seems a more
likely motivator for the continuance of their campaign, in my opinion.)"

11th December 2004 - discussing the death penalty.
=======================================
"For a long time (based on my innate liberal tendencies) I was persuaded
that
the death penalty is wrong. I accepted some of the old arguments:

1. Better for a dozen guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be
executed.
2. There is no deterrent effect in knowing you may lose your life for
extreme anti-social behaviour.
3. Two wrongs don't make a right. (If you accept that all killing is wrong).

I changed my mind when I lived in London and saw innocent people being blown
to pieces, lives destroyed, young people who had no idea what Cromwell did
or didn't do to the Irish, having a beer and then finding their legs gone,
maimed in the pursuit of a political agenda. These "men" claimed to be
"soldiers". But my recollection of soldiering is not about cowardly murder."

*                                *                            *
*
But in Gavan's mind (it must be Hell in there...) these references are
melded together and become: "So Ollie was bad. Irish get over it"

I don't think that, have never thought that, and would never express such a
thought (even if I DID ever think it) in such a simplistic and offensive
way.

You stated you were quoting me, and that THAT was the statement *I* made.

How could you do that without even checking?

How would you feel if I totally misconstrued something YOU said then quoted
it, with my own spin, as being YOUR words?

You owe me an apology, but I neither demand one, nor want one from you.

Instead, in future, either:

1. If you wish to comment on my posts, quote them and address your comments
to the quote.
OR
2. Just leave me out. There are thousands of posts here; you can live
without commenting on mine.

As in this case, failure to do so will simply show the world at large that
you are blowing smoke out your arse.

Pete.




0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/16/2005 7:03:25 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:l8Z7e.1026842$Xk.610126@pd7tw3no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:tCT7e.1024808$Xk.958215@pd7tw3no...
> >
> >>Pete Dashwood wrote:
> >>
> >>>I remember when I first came to the UK and found that people were
> >
> > killing
> >
> >>>each other in Ireland, I was stunned on being told it was between
> >
> > Catholics
> >
> >>>and Protestants. (They are all supposed to be Christian...so what
> >
> > happened
> >
> >>>to Ecumenicism, anyway?)
> >>
> >>Sorry, but you've done this before. The above is a much too simplistic
> >>observation, from an 'Anglo' perspective. So Oliver Cromwell did his
> >>thing at Drogheda and elsewhere in the name of religion, and one of your
> >>previous comments was, "So Ollie was bad. Irish get over it".
> >
> >
> > Please provide the source for this quote attributed to me. It is not
> > something I would THINK, let alone say.
> >
>
> No can do. I've told you before I do not squirrel away messages to throw
> back at people. But I do take note of things said.

That's my whole point. You consistently misunderstand and misquote, put your
own spin on stuff, push stated positions beyond where they were intended to
go,  add some of your own spite to make it look as bad as possible, and then
honestly believe that your black and white simplistic interpretation is what
was said. That was what led to me asking you not to comment on my
posts in the past. It wasn't 'enemy action', just tired of being misquoted
and misunderstood (either deliberately or accidentally) by you.

If you do not squirrel messages away (and there is no need to, the GOOGLE
archives will find almost anything I have said over the past 14 years or so)
then you are asking the forum to accept YOUR interpretation and memory of
what was said by ME.

That is unfair and unreasonable. Either quote it  (so that the world at
large can draw their own conclusions) or admit that you may have it wrong.
Even the good Doc admits to his memory being porous when he is not providing
a quote.

> So the situation is (a) Your memory isn't that great, or more
> charitably, it was such a throwaway remark that you have just plain
> forgotten that you wrote it - AND you have replied to me in a denial
> vein before, OR (b) Then I am just plain lying or inventing.
>
Such limited imagination... Those are not the only options at all. I don't
think you are lying or inventing because I do know what you are referring
to. BUT you have it totally wrong! (It is quite revealing that none of the
options above accept responsibility for the possibility of error on your
part... MY memory is bad, it was so unimportant to ME, I forgot that I wrote
it...)

My memory is excellent. But I did a search just to be sure.

> Guess you'll settle for (b), whereas on a Bible, Talmud or any Atheist
> 'sacred book' you care to produce, I will attest to (a).

Swearing something you believe to be true, is true, makes it no truer. It
simply attests that you are sincerely wrong.

OK, here are the quotes you couldn't be bothered to find:

12th November, 2001 - the day after 9/11, responding to a post which implied
America had it coming...
======================================================================
"First off, this is NOT the time to be making such observations. At the very
least you are demonstrating EXTREME bad taste, and there is no evidence that
"understanding" the problem will resolve it. Some political problems are
incapable of comprehension. The Irish are bombing the U.K in "payment" for
what Cromwell did 350 years ago... (at least that is what some would have us
believe; the fact that the IRA is a HUGE economic enterprise that robs Banks
and commits thuggery under the umbrella of "political" action seems a more
likely motivator for the continuance of their campaign, in my opinion.)"

11th December 2004 - discussing the death penalty.
=======================================
"For a long time (based on my innate liberal tendencies) I was persuaded
that
the death penalty is wrong. I accepted some of the old arguments:

1. Better for a dozen guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be
executed.
2. There is no deterrent effect in knowing you may lose your life for
extreme anti-social behaviour.
3. Two wrongs don't make a right. (If you accept that all killing is wrong).

I changed my mind when I lived in London and saw innocent people being blown
to pieces, lives destroyed, young people who had no idea what Cromwell did
or didn't do to the Irish, having a beer and then finding their legs gone,
maimed in the pursuit of a political agenda. These "men" claimed to be
"soldiers". But my recollection of soldiering is not about cowardly murder."

*                                *                            *
*
But in Gavan's mind (it must be Hell in there...) these references are
melded together and become: "So Ollie was bad. Irish get over it"

I don't think that, have never thought that, and would never express such a
thought (even if I DID ever think it) in such a simplistic and offensive
way.

You stated you were quoting me, and that THAT was the statement *I* made.

How could you do that without even checking?

How would you feel if I totally misconstrued something YOU said then quoted
it, with my own spin, as being YOUR words?

You owe me an apology, but I neither demand one, nor want one from you.

Instead, in future, either:

1. If you wish to comment on my posts, quote them and address your comments
to the quote.
OR
2. Just leave me out. There are thousands of posts here; you can live
without commenting on mine.

As in this case, failure to do so will simply show the world at large that
you are blowing smoke out your arse.

Pete.





0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/16/2005 7:12:14 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:gJY7e.1028940$8l.867198@pd7tw1no...
> LX-i wrote:
>
<snip>>
> And looking at the quote from Pete just below, it ISN'T a religious
> argument/discussion - it's about your moral set of beliefs, which very
> much impacts on how society evolves.

I dunno Jimmy, even when you quote it you get it wrong... I did NOT make the
statements 'below' which I have snipped from this mail), apart from the
first paragraph (three lines). Still, I give you credit for trying...

 <snip>
> (What a beautiful world. Was the movie called 'Blade Runner" ?

Since you asked, no, it was Logan's Run. (And I'll make no sarcastic
comments about the quality of our respective memories...:-))
<snip>

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/16/2005 7:28:39 AM
In article <78524$42608c9b$45491f85$22276@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <qa20611nv08nc0u0damcj959vj20ml273t@4ax.com>,
>> SkippyPB  <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>On 15 Apr 2005 01:16:03 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com enlightened us:
>> 
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> 
>>>>You constantly refer to a fetus as a child... to say that a fetus is a 
>>>>child of any sort - unborn, yet to be born, pre-born or otherwise - is to 
>>>>give the fetus a legal status, that of 'child', to which it is not by law 
>>>>(in some places) entitled.  I do not know how I can make this more clear.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Under Federal Law, it appears the rules are constant.  Refer to:
>>>http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0201/31/politics-404824.htm
>> 
>> 
>> From the above: 
>> 
>> --begin quoted text:
>> 
>> Officials expect the new policy to be published in the Federal Register as 
>> early as next week. After a 60-day comment period, it would take effect. 
>> 
>> --end quoted text
>> 
>> Still early, as yet.
>
>Also from the above:
>
>--begin quoted text:
>
>February 1, 2002
>
>--end quoted text
>
>:)

That was noticed after the response was sent, hence my attempt to cancel 
the posting.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/16/2005 3:59:01 PM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Well, I have to confess (appropriate, that :-)) that in 25 years of
> intensively searching for answers to some fundamental questions, followed by
> casual research that continues to this day, I did not look at the
> organisations you mentioned.
> 
> I reached a point where I decided that the concept of a Supreme Being is
> really not necessary to explain what we see around us, and it has caused
> more trouble than it has ever sorted out. So, as I said initially above, the
> requirement for Satan to be part of any theology I embraced was just ONE
> reason for not embracing such belief system.(There are many, but I'm not
> going into them here...)
> 
> Of all the religions I DID look at, I found Buddhism to have the most appeal
> for me. They preach personal responsibility. I like that. The Buddha never
> claimed to be God, he just said: "Look, about this suffering you're going
> through, I've given it some serious thought and I think it can be sorted.
> Here's 8 basic rules that should improve your life."  (A free translation
> into modern English; no offense to any Buddhists reading this... and no, I
> am NOT a Buddhist (before Mr. Gavan paints black and white over my
> grey...:-) )
> 
> Pete.
> 
The main reason that I reject religion of the traditioanl sort  is 
because I consider it a cop out.

As a programmer, I'd have been aware for years of the power of symbols. 
The second you define one, and actually use it in a program, it becomes 
capable of taking on all the values that you define within it.  Those 
values have a *very* real affect on what we call the "real" world, In 
spite of the fact that it is a purely symbolic contstruct, in the sense 
of "show me the 'x'", the affect on the world is measurable. I can only 
show you a symbol representing the 'x'' ... what it really *is* is a 
function of how I, as the programmer, use it.

I believe that purely symbolic spiritual constructs are also real, and 
those spiritual values that we hold dear are crucially important to 
human happiness. In that sense, I believe in a "God" and a "Devil", They 
are symbols that we use in making judgements, and those judgements total 
to become the world as we know it.  So in some sense, both god and the 
devil exist ... they also have an observable affect on humanity.

It seems to me though, that trivializing them down to little images of a 
daddy, or the good guys and the bad guys, is primitive to the point of 
silliness. "Heaven" and "hell" as place that we get sent to by the "god" 
and the "devil" is a rather childish views of *my* spiritual values and 
the affect that they have on the world.

It is a cop out as well, because it refuses to acknowledge the fact that 
it is *me* that is assigning values to those symbols, and so it it *me* 
that is responsible for the fact that my god is screwing up. It might be 
okay for a child, to simplfy it down to bedtime stories, but grownups 
should have a more sophisticated world view than that.

Donald, [spiritually aware athiest (until I get it right).]
0
donald_tees (563)
4/16/2005 4:34:26 PM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
> Mao Tse Tung observed that power grows from the barrel of a gun; that may be
> true, but I still cling to the belief that the pen is mightier than the
> sword.
> 

I see, in my morning paper, that the high court of appeal in China has 
declared evidence gained by torture is no longer legal in court. The 
power of the gun is in poverty and starvation. Once you get everyone 
fed, and the kids safely asleep in a real bed, under a real roof, then 
the pen wins hands down every time.

Sloganism and religion are effective for coping with poverty. Once you 
get to the point of reading and writing though, then we can evolve as 
individuals, and start to attain spiritual balance instead of a set of 
symplistic rules, set by a ruling class.

I find the idea that god created people so that He had someone to admire 
Him is as amusing as Hell. Who would admire such an idiot? The idea that 
We created God so that We would have something to attain to appeals to 
me much more.

BTW, I understand you have a well used guitar.  If you ever get over to 
Canada, I have an old Gibson, a 1612 long neck fiddle, and a mandolin 
that would like to play with it.

Donald

0
donald_tees (563)
4/16/2005 4:57:13 PM
In article <p8b8e.6957$MZ2.1042328@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees  <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>The main reason that I reject religion of the traditioanl sort  is 
>because I consider it a cop out.

The most succinct summary along these lines of which I am aware is 
'Organised religion denies the ingenuity of both humans and deities.'

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/16/2005 5:50:37 PM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:l8Z7e.1026842$Xk.610126@pd7tw3no...
> 
Well, I will most certainly give you credit for turning up those quotes. 
  Anticipating that you might be incensed enough to do that, I thought 
I'd beat you to the gun. Unfortunately your prowess is greater than mine 
- I only got back to 2002 - and assumed that's where Google dropped off.

However, with reference to my comment about Cromwell, neither of the 
following fits the bill.

As regards your first quote I agree entirely with what you say reference 
to the IRA or Cromwell.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 12th November, 2001 - the day after 9/11, responding to a post which 
implied
 > America had it coming...
 > ======================================================================
 > "First off, this is NOT the time to be making such observations. At 
the very
 > least you are demonstrating EXTREME bad taste, and there is no 
evidence that
 > "understanding" the problem will resolve it. Some political problems are
 > incapable of comprehension. The Irish are bombing the U.K in 
"payment" for
 > what Cromwell did 350 years ago... (at least that is what some would 
have us
 > believe; the fact that the IRA is a HUGE economic enterprise that 
robs Banks
 > and commits thuggery under the umbrella of "political" action seems a 
more
 > likely motivator for the continuance of their campaign, in my opinion.)"
 >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't actually recall the above wording, but I think it was possibly 
addressed to Tim Josling - also where we both 'corrected' him about the 
USAAF bombing Dresden, when in fact it was the RAF ?


Second quote - I wouldn't disagree with that one iota either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 11th December 2004 - discussing the death penalty.
 > =======================================
 > "For a long time (based on my innate liberal tendencies) I was persuaded
 > that
 > the death penalty is wrong. I accepted some of the old arguments:
 >
 > 1. Better for a dozen guilty men to go free than for one innocent man 
to be
 > executed.
 > 2. There is no deterrent effect in knowing you may lose your life for
 > extreme anti-social behaviour.
 > 3. Two wrongs don't make a right. (If you accept that all killing is 
wrong).
 >
 > I changed my mind when I lived in London and saw innocent people 
being blown
 > to pieces, lives destroyed, young people who had no idea what 
Cromwell did
 > or didn't do to the Irish, having a beer and then finding their legs 
gone,
 > maimed in the pursuit of a political agenda. These "men" claimed to be
 > "soldiers". But my recollection of soldiering is not about cowardly 
murder."
 >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As somebody born in London, 'wrapped' in Britishness - how could I 
possibly disagree with either of those statements. The IRA are thugs not 
nationalists.

So for starters, no 'melding' on my part of either of those quotes to 
concoct my own statement - based on two quotes with which I AGREE.

I have absolutely no idea when my 'Cromwell quote' appeared or even in 
which context. But be assured, whatever the 'actual' wording it jarred 
at the time, and I saw no need to make a fuss. Just that I reacted 
internally with, 'Another bloody Limey comment on Irish history'. (Yes 
you are a Kiwi, but your 'roots' are English). I am NOT dreaming this up 
- somewhere, it still has to be in there somewhere. Hence I recalled the 
comment when referencing your latest.

Now to your 'latest' quote :-

>>>>>I remember when I first came to the UK and found that people were
>>>>>killing each other in Ireland, I was stunned on being told it was between
>>>>>Catholics and Protestants. (They are all supposed to be Christian...so what
>>>>>happened to Ecumenicism, anyway?)

As you quoted the Doc, so will I. "The above statement is no more, no 
less, than what is written".

> That's my whole point. You consistently misunderstand and misquote, put your
> own spin on stuff, push stated positions beyond where they were intended to
> go,  add some of your own spite to make it look as bad as possible, and then
> honestly believe that your black and white simplistic interpretation is what
> was said. That was what led to me asking you not to comment on my
> posts in the past. It wasn't 'enemy action', just tired of being misquoted
> and misunderstood (either deliberately or accidentally) by you.

What is there to misunderstand and misquote in the above statement of 
yours ? You have since qualified it by saying that was your position in 
1975 - some THIRTY years ago. But nowhere does it hint that you have 
changed your position. Why should the reader from that small quote 
assume you HAVE changed your position. You have referred us in the past 
to the fact that you had a mentor who guided you on COBOL - one of the 
facets being SECTIONS. And you are insistent that was the way it was 
then and for you that is the way it is now. I have no problem with that. 
However your conclusion was based on something your learned FORTY years 
ago, and you see no need whatsoever to change your position 
programming-wise. So if you are firm on a FORTY years position, why 
should a reader assume you have changed your mind on a younger THIRTY 
year position ?

In passing, are you so insular in New Zealand, that only arriving on 
Blighty's shores opened you eyes to the N. Ireland problem ?

Truly, if I thought it incorrect I would offer you a VERY BIG APOLOGY. I 
see no need to slam-bang you on any topic. although I confess I do find 
'COBOL is dead..." very tiresome. I appreciated very much your response 
on your personal path to Atheism. Your comments on your moral stance 
indicate a compassionate human being. But there are other areas, where 
having arrived at your own conclusions, you can be bloody dogmatic.

You deny having ever made such a statement, ( or perhaps flip remark ), 
and that is a perfectly legitimate position. I on the other hand recall 
reading it. Seems we will never know - unless you get more nifty with 
Google.

Other than that - I'll give your messages a big miss.

Jimmy
0
4/16/2005 6:28:27 PM
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:p8b8e.6957$MZ2.1042328@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > Well, I have to confess (appropriate, that :-)) that in 25 years of
> > intensively searching for answers to some fundamental questions,
followed by
> > casual research that continues to this day, I did not look at the
> > organisations you mentioned.
> >
> > I reached a point where I decided that the concept of a Supreme Being is
> > really not necessary to explain what we see around us, and it has caused
> > more trouble than it has ever sorted out. So, as I said initially above,
the
> > requirement for Satan to be part of any theology I embraced was just ONE
> > reason for not embracing such belief system.(There are many, but I'm not
> > going into them here...)
> >
> > Of all the religions I DID look at, I found Buddhism to have the most
appeal
> > for me. They preach personal responsibility. I like that. The Buddha
never
> > claimed to be God, he just said: "Look, about this suffering you're
going
> > through, I've given it some serious thought and I think it can be
sorted.
> > Here's 8 basic rules that should improve your life."  (A free
translation
> > into modern English; no offense to any Buddhists reading this... and no,
I
> > am NOT a Buddhist (before Mr. Gavan paints black and white over my
> > grey...:-) )
> >
> > Pete.
> >
> The main reason that I reject religion of the traditioanl sort  is
> because I consider it a cop out.
>
> As a programmer, I'd have been aware for years of the power of symbols.
> The second you define one, and actually use it in a program, it becomes
> capable of taking on all the values that you define within it.  Those
> values have a *very* real affect on what we call the "real" world, In
> spite of the fact that it is a purely symbolic contstruct, in the sense
> of "show me the 'x'", the affect on the world is measurable. I can only
> show you a symbol representing the 'x'' ... what it really *is* is a
> function of how I, as the programmer, use it.
>
> I believe that purely symbolic spiritual constructs are also real, and
> those spiritual values that we hold dear are crucially important to
> human happiness. In that sense, I believe in a "God" and a "Devil", They
> are symbols that we use in making judgements, and those judgements total
> to become the world as we know it.  So in some sense, both god and the
> devil exist ... they also have an observable affect on humanity.
>
> It seems to me though, that trivializing them down to little images of a
> daddy, or the good guys and the bad guys, is primitive to the point of
> silliness. "Heaven" and "hell" as place that we get sent to by the "god"
> and the "devil" is a rather childish views of *my* spiritual values and
> the affect that they have on the world.
>
> It is a cop out as well, because it refuses to acknowledge the fact that
> it is *me* that is assigning values to those symbols, and so it it *me*
> that is responsible for the fact that my god is screwing up. It might be
> okay for a child, to simplfy it down to bedtime stories, but grownups
> should have a more sophisticated world view than that.
>
> Donald, [spiritually aware athiest (until I get it right).]
>
Fascinating. Have you ever studied semiotics, Don?

Umberto Eco ("The name of the Rose", "The Island of the Day Before") is
professor of semiotics at Bologna university.

I can heartily recommend his books (in particular, I think you'd enjoy the
second one named above. In his fiction, his semiotic background filters
through, sometimes with startling effect.)

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/16/2005 11:20:34 PM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
> Fascinating. Have you ever studied semiotics, Don?
> 
> Umberto Eco ("The name of the Rose", "The Island of the Day Before") is
> professor of semiotics at Bologna university.
> 
> I can heartily recommend his books (in particular, I think you'd enjoy the
> second one named above. In his fiction, his semiotic background filters
> through, sometimes with startling effect.)
> 
> Pete.
> 
Not as such, though you cannot take a communications course without 
touching on it, I suppose.  I'll check the above out, always looking for 
a new read.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
4/17/2005 12:00:11 AM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <p8b8e.6957$MZ2.1042328@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees  <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>The main reason that I reject religion of the traditioanl sort  is 
>>because I consider it a cop out.
> 
> 
> The most succinct summary along these lines of which I am aware is 
> 'Organised religion denies the ingenuity of both humans and deities.'
> 
> DD
> 
Yes. It does say a lot in few words.

Donald
0
donald_tees (563)
4/17/2005 12:03:02 AM
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Mtb8e.26827$8i6.1039988@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> >
> > Mao Tse Tung observed that power grows from the barrel of a gun; that
may be
> > true, but I still cling to the belief that the pen is mightier than the
> > sword.
> >
>
> I see, in my morning paper, that the high court of appeal in China has
> declared evidence gained by torture is no longer legal in court. The
> power of the gun is in poverty and starvation. Once you get everyone
> fed, and the kids safely asleep in a real bed, under a real roof, then
> the pen wins hands down every time.
>
> Sloganism and religion are effective for coping with poverty. Once you
> get to the point of reading and writing though, then we can evolve as
> individuals, and start to attain spiritual balance instead of a set of
> symplistic rules, set by a ruling class.
>
> I find the idea that god created people so that He had someone to admire
> Him is as amusing as Hell. Who would admire such an idiot? The idea that
> We created God so that We would have something to attain to appeals to
> me much more.

Agree 100%. I like your acknowledgement that God was created by people,
also.

>
> BTW, I understand you have a well used guitar.  If you ever get over to
> Canada, I have an old Gibson, a 1612 long neck fiddle, and a mandolin
> that would like to play with it.
>
Man! I'd really like that. Thanks Don. And the invitation is reciprocated.
If you ever decide to investigate our South Pacific paradise first hand,
there is a guest room at my place... (bring your guitar :-))

I currently have two guitars (both acoustic... I had a Gibson Les Paul for
professional work but finally sold it some years back when I decided that I
really like the 'old-fashioned' sound of acoustic guitar, and I got too busy
for regular gigs.)

One of them is a George Washburn made before he became known, and published
as 'Artisan'. I bought it second hand in the UK 15 years ago; have no idea
how old it actually is, but from the time I first played it, I knew I had to
have it and didn't even haggle on the price.

The other one is a plain old Yamaha FG-400A which has a nice ringing tone
and which I can take to the beach or parties and not worry about it getting
sunshine or beer on it.

I play for at least 6 hours a week and love it. So far my fingers remain
supple but I guess eventually arthritis will rob me of this simple pleasure.

My tastes in music are eclectic. And I love to get together with friends for
some experiments in close harmony (especially over a few beers... :-)) I'm
sure what we do is no different to what people who love music do all over
the world.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/17/2005 10:46:26 AM
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:fPc8e.1037809$8l.255198@pd7tw1no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:l8Z7e.1026842$Xk.610126@pd7tw3no...
> >
> Well, I will most certainly give you credit for turning up those quotes.
>   Anticipating that you might be incensed enough to do that, I thought
> I'd beat you to the gun. Unfortunately your prowess is greater than mine
> - I only got back to 2002 - and assumed that's where Google dropped off.
>
> However, with reference to my comment about Cromwell, neither of the
> following fits the bill.
>

No they don't. Funny that isn't it...?

> As regards your first quote I agree entirely with what you say reference
> to the IRA or Cromwell.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > 12th November, 2001 - the day after 9/11, responding to a post which
> implied
>  > America had it coming...
>  > =============================================
>  > "First off, this is NOT the time to be making such observations. At
> the very
>  > least you are demonstrating EXTREME bad taste, and there is no
> evidence that
>  > "understanding" the problem will resolve it. Some political problems
are
>  > incapable of comprehension. The Irish are bombing the U.K in
> "payment" for
>  > what Cromwell did 350 years ago... (at least that is what some would
> have us
>  > believe; the fact that the IRA is a HUGE economic enterprise that
> robs Banks
>  > and commits thuggery under the umbrella of "political" action seems a
> more
>  > likely motivator for the continuance of their campaign, in my
opinion.)"
>  >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> Don't actually recall the above wording, but I think it was possibly
> addressed to Tim Josling - also where we both 'corrected' him about the
> USAAF bombing Dresden, when in fact it was the RAF ?
>

I never 'corrected'  Tim or anyone else about the bombing of Dresden. (I did
certainly feel that his 9/11 post was 'out of order', see above).

Wrong again.

How do I know I didn't? Because I don't CARE who did it. I simply deplore
it. However there was a war on at the time and the good citizens of
Coventry would probably feel it was justified. (I deplore that as well).
Having had discussions at first hand with people who survived these attacks,
in England and Germany, and in the native language of each, I think you will
find unanimous agreement from all concerned that war sucks as a method of
solving disputes...

Now you can quote me as not caring about the Dresden or Coventry bombings...
Better yet, why not make up something really stupid and flippant and claim I
said it....(put it in quotes so it looks authentic)?

I'll leave that to you; I don't do stupid...

>
> Second quote - I wouldn't disagree with that one iota either.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > 11th December 2004 - discussing the death penalty.
>  > =======================================
>  > "For a long time (based on my innate liberal tendencies) I was
persuaded
>  > that
>  > the death penalty is wrong. I accepted some of the old arguments:
>  >
>  > 1. Better for a dozen guilty men to go free than for one innocent man
> to be
>  > executed.
>  > 2. There is no deterrent effect in knowing you may lose your life for
>  > extreme anti-social behaviour.
>  > 3. Two wrongs don't make a right. (If you accept that all killing is
> wrong).
>  >
>  > I changed my mind when I lived in London and saw innocent people
> being blown
>  > to pieces, lives destroyed, young people who had no idea what
> Cromwell did
>  > or didn't do to the Irish, having a beer and then finding their legs
> gone,
>  > maimed in the pursuit of a political agenda. These "men" claimed to be
>  > "soldiers". But my recollection of soldiering is not about cowardly
> murder."
>  >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> As somebody born in London, 'wrapped' in Britishness - how could I
> possibly disagree with either of those statements. The IRA are thugs not
> nationalists.
>
> So for starters, no 'melding' on my part of either of those quotes to
> concoct my own statement - based on two quotes with which I AGREE.
>
> I have absolutely no idea when my 'Cromwell quote' appeared or even in
> which context. But be assured, whatever the 'actual' wording it jarred
> at the time, and I saw no need to make a fuss. Just that I reacted
> internally with, 'Another bloody Limey comment on Irish history'.

Oh, really. Now we see that you don't even know the 'actual wording', so
what you quoted could not have been it, could it?

> (Yes
> you are a Kiwi, but your 'roots' are English). I am NOT dreaming this up
> - somewhere, it still has to be in there somewhere.

But it isn't. And it never was.

> Hence I recalled the
> comment when referencing your latest.

So, you KNOW it's there, but it can't be found. In the meantime, you offer
your own flippant and offensive statement as having been stated by me, and
you think that's OK.

>
> Now to your 'latest' quote :-
>
> >>>>>I remember when I first came to the UK and found that people were
> >>>>>killing each other in Ireland, I was stunned on being told it was
between
> >>>>>Catholics and Protestants. (They are all supposed to be
Christian...so what
> >>>>>happened to Ecumenicism, anyway?)
>
> As you quoted the Doc, so will I. "The above statement is no more, no
> less, than what is written".
>
Exactly.

> > That's my whole point. You consistently misunderstand and misquote, put
your
> > own spin on stuff, push stated positions beyond where they were intended
to
> > go,  add some of your own spite to make it look as bad as possible, and
then
> > honestly believe that your black and white simplistic interpretation is
what
> > was said. That was what led to me asking you not to comment on my
> > posts in the past. It wasn't 'enemy action', just tired of being
misquoted
> > and misunderstood (either deliberately or accidentally) by you.
>
> What is there to misunderstand and misquote in the above statement of
> yours ? You have since qualified it by saying that was your position in
> 1975 - some THIRTY years ago. But nowhere does it hint that you have
> changed your position.

It doesn't need to. It was a first impression and stated as such.

>Why should the reader from that small quote
> assume you HAVE changed your position. You have referred us in the past
> to the fact that you had a mentor who guided you on COBOL - one of the
> facets being SECTIONS. And you are insistent that was the way it was
> then and for you that is the way it is now.

This is simply unbelieveable.

>I have no problem with that.

I'm so relieved... If you disapproved, I'd certainly change immediately...

> However your conclusion was based on something your learned FORTY years
> ago, and you see no need whatsoever to change your position
> programming-wise. So if you are firm on a FORTY years position, why
> should a reader assume you have changed your mind on a younger THIRTY
> year position ?
>

Gosh, I dunno...because they are not the same position?

You know NOTHING about how my mind works or even about the basis for my
programming style, (not that it matters in the context of this ridiculous
conversation).

There is no requirement for  a reader to ASSUME anything about my posts. I
say what I mean. And the illogic of the above is so blatant that I probably
didn't need to point it out.


> In passing, are you so insular in New Zealand, that only arriving on
> Blighty's shores opened you eyes to the N. Ireland problem ?
>

Richard has covered this, so there is no need for me to.

As it happens, I have friends in Auckland who emigrated here from Northern
Island to escape 'the troubles'. I'm pleased to say they have settled into
the Kiwi lifestyle very well and it simply confirms what Richard already
wrote. They have friends from both the North and the South (Ireland) and the
music at their parties is fabulous...

> Truly, if I thought it incorrect I would offer you a VERY BIG APOLOGY. I
> see no need to slam-bang you on any topic. although I confess I do find
> 'COBOL is dead..." very tiresome. I appreciated very much your response
> on your personal path to Atheism. Your comments on your moral stance
> indicate a compassionate human being. But there are other areas, where
> having arrived at your own conclusions, you can be bloody dogmatic.
>

Oh, and you can't....?

None of that has anything to do with the matter at hand.

BOTTOM LINE:

You said I said something I didn't. Worse than that, you actually made up
what you claim I said, and put it in quotes as having been said by me. It is
not even something I would THINK, let alone say.

For me this is  a perfect case of "...hearing the words I HAVEN'T spoken,
twisted by a knave, to make a trap for fools."

Finally, you know very well that you did it, yet you STILL can't bring
yourself to admit it, or even entertain the idea that your reason for doing
so may have been based on mistaken interpretation of something else I
posted.

At best you are deluded, at worst you are malicious.

> You deny having ever made such a statement, ( or perhaps flip remark ),
> and that is a perfectly legitimate position. I on the other hand recall
> reading it. Seems we will never know - unless you get more nifty with
> Google.
>

So your position is that I am wrong because you KNOW I did say what you have
attributed to me, (I used the word 'deluded' above...), despite the fact
that an exhaustive search of GOOGLE shows I DIDN'T.

And in the meantime, you have not admitted that the "quote"
you attributed to me was actually made up by you, and you see no reason why
I should be offended at that.

Thanks. That tells me everything I need to know. I shall no longer respond
to you as a rational, or fair and  responsible human being.
(in fact, it is probably best not to respond to you at all.)

> Other than that - I'll give your messages a big miss.

Thank you, I'd appreciate that.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/17/2005 11:39:59 AM
James J. Gavan wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
> 
> A note of encouragement Daniel. I think you are doing pretty good in 
> flogging this one by yourself.

By myself is right - apart from Skippy's link, no one seems to be on my 
side on this particular occasion.

> Just so you know your position or your Baptist tradition is not one iota 
> out of step with the Catholic Church. My tendency was to accept *most* - 
> although I felt that with 'Terri', perhaps there was justification for 
> removing tubes which just allowed her to live.

Right - Baptist and Catholic belief on the "how to live" principles are 
very close.  It is in other areas where our beliefs diverge.

> In essence, the Editor is illustrating there are two schools of thought; 
> those derived from a religious conviction, and the secularists, the 
> free-wheelers who arrive at their own moral stance. Certainly a lot of 
> the latter in this group and I'm sure, like me, even if you don't agree, 
> you can understand where they are coming from.

I understand that, I do - I just have trouble with the belief that man's 
"feelings" trump everything else.  It's quite a selfish view, which is 
directly opposed to exhortations such as "esteem others better than 
yourself" and "turn the other cheek".

> To religionists they query has the 'quality of life' changed, citing a 
> series of recent crimes, including that kid Jeff Wise in Red Lake Minn. 
> It asks, "Has life become cheap ?". and goes on to quote "In the 
> mid-'60s the American Medical Association Journal warned that if we ever 
> allowed widespread abortion, we would loose our commitment to the value 
> of the individual human life, and that has come true".

Amazing - wonder if this makes any difference to anyone other than me?

[snip Terri stuff]

> I'm out of here. No more on this topic. But Daniel, I think I'm 99.9% of 
> the way with you on this one. There you are JCE he's not totally in the 
> minority - perhaps the average God-believing people just don't program 
> in COBOL !

heh - I think that's technology in general.  It would probably be easier 
to start a "COBOL Christians" group than, say, a "Java Christians" 
group.  :)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/18/2005 2:07:21 AM
On 15-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> > But we all do this.    Murder is illegal because we believe it is wrong.
>
> We believe it is wrong because it is counter productive to go around killing
> people. Common sense, not necessarily based in religious belief. It is
> self-evidently not good to have some people killing others. Hence a law.

Quite a lot of religious and social beliefs are based upon what is or what used
to be practical.   And they don't have to be "common sense" beliefs to be
practical.    But what worked were incorporated by religions and by society.

Sometimes things change - the praise we used to give people for having a dozen
children has abated, and we are more tolerant of people whose lifestyles produce
no children at all.    But old habits die hard, and such changes fall behind
current needs (we no longer benefit by having maximum population growth).

At any rate, whether the source is practical or not - we all do have moral
values - and some of them we are in favor of society enforcing.

It's a moral value to say "people shouldn't push their moral values on us".


> Excellent, Howard. You have pointed out that there are secular consequences
> when people get together and the State has to ensure the protection of
> children. However, your idea of being able to nominate who your Social
> Security should benefit, kind of negates the idea of Social Security.

But picking the partner because you have state-sanctioned sex is already doing
this.


> requires us to do somethng about it. If you live in an affluent country, and
> you see people who have 'fallen through the cracks' do you need religious
> convictions in order to want to do something about it? I don't think so.

No.   But we do have our values anyway.   I know of people who claim that they
would have no (good) values if it weren't for their religion.    But I see too
many counter-examples to accept this.
0
howard (6283)
4/18/2005 2:40:31 PM
On 15-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> Enter the early 70's - civil rights for black folks in this country were
> really taking off, and abortion was spun as a civil right for women.
> The Supreme Court was convinced, somehow finding something in our
> Constitution that simply isn't there, and said that our individual
> states do not have the right to prohibit this practice.

I'll agree here.

> Thirty years later, an entire generation of people have been killed by
> this practice.

We're not missing any generations.

> Recent talks about social security bemoan the fact that
> it twenty-whenever our recipients will outnumber those who are paying
> into the system.  Wonder why?

Because it is a pyramid scam, and they always reach a limit.   Continued
exponential growth is not a good thing, and people who do this are not good
stewards of the Earth.    Do you really think a good argument against abortion
is so that we can continue this pyramid scam via such growth?


> We now know that those who said it is a child were right, and those that
> said it was nothing more valuable than a tumor were wrong.  But,
> evidently, I can't be the one to say that, since it also coincides with
> my religious beliefs.

I asked you if you would treat your miscarriage the same as you would treat your
infant who died (funerals).    Because if you believed they were the same, you
would treat them the same.
0
howard (6283)
4/18/2005 2:46:50 PM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:68711$42608114$45491f85$23458@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
> > "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOGY.NET...
> >
> >
> >>I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what
> >>they feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our
> >>throats".  I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.
> >
> >
> > If someone works to get what "ought to" be, on the basis of their
particular
> > theology/religion (in contrast to other patterns of theology) passed as
the
> > Law of the Land, they work to establish a particular theology/religion
as
> > state-approved, and to denigrate other theologies/religions as inferior
in
> > the eyes of the state.  I'm *really* uncomfortable with that.
>
> Name me a single religion (to the exclusion of *all* others) that is
> opposed to abortion and/or gay marriage.  Can't do it?

Why the challenge?  I'm not sure why the *count* of religions that hold a
particular precept is important to you.  And I can't name a single religion
that is opposed to having their members simply walk away from the teachings
and the precepts of their organization, either; what I don't see is any of
those religions (*yet*) enlisting the aid of the Federal Government in
requiring its members to toe the line as a matter of law!  What's your
point?

I know lots of religious groups who think abortion is a Bad Thing and would
counsel their members most strenuously against it, but would not dream of
considering the idea of convincing the Federal Government to make sure
nobody had the right to act on their disagreement.

> Then laws against them do not constitute a "state religion" or the
creation of a
> theocracy.

I disagree; your premise appears to be that if one denomination decreed
Sunday as the Lord's Day on which no righteous Christian would either work
or cause another person (Christian or otherwise) to work, and succeeded in
getting laws passed preventing anyone from doing any work on Sunday, it
would represent the establishment of a "state religion", but if *three* or
*five* denominations agreed on this point of doctrine and got laws passed,
that would *not* be in violation of the strictures against a "state
religion".

By your reasoning, it would *not* be appropriate for the state to require
that all males be circumcized on the sole basis that Judaism requires it,
because that's only *one* religion.  But because *Islam* has a similar
requirement, such a law would be entirely appropriate, because that's not
*just one* religion that holds that circumcision is a Good Thing.

> And, if "someone works" on their side, then the other side
> better be working too.

Why should *anyone* have to *work* to ensure that your Karma doesn't  run
over their Dogma when it's chained up in their own back yard?  Or, for that
matter, that their Catma doesn't get a chunk taken out of them by your Dogma
(no matter what fence the Catma is sitting on)?

> Republicans/pro-lifers/etc are the only ones lobbying for change.

Republicans/pro-lifers/etc. weren't the only ones lobbying for change during
the civil rights era, either.  What's your point?   Might makes right?
Majority rules and anyone who disagrees deserves to be treated like the
dirty filthy pigs that they so obviously are?

> If the Congress approves it, the President signs it, and the Supreme
> Court doesn't overturn it, it's law.  That's the way things work in this
> representative republic of ours.

Yes, and it has always been so.  Not all laws are appropriate though, then
or now.

> In the case of a Constitutional
> amendment, take the Supremes out of the picture.

> In the case of almost
> every bad judgment call in the last three decades, look at the judicial
> branch that thinks it's a legislature...

The judicial branch that decided that Separate but Equal wasn't good enough?
\

Judicial review has been the Law of the Land since Marbury v. Madison.
You've got a whole lot of undoing to do if you're going to complain about
the judiciary overriding the legislature.

> The assault on the traditional meaning of marriage is what's inspired
> this in the first place.

From a *legal* standpoint, the definition of what is and is not a marriage
has been a *state* issue.  In some states, in my lifetime, it was illegal
for a White Person to marry a Person of Color.  That has changed, but as I
understand it, not by virtue of legislation or executive action, but
judicial.

> See - "they" fight/push/etc for what "they"
> believe, other people will fight/push/etc back.

I see.  God forbid that someone should seek to have the same rights and
protections that you claim you deserve!

> Would we ever, of our
> own accord, attacked Afghanistan and removed the Taliban?  Probably not.

I'm not personally big on being the world's Police Force.

>   But, they go on the offensive first, our nation struck back.

I'm not big on blowing a country further back into the stone age than it
already was just because they didn't have the resources to eliminate
extremists from their midst!

> On either side, an offensive by the other side is going to draw fire.

What's the comparison you're trying to draw here?  That anyone who thinks
there are circumstances under which abortion should be a matter between an
individual, her conscience, and her spiritual advisors deserves to be
treated like the Taliban?

> And, I believe that we have 67% of the state legislatures that would
> ratify such an amendment - at least judging from the election 2004
results.

So from the observation that 67% of the State Legislatures seem to be
willing to define "marriage" as being between one man and one woman in
*their* particular jurisdictions, one should draw the conclusion that they
are willing to cede their own right to self-determination in this area to
the Federal Government as a matter of constitutional law?   I think there's
enough sentiment that the government is way too involved in what has
*traditionally* been a matter of *local* law to suggest that it may not be
quite so easy to get agreement on a Federal constitutional amendment as it
is to get those states to enact similar *state* laws.  As I see it, the flaw
in the *state* laws is that many of them reject the Federal constitutiona
requirement of "full faith and credit" provisions of the constitution, and
an effort to put in a *federal* constitutional amendment for this particular
purpose knocks a huge hole in those provisions.

I also think a great many of the people who would support same-sex marriages
would *also* support Civil Unions granting all of the same *legal rights* -- 
automatic next-of-kin status, default intestate inheritance, presumption of
the right to health care decisions, guardianship, visitation rights, etc. -- 
as well as the same *legal obligations* -- as obtain for married couples.
Would you support the latter even while rejecting the former?

Even our President takes the position that the reason he wants a
constitutional amendment is to protect the "sanctity" -- the *holiness* of
the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman.  It's the
idea of the *government* involving itself in decisions involving *holiness*
that disturbs me.  And the word repeatedly used by members of the Republican
Party is "sanctity".  The government should no more be involved in deciding
or enforcing the *sanctity* of anything than it should be involved in acts
that *sanctify*.   If the Federal Government decides it has the desire to
"bless" or "consecrate" something, and thereby ensure its "sanctity", I
believe it is stepping outside the bounds of both the literal wording of the
Constitution *and* the desires of the Founding Fathers, no matter *what*
percentage of the population, or its representatives, think that's a Peachy
Dandy Keen thing for it to do.

> > I think any law that favors one theological perspective over another
> > represents such a violation, even when I agree with the theological
> > perspective for which support is being proposed as law.
>
> Then you'll never have any laws.

Why?

> Just because an idea is contained in a
> religion's theological perspective does not mean it does not have value
> outside of that context.

The reverse is also true:  it is by no means necessary for an idea to be
based in (or part of) a particular theological perspective , or even any
combination of theological perspectives, for the idea to have merit for the
country (or even for the members of any particular religious groups).   That
is why *religious perspectives* and *laws* are, by our constitution,
supposed to be *orthogonal concepts*.

> Look at the first part of the book of Daniel -
> he and the three Hebrews ate a "balanced" meal, while the others pigged
> out on steak and wine.

On the basis of this argument, There Oughta Be A Law requiring every citizen
to limit their diets to raw vegetables and water, because it's better for
them.

The issue in Daniel isn't that a diet of raw vegetables and water is
intrinsically healthier, it's that Daniel did not wish to *defile* himself
(on a ritual basis) with the King's food or wine.  It wasn't *kosher*.  The
passage in question describes a miracle of which Daniel along with the
King's servants were the beneficiaries.   Now, I happen to believe that the
Jewish dietary laws have *practical* merit, but I don't believe that it's
appropriate for the US government to be involved in determining what's
"traif" and what's not, much less to decide whether we should be prevented
from polluting ourselves by touching shrimp or bacon.

Whether I believe something is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing is an entirely
different matter from whether I believe something is appropriately Legal or
Illegal.

> In the end, the balanced diet proved to be the
> one that made them stronger.

Some would argue that raw vegetables and water alone is not a balanced diet;
I don't ascribe the fact that they seemed to thrive on it to dietetics.

> Should we not encourage people to eat a balanced diet, because it's in the
King James Version of the Bible, and as such, excludes Jews and Muslims?  Of
course not.

I don't believe it's the government's business to encourage or discourage a
particular Vegan diet on the basis of whether it is in the King James Bible
or not, or that a miracle involving a particular group of people more than
two millennia ago is sufficient grounds to proclaim it as The Only Approved
Diet for US Citizens and to prevent any American from deviating from it!

The perspective that Daniel and the rest thrived on this diet *because it
was your basic Kosher diet and therefore was *intrinsically* healthier and
better-balanced than what they would have received otherwise strikes me as a
perspective that is fundamentally at variance with both the letter and the
overall spirit of the passage in question!

> "Freedom of religion" is not the same as "freedom from religion" or
> "freedom from being offended".  Believe me - I find a lot of things that
> go on in this country offensive!  :)  The First Amendment was put in to
> prevent a "Church of England" type scenario, where the head of the
> country was also the head of the church, and there was an official state
> religion.  It was never intended to mean that people of faith had no
> standing in the public square.

 Should those who do not meet *your* definition of "people of faith" have
*equal* standing under the law in the "public square"?   That's the problem.
I think the Federal Government committed some *really* bad stuff against
what is now known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints back in
the middle 1800's, and a good deal of it was done with the acquiescence of
the US Supreme Court (in 1879, in particular).

> Does it scare you because it seems to be catching on with a lot of people?

A lot of ideas "catch on" with a lot of people.  I find things scary for a
variety of reasons.

In this instance, it seems to me that a group is claiming to seek to reduce
the size of government, the cost of government, and to increase the right of
its citizens to act without government interference.  At the same time, the
country's armament and involvement in other countrys' internal affairs
increases, the cost of its bureaucracy rises, and laws to regulate and limit
individual rights to act according to individual conscience and individual
theological perspectives proliferate.  In such a case, yes, I find that
really scary, because I believe it is fundamentally and egregiously
dishonest based on my experiences.

I see a lot of people who claim they're the only ones that are viewing the
evidence objectively.  I see a lot of people who believe their particular
Deity will approve of their doing whatever they think is  appropriate to
ensure that their opinion prevails.

I've mentioned this before in this news group, I believe.  I had an
acquaintance who was on his way to the Gay Pride festival in Long Beach
maybe eighteen years back.  He was confronted by a group of Pentecostal
Christians carrying Bibles (I have reason to believe they were some flavor
of Pentecostal because they were all speaking in tongues).   He insisted on
the right to be left alone and the right to continue on his way to the
festival without interference, and apparently God told these folks
otherwise, as they proceeded physically to beat him to the ground using
Bibles as weapons.   Note that I'm unswayed by arguments like "Well, they
did an oopsie but HE's an UNREPENTANT SINNER!".

Most importantly:  From a *legal* standpoint, I am of the opinion that they
have an *equal* right *under the law* to be treated as Christians -- and to
claim the right to speak on behalf of all right-thinking Christians -- as
you or I -- or the guys who crucified Matthew Shepard, or the
anti-abortionists who murder doctors do.

I am as yet unconvinced that *any* group -- particularly any group who
claims Christian affiliation -- who seeks to ensure that the Government
treats a second group as inferior on the grounds of theological differences
and theological definitions has done a particularly exemplary job of
removing the rafters from their collective and individual eyes before
pointing their collective and individual fingers at the dust-mote in
another's eye.   Behavior that smacks of "*I've* got the *real* truth,
whereas you, you poor sap, need to be whipped into shape ..." does not fill
me with admiration.  Behavior that smacks of "might makes right" does not
strike me as evidentiary of compassion, or for that matter, open-minded
objective consideration of all of the possible perspectives and
alternatives.

    -Chuck Stevens




0
4/18/2005 8:53:33 PM
Editing error:  For

> that is opposed to having ...

please read

> that isn't opposed to having  ...

    -Chuck Stevens


0
4/18/2005 8:57:55 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 15-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Enter the early 70's - civil rights for black folks in this country were
>>really taking off, and abortion was spun as a civil right for women.
>>The Supreme Court was convinced, somehow finding something in our
>>Constitution that simply isn't there, and said that our individual
>>states do not have the right to prohibit this practice.
> 
> 
> I'll agree here.

Hey - Monday, and already found a point of agreement!  Woo hoo!  ;)

>>Thirty years later, an entire generation of people have been killed by
>>this practice.
> 
> We're not missing any generations.

The current generation is thinner (in number, anyway) than it would 
otherwise be.

>>Recent talks about social security bemoan the fact that
>>it twenty-whenever our recipients will outnumber those who are paying
>>into the system.  Wonder why?
> 
> Because it is a pyramid scam, and they always reach a limit.   Continued
> exponential growth is not a good thing, and people who do this are not good
> stewards of the Earth.    Do you really think a good argument against abortion
> is so that we can continue this pyramid scam via such growth?

No, not at all.  It's just an observation, especially since the side 
"for" abortion is also the one that's concerned with "extending" the 
pyramid scheme, as opposed to a phase-in elimination of it.

I would forfeit every dime I've paid into the system for the last 
(counting in my head... let's see, carry the 1...) 16 years to have no 
more taken from my paycheck for however many years I have left.  I would 
be a *lot* better off - heck, I could probably get a better return just 
sticking the money in CDs!

>>We now know that those who said it is a child were right, and those that
>>said it was nothing more valuable than a tumor were wrong.  But,
>>evidently, I can't be the one to say that, since it also coincides with
>>my religious beliefs.
> 
> I asked you if you would treat your miscarriage the same as you would treat your
> infant who died (funerals).    Because if you believed they were the same, you
> would treat them the same.

Did I say that I would treat them any differently?


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/19/2005 1:33:12 AM
Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:68711$42608114$45491f85$23458@KNOLOGY.NET...
> 
>>Chuck Stevens wrote:
>>
>>>"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOGY.NET...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what
>>>>they feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our
>>>>throats".  I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.
>>>
>>>
>>>If someone works to get what "ought to" be, on the basis of their
> 
> particular
> 
>>>theology/religion (in contrast to other patterns of theology) passed as
> 
> the
> 
>>>Law of the Land, they work to establish a particular theology/religion
> 
> as
> 
>>>state-approved, and to denigrate other theologies/religions as inferior
> 
> in
> 
>>>the eyes of the state.  I'm *really* uncomfortable with that.
>>
>>Name me a single religion (to the exclusion of *all* others) that is
>>opposed to abortion and/or gay marriage.  Can't do it?
> 
> 
> Why the challenge?  I'm not sure why the *count* of religions that hold a
> particular precept is important to you.  And I can't name a single religion
> that is opposed to having their members simply walk away from the teachings
> and the precepts of their organization, either; what I don't see is any of
> those religions (*yet*) enlisting the aid of the Federal Government in
> requiring its members to toe the line as a matter of law!  What's your
> point?

My point is that it's not just "Christians" that feel the way I do.

> I know lots of religious groups who think abortion is a Bad Thing and would
> counsel their members most strenuously against it, but would not dream of
> considering the idea of convincing the Federal Government to make sure
> nobody had the right to act on their disagreement.

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?

> I disagree; your premise appears to be that if one denomination decreed
> Sunday as the Lord's Day on which no righteous Christian would either work
> or cause another person (Christian or otherwise) to work, and succeeded in
> getting laws passed preventing anyone from doing any work on Sunday, it
> would represent the establishment of a "state religion", but if *three* or
> *five* denominations agreed on this point of doctrine and got laws passed,
> that would *not* be in violation of the strictures against a "state
> religion".
> 
> By your reasoning, it would *not* be appropriate for the state to require
> that all males be circumcized on the sole basis that Judaism requires it,
> because that's only *one* religion.  But because *Islam* has a similar
> requirement, such a law would be entirely appropriate, because that's not
> *just one* religion that holds that circumcision is a Good Thing.

I'm not saying "take every precept where two or more religions agree and 
make a law", and you *know* that's not what I said.  You just don't seem 
to get that it's not just that abortion is a "bad thing".  (Or maybe you 
do...)

>>And, if "someone works" on their side, then the other side
>>better be working too.
> 
> Why should *anyone* have to *work* to ensure that your Karma doesn't  run
> over their Dogma when it's chained up in their own back yard?  Or, for that
> matter, that their Catma doesn't get a chunk taken out of them by your Dogma
> (no matter what fence the Catma is sitting on)?

It's give and take - that how things get done.  You want "this", and 
write a letter to your Congressman and Senators.  I want "that", and I 
do the same.  Somehow I have no right to do that because what I wrote 
had some basis in my religious beliefs?

>>Republicans/pro-lifers/etc are the only ones lobbying for change.
> 
> Republicans/pro-lifers/etc. weren't the only ones lobbying for change during
> the civil rights era, either.  What's your point?   Might makes right?
> Majority rules and anyone who disagrees deserves to be treated like the
> dirty filthy pigs that they so obviously are?

Where did I say to treat someone like a dirty, filthy pig?  One side 
lobbies for *their* views, the other side lobbies for *theirs*.  My 
point is that the lobbying comes from both sides.

>>In the case of almost
>>every bad judgment call in the last three decades, look at the judicial
>>branch that thinks it's a legislature...
> 
> The judicial branch that decided that Separate but Equal wasn't good enough?

They were superseded, were they not?

> Judicial review has been the Law of the Land since Marbury v. Madison.
> You've got a whole lot of undoing to do if you're going to complain about
> the judiciary overriding the legislature.

Judges these days are making laws out of whole cloth.  Anyone who feels 
that a law document is "living" has no business claiming their judgments 
are in the spirit of such a document.  That's the appeal of laws - 
they're static until changed by the legislature, or overturned on 
Constitutional grounds.

>>See - "they" fight/push/etc for what "they"
>>believe, other people will fight/push/etc back.
> 
> I see.  God forbid that someone should seek to have the same rights and
> protections that you claim you deserve!

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.)

>>On either side, an offensive by the other side is going to draw fire.
> 
> What's the comparison you're trying to draw here?  That anyone who thinks
> there are circumstances under which abortion should be a matter between an
> individual, her conscience, and her spiritual advisors deserves to be
> treated like the Taliban?

Yep - that's what I said.  OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!!!  It was analogy of 
stirring up a hornet's nest.

[snipped remainder]


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/19/2005 2:00:08 AM
Not much to add...more a post to recognize the response...


"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:3cb0b4F6jtkjqU1@individual.net...
> Mao Tse Tung observed that power grows from the barrel of a gun; that may 
> be
> true, but I still cling to the belief that the pen is mightier than the
> sword.

An illiterate moron can pull a trigger.

>> As an example, I cannot think of a war that was based on a "middle 
>> ground"
>> argument.    In my mind a faith system [scientology, atheism,
> christianity,
>> judaism etc] play a part in everyone's life: I do view atheism as a faith
>> system...I think agnosticism probably is the only -ism that doesn't fit 
>> my
>> criteria because it's point in being is a lack of faith.
>
> Interesting observation. I don't consider myself one of the 'faithful'
> atheists; I hold my belief because a long term investigation led me to it,
> but I accept that others will have different experiences.

Long term investigation led you to it, but it is a faith in your own 
conclusion that lets you be comfortable with it in the face of millions of 
dissenting views..

To tie the two points together with a figurative bow:

"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



JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
4/19/2005 7:10:35 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:34f0f$42646629$45491f85$23624@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
> > "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:68711$42608114$45491f85$23458@KNOLOGY.NET...
> >
> >>Chuck Stevens wrote:
> >>
<snip>>
> > I know lots of religious groups who think abortion is a Bad Thing and
would
> > counsel their members most strenuously against it, but would not dream
of
> > considering the idea of convincing the Federal Government to make sure
> > nobody had the right to act on their disagreement.
>
> 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?
>
A very fair question, Daniel.

You SHOULD act on your beliefs, but, in a civilized society that action has
to be within certain constraints. (See below).

This is the exact moment where this argument becomes dangerous.

Here's Daniel, who is observably a kind, decent, man, now being pushed
towards saying that his beliefs should be enforced by government.

That's where it all goes off the rails.

What should be enforced by Government is the freedom to have beliefs, and
the right to act on those beliefs, INSOFAR as it affects nobody else, and
does NOT infringe those selfsame rights and freedoms for others. (Thse are
the constraints mentioned above).

In other words, it is the responsibility of government to ensure the
security and evenness of the playing field, NOT to favour one game over
another.

Can you imagine, Daniel, how frightening it is to those who may not share
your belief, to hear this kind of talk?

I know your heart is in the right place and I know you are a reasonable and
fair man. I also realise you are working hard to defend  a minority position
(at least in this forum) which you feel passionately about.

Let me try and defuse this a little by positing an analogy... Clear your
mind and bear with me...

Suppose the argument wasn't about abortion? Suppose it was say, about
compulsory sacrifice?  Would you want to see laws passed that required you
to kill a chicken every Wednesday, for instance? And this because some
religious group who are absolutely sure in their own minds that that is the
commandment of their God, and without it the Human race will be destroyed in
fire and brimstone, have lobbied until their requirement becomes law.

These are not evil people. They are trying to save Humanity. But for those
of us who don't share their faith, the new law is unacceptable.

What options do we have?

Break the law and accept the punishment?
Emigrate?
Try and get it changed, realising that we may not succeed?
Rebel and bring down the Government?

None of these are very attractive options (and there are other options even
less attractive and less rational).

In a Democracy we have the right to try and persuade others that this law is
bad, but suppose everything else is going fine and many people just think:
"What the Hell...roast chicken on Wednesdays...". And even if they don't
think that, the wheels move slowly and, in the meantime, an awful lot of
chickens are going to die... (Our concern here is, of course, with the ones
that will die by our own hand; there is little point in accepting the guilt
for all the ones we didn't kill.)

Now consider that when the Government is lobbied by this group, they (the
Government representatives) show that the basis for their Democracy (perhaps
a Bill of Rights or a Constitution)) requires a guarantee of rights and
freedoms to ALL groups, WITH the proviso stated above.

The chicken cult can make their Wednesday sacrifice; the rest of  us don't
have to, and no law is passed to enforce something that is not acceptable to
ALL.

Of course there will be chicken lovers who will protest and lobby the cult's
churches, but that is Democracy. (It isn't perfect, but it beats all of the
alternatives, hands down...). As long as the protests are peaceful, we would
accept them as a legitimate part of our society. Who knows, maybe the cult
and the chicken lovers will eventually sit around a table and agree some
reasonable compromises:

All chickens sacrificed must be eaten.
All sacrifices must be humane and painless for the chicken.
Chicken lovers will limit public protest to once a month.

And so on...

The fundamental point at issue here is NOT about the rights and wrongs of
abortion; it is about the kind of society you want to live in.

Over centuries men and women have laid down their lives gladly to try and
get a better system for administrating groups of people. Democracy seems to
be the best we can manage.

All of us, whatever our religious beliefs, should strive to see that the
separation of church and state remains that way, and that laws are passed
only to protect the rights and freedoms of all the people equally.

Any other course, may eventually endanger your right to worship, your right
to enjoy your life, and your right to bring up your kids the same way.

Freedom does not mean enforcing your beliefs on others; it means making sure
they get to practise their beliefs as well, whether you agree with them or
not.

<snip>>
> It's give and take - that how things get done.  You want "this", and
> write a letter to your Congressman and Senators.  I want "that", and I
> do the same.  Somehow I have no right to do that because what I wrote
> had some basis in my religious beliefs?
>

You have a perfect right to do that. But your Congressman or Senator should
not lobby for its implementation unless he/she is sure that it does not
impinge on the rights of others. The primary responsibility of the law
makers is to ensure that laws are fair, and apply equally to all, for the
good of all.

> >>Republicans/pro-lifers/etc are the only ones lobbying for change.
> >
> > Republicans/pro-lifers/etc. weren't the only ones lobbying for change
during
> > the civil rights era, either.  What's your point?   Might makes right?
> > Majority rules and anyone who disagrees deserves to be treated like the
> > dirty filthy pigs that they so obviously are?
>

It is interesting to see the emotions that enter the argument as soon as it
is based on belief, rather than logic.

<snipped further emotive exchanges>

BOTTOM LINE:

I would defend with all of my energy the right of pro-lifers to hold that
view. I would defend with all of my energy the right of  other people not to
hold that view. I would resist with all of my energy an attempt by either
side to force their view upon the other, or have their particular position
written into law.

As far as abortion is concerned, the mother makes the call. Whatever she
decides, we should all support.

Anything byond that is simply personal belief and, as such, should NEVER be
written into law.

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/19/2005 7:40:58 AM
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L929e.9009$5f.7019@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Not much to add...more a post to recognize the response...
>
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3cb0b4F6jtkjqU1@individual.net...
>
> To tie the two points together with a figurative bow:
>
> "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
>

Thanks for that.

I have never seen it before. Hope it is authentic; it certainly sounds like
something he COULD have said...:-)

Cheers,

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/19/2005 7:44:46 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

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/19/2005 9:23:49 AM
In article <34f0f$42646629$45491f85$23624@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Chuck Stevens wrote:

[snip]

>> I know lots of religious groups who think abortion is a Bad Thing and would
>> counsel their members most strenuously against it, but would not dream of
>> considering the idea of convincing the Federal Government to make sure
>> nobody had the right to act on their disagreement.
>
>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]

>> I see.  God forbid that someone should seek to have the same rights and
>> protections that you claim you deserve!
>
>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

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/19/2005 9:32:28 AM
On 18-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> > I asked you if you would treat your miscarriage the same as you would treat
> > your
> > infant who died (funerals).    Because if you believed they were the same,
> > you would treat them the same.
>
> Did I say that I would treat them any differently?

You didn't fully answer the question.
0
howard (6283)
4/19/2005 2:53:53 PM
On 18-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> Why the challenge?  I'm not sure why the *count* of religions that hold a
> particular precept is important to you.  And I can't name a single religion
> that is opposed to having their members simply walk away from the teachings
> and the precepts of their organization, either; what I don't see is any of
> those religions (*yet*) enlisting the aid of the Federal Government in
> requiring its members to toe the line as a matter of law!  What's your
> point?

The religion has to be a majority religion to do so - and several have done in
their various countries.

I don't ask proselytizers why their religion is right - I ask them why the other
religions are wrong.   I haven't heard an attempt of an answer using the logic
they were using before.
0
howard (6283)
4/19/2005 2:57:56 PM
On 19-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> 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.

So what are the bases of what we decide should be laws in *our* United States of
America?
0
howard (6283)
4/19/2005 3:01:00 PM
In article <d436fc$aru$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 19-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>So what are the bases of what we decide should be laws in *our* United States of
>America?

That depends on which 'our' one asks... for me, I am satisfied with the 
ones which help form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure 
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general 
welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
prosperity.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/19/2005 3:35:28 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d42in5$5f1$1@panix5.panix.com...
> 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

But your response proves his point, no?  Or was that the _joke_ ?

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
4/19/2005 3:45:40 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message 
news:d4369k$al4$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 18-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>> Why the challenge?  I'm not sure why the *count* of religions that hold a
>> particular precept is important to you.  And I can't name a single 
>> religion
>> that is opposed to having their members simply walk away from the 
>> teachings
>> and the precepts of their organization, either; what I don't see is any 
>> of
>> those religions (*yet*) enlisting the aid of the Federal Government in
>> requiring its members to toe the line as a matter of law!  What's your
>> point?
>
> The religion has to be a majority religion to do so - and several have 
> done in
> their various countries.
>
> I don't ask proselytizers why their religion is right - I ask them why the 
> other
> religions are wrong.   I haven't heard an attempt of an answer using the 
> logic
> they were using before.

I know someone who *studied* religion for a long time.  I've seen them in 
conversations.

It is amazing how some people think that by "being" religious they know more 
than those who understand what it is to "be" religious.

*Most* people don't understand their own religion, yet alone someone elses 
so I'm sure your question is very difficult for them.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
4/19/2005 3:51:17 PM
In article <EI99e.6857$716.3315@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d42in5$5f1$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> 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
>
>But your response proves his point, no?

It might seem that way to some... it might not, to others.

>Or was that the _joke_ ?

A joke explained is a joke lost... now, given that 'the Tao that can be 
spoken of is not the true Tao' let us speak of It... or maybe not.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/19/2005 3:53:43 PM
In article <VN99e.8166$_t3.8036@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip... and my apologies for the midsentence interruption]

>... people don't understand their own religion, yet alone someone 
>elses...

Yow... have I introduced a contagion?

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/19/2005 3:57:39 PM
On 19-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> >So what are the bases of what we decide should be laws in *our* United States
> >of
> >America?
>
> That depends on which 'our' one asks... for me, I am satisfied with the
> ones which help form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
> domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
> welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
> prosperity.

Trouble is, "more perfect", "justice", "tranquility", and "general welfare" are
terms that are defined by what we believe is good.   Often they correspond with
what our religions believe are good.   It's not at all easy for me to separate
these out.    It won't stop me from trying.   But certainly values that I have
that correspond with values that a religion has are values that I will support.
 It doesn't really matter what is the source of these values for this.

And liberty is a balance - e.g. my liberty to infringe on your liberty.  
Governments go further because they infringe on all of our liberty - usually
claiming "the common good".
0
howard (6283)
4/19/2005 4:39:48 PM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d438g0$anv$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <d436fc$aru$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> >
> >On 19-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >So what are the bases of what we decide should be laws in *our* United
States of
> >America?
>
> That depends on which 'our' one asks... for me, I am satisfied with the
> ones which help form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
> domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
> welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
> prosperity.

Actually, the last is "posterity", meaning "succeeding or future
generations collectively." Interestingly, one could argue that
the Congress has committed many abuses and usurpations by
attempting to legislate 'prosperity'.



0
ricksmith (875)
4/19/2005 5:00:26 PM
In article <d43c8k$es1$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 19-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>> >So what are the bases of what we decide should be laws in *our* United States
>> >of
>> >America?
>>
>> That depends on which 'our' one asks... for me, I am satisfied with the
>> ones which help form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
>> domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
>> welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
>> prosperity.
>
>Trouble is, "more perfect", "justice", "tranquility", and "general welfare" are
>terms that are defined by what we believe is good.   Often they correspond with
>what our religions believe are good.   It's not at all easy for me to separate
>these out.

Hey, if it were easy then *everybody* would be doing it already, neh?  To 
say 'Violations of property rights disturb domestic tranquility; towards 
this end theft is discouraged' is not to say '(deity) says not to steal; 
towards the end of complying with the divine theft is discourages'... but 
in both cases theft is discouraged.

>It won't stop me from trying.   But certainly values that I have
>that correspond with values that a religion has are values that I will support.
>It doesn't really matter what is the source of these values for this.

That they correspond is of little moment; that something is codified into 
law because it originates in a religion is to be avoided.

>
>And liberty is a balance - e.g. my liberty to infringe on your liberty.  

The old 'your right to swing your arm ends at my nose', of course... 
again, a matter of balance and examination, constant examination.

>Governments go further because they infringe on all of our liberty - usually
>claiming "the common good".

Governments have been said to reflect the nature of the governed; as 
Mencken put it, 'Give the people what they want... they deserve it.'

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/19/2005 6:46:11 PM
In article <116aebubs25cb31@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d438g0$anv$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <d436fc$aru$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
>> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >On 19-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >So what are the bases of what we decide should be laws in *our* United States of
>> >America?
>>
>> That depends on which 'our' one asks... for me, I am satisfied with the
>> ones which help form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
>> domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
>> welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
>> prosperity.
>
>Actually, the last is "posterity", meaning "succeeding or future
>generations collectively."

Quite right, Mr Smith... my error and apologies.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/19/2005 6:48:07 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <34f0f$42646629$45491f85$23624@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
>>Chuck Stevens wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>>I know lots of religious groups who think abortion is a Bad Thing and would
>>>counsel their members most strenuously against it, but would not dream of
>>>considering the idea of convincing the Federal Government to make sure
>>>nobody had the right to act on their disagreement.
>>
>>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.

This is to all the folks who have written similar things (not just you, 
DD).  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.  But no one wants to talk facts - all you 
(opposed) say is "YOU CAN'T SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN OUR THROATS!!!!" 
or words to that effect.

If anyone is remotely interested in the scientific facts regarding the 
gestation of human life, I'd be happy to provide links.  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.

>>>I see.  God forbid that someone should seek to have the same rights and
>>>protections that you claim you deserve!
>>
>>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.

Didn't my little summary of the 60's give any indication of how I feel? 
  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.

But. heaven forbid someone suggest that someone else should do something 
"right" or "wrong" - seems "rights" these days merely consist of "I wanna"s.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/20/2005 1:08:33 AM
> Didn't my little summary of the 60's give any indication of how I
feel?

But your 'summary of the 60s' was flawed. The thing that highlighted
the 60s for me was that girls took to taking 'the pill'.

> Reduced morals = more sex = more babies.

It seems to me that many religions ban the use of contraception and are
currently outbreeding the non-religious.  Thus 'Higher morals (implied)
-> whatever -> more babies'.

0
riplin (4127)
4/20/2005 2:04:26 AM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d436fc$aru$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 19-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> So what are the bases of what we decide should be laws in *our* United
States of
> America?

The short answer is that *we* don't decide and neither
should *we*; because "The United States, in their united
or collective capacity, are the OBJECT to which all general
provisions in the Constitution must necessarily refer."
[Federalist 83] and *we*, as individuals, are incapable of
making informed decisions about *should*, though *we*
are capable of making such decisions about *should not*.
The long answer follows.

The Constitution of the United States is fundamental law;
that is, a law (ordained by the people) upon which the laws
of the United States are based. "The propriety of a law [of
the United States], in a constitutional light, must always be
determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is
founded." [Federalist 33]

Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have the power ...
[enumerated powers elided] ... To make all laws which shall
be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested, by this
Constitution, in the United States or in any department or
officer thereof."

"We" do not decide what should be law--that task is
assigned to the Congress, subject to the limitation that such
laws "shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution ...".

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds
of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the
people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard
they have formed, and take such measures to redress the
injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest
and prudence justify." [Federalist 33]

"We" decide that the Congress has exceeded its authority
when it makes a law that *we* determine is not proper.

Article VI, Clause 3, "The Senators and Representatives
before mentioned, and the members of the several State
Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of
the United States and of the several States, shall be bound
by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no
religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."

Neither Democrats nor Republicans nor members of other
political parties have any authority under this Constitution;
because every person with authority under this Constitution
is legally obligated to support this Constitution and, by
implication, not to support the platform of their respective
political party; except the President, who is obligated to
preserve, protect, and defend this Constitution and, by
implication, not to modify or seek to modify this Constitution
in support of the platform of his/her political party.

From the two preceding paragraphs it may be seen that
the people, by electing members of political parties, are,
placing into positions of authority, individuals who are
incompetent to decide what should be laws of *our*
United States of America.



0
ricksmith (875)
4/20/2005 2:25:31 AM
In article <c587a$4265ab93$45491db9$30003@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <34f0f$42646629$45491f85$23624@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>Chuck Stevens wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> 
>>>>I know lots of religious groups who think abortion is a Bad Thing and would
>>>>counsel their members most strenuously against it, but would not dream of
>>>>considering the idea of convincing the Federal Government to make sure
>>>>nobody had the right to act on their disagreement.
>>>
>>>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.
>
>This is to all the folks who have written similar things (not just you, 
>DD).  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.

According to the standards established... where, please?

>But no one wants to talk facts - all you 
>(opposed) say is "YOU CAN'T SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN OUR THROATS!!!!" 
>or words to that effect.

Insofar as the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of 
America goes... the government can't shove a religion down our throats.

>
>If anyone is remotely interested in the scientific facts regarding the 
>gestation of human life, I'd be happy to provide links.  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.

If it is your belief that tenets of religion should be turned into secular 
laws so that even those of differing religions must abide by them... you 
are, I would say, worse than a cad.

Can you name *anything* you believe should be secular law which 
contradicts a tenet of your religion?

>
>>>>I see.  God forbid that someone should seek to have the same rights and
>>>>protections that you claim you deserve!
>>>
>>>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.
>
>Didn't my little summary of the 60's give any indication of how I feel? 

ASCII might just not be the best medium for the transmissions of 
'feeling'; there have been times I've thought I've had indications of such 
things but when someone points out that the language used is petty, nasty, 
small-hearted and bigotted the Original Poster has responded with 'Hey, I 
was only *joking*... what's'a matter, can't'cha take a *joke*?'

>  We wouldn't have useless eaters if people showed a little restraint in 
>participating in activities that cause such eaters to be created.

We wouldn't have a shortage of trolley-cars if everyone's grannie had 
wheels, either... and if The Poor shall always be with us it might be 
reasonable to assume that other categories of folks shall be, also.
 
>Reduced morals = more sex = more babies.

Hmmmmm... I think that both Catholics and Orthodox Jews might consider 
that statement to be flat-out wrong... have you ever read the Old 
Testament?  There's a Divine Commandment about this in Gen.I:28; it is 
interesting to see you call the fulfilling of such 'reduced morals'.

>
>But. heaven forbid someone suggest that someone else should do something 
>"right" or "wrong" - seems "rights" these days merely consist of "I wanna"s.

Like 'I wanna turn the tenets of my religion into secular law'?  I'd 
appreciate it if *everyone* in my United States of America did their best 
to keep their religions disestablished from the various institutions which 
my tax dollars support.

DD

0
docdwarf (6044)
4/20/2005 2:25:53 AM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 18-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I asked you if you would treat your miscarriage the same as you would treat
>>>your
>>>infant who died (funerals).    Because if you believed they were the same,
>>>you would treat them the same.
>>
>>Did I say that I would treat them any differently?
> 
> 
> You didn't fully answer the question.

Okay then - yes; personally, I would and I have.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/20/2005 2:36:12 AM
> ASCII might just not be the best medium for the transmissions of
'feeling';

I have had the odd complaint about the 'tone' I use in my messages.

I can't even control the font or colour the message is displayed with,
if a reader thinks that I can influence the 'tone' of the voice in
their head then I must have powers beyond what ASCII gives to mere
mortals.

0
riplin (4127)
4/20/2005 2:51:33 AM
[I'm not even responding to the "write my religion into law" stuff - I 
made it abundantly clear that was not my intent, and I really have 
better things to do with my time than defend that sort of 
mischaracterization to people who don't really care one way or the other.]

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <c587a$4265ab93$45491db9$30003@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
>>But no one wants to talk facts - all you 
>>(opposed) say is "YOU CAN'T SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN OUR THROATS!!!!" 
>>or words to that effect.
> 
> Insofar as the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of 
> America goes... the government can't shove a religion down our throats.

Doesn't sound like a request for facts to me.

> Can you name *anything* you believe should be secular law which 
> contradicts a tenet of your religion?

Yes - for one, there is no law mandating church attendance on Sunday, 
let alone at any time.  I believe I *should* go, and most of the time I 
*do* go - but, it's a matter of choice.  Innocent lives don't perish 
when I miss a church service.

>>Didn't my little summary of the 60's give any indication of how I feel? 
> 
> ASCII might just not be the best medium for the transmissions of 
> 'feeling'; there have been times I've thought I've had indications of such 
> things but when someone points out that the language used is petty, nasty, 
> small-hearted and bigotted the Original Poster has responded with 'Hey, I 
> was only *joking*... what's'a matter, can't'cha take a *joke*?'

Well, in my one statement there, I said I was joking, so as to leave no 
doubt in the reader's mind that I was *not* saying that, and I did *not* 
actually feel that way.

>>Reduced morals = more sex = more babies.
> 
> Hmmmmm... I think that both Catholics and Orthodox Jews might consider 
> that statement to be flat-out wrong... have you ever read the Old 
> Testament?  There's a Divine Commandment about this in Gen.I:28; it is 
> interesting to see you call the fulfilling of such 'reduced morals'.

There are religions where procreation is a "big deal" - My issues were 
with the circumstances which brought about Roe v. Wade in 1973.  Free 
love *did* cause more *unwanted* (useless consumers, I believe you 
called them in an earlier post) pregnancy.  Along with selling women a 
bill of goods that they needed to be as sexually preoccupied as men are, 
all they did was cheapen society's view of women.

Maybe I should quit worrying about abortion - if those opposed to me 
keep killing their offspring, soon my side will vastly outnumber them, 
then they'll have no choice.  (And no, that's not a joke.)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
4/20/2005 2:58:57 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c587a$4265ab93$45491db9$30003@KNOLOGY.NET...
[snip]
> This is to all the folks who have written similar things (not just you,
> DD).  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.  But no one wants to talk facts - all you
> (opposed) say is "YOU CAN'T SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN OUR THROATS!!!!"
> or words to that effect.

Not having addressed this previously, I'll respond.

persecution: a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away,
or subjugate a people because of their religious, ethical, or
moral beliefs or practices. [RHCD]

To "lobby for [the criminalization of abortion] because it is the
right, humane, and dignified thing to do" is to attempt to subjugate
a people because of their ethical or moral beliefs or practices.
[There, no reference to religion.]

I am opposed to persecution regardless of its source; because
it is abuse and usurpation. Both "the blessings of liberty" and
"privileges and immunities", which appear in the Constitution of
the United States, mean freedom from abuses and usurpations.

Make either of the cases that 'government cannot function
properly when abortion is permitted' or 'abortion violates my
rights' and I may support you.



0
ricksmith (875)
4/20/2005 3:44:15 AM
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d439pj$prn$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <VN99e.8166$_t3.8036@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip... and my apologies for the midsentence interruption]
>
>>... people don't understand their own religion, yet alone someone
>>elses...
>
> Yow... have I introduced a contagion?
>
> DD

Aye-  tis strange because I never even visited the Village.

JCE 


0
defaultuser (532)
4/20/2005 6:14:47 AM
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message 
news:116bk3omttk36bd@corp.supernews.com...
> Not having addressed this previously, I'll respond.
Why, now ? :-)

> persecution: a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away,
> or subjugate a people because of their religious, ethical, or
> moral beliefs or practices. [RHCD]
>
> To "lobby for [the criminalization of abortion] because it is the
> right, humane, and dignified thing to do" is to attempt to subjugate
> a people because of their ethical or moral beliefs or practices.
> [There, no reference to religion.]

Yet there is a lobby for everything.

to lobby for the [repeal right to bear arms/ban on smoking/ban gambling/ban 
pornography/ban prostitution/rip off consumers/protect patents on drugs] 
because it is the right
thing to do, is to attempt to subjugate a people because of their ethical or 
moral beliefs or practices.

Personally, if I want to go bet $50 I can pick up a woman, go with a hooker 
and smoke after fornication.....I believe that should be my right as long as 
it's my $50, the person I am gambling with is consenting, the hooker is 
consenting, and the cigarettes are legal......Not that I would, but I needed 
some story to get the old geezers in clc excited.

Isn't it more sinister that there are lobbies in place simply to subjugate 
entire nations with energy policies or pharmaceutical protections based on 
no beliefs other than the corporations to make money?

> I am opposed to persecution regardless of its source; because
> it is abuse and usurpation. Both "the blessings of liberty" and
> "privileges and immunities", which appear in the Constitution of
> the United States, mean freedom from abuses and usurpations.

> Make either of the cases that 'government cannot function
> properly when abortion is permitted' or 'abortion violates my
> rights' and I may support you.

Government cannot function properly when there is money involved and the 
cause of money constantly violates my rights.. I lobby to ban money.

Actually, I say pay all congressmen $250,000-500,000 (or fair wage) dollars 
and no other incentives allowed.  Investments can only be blind held.  It 
will  imho make government more equitable and cheaper to run...

Having said all that, I think what you said was a nice try, and I do 
understand the sentiment :-)

JCE


0
defaultuser (532)
4/20/2005 6:44:30 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:3f0b$4265c574$45491db9$10349@KNOLOGY.NET...
> [I'm not even responding to the "write my religion into law" stuff - I 
> made it abundantly clear that was not my intent, and I really have better 
> things to do with my time than defend that sort of mischaracterization to 
> people who don't really care one way or the other.]
>
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <c587a$4265ab93$45491db9$30003@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>But no one wants to talk facts - all you (opposed) say is "YOU CAN'T 
>>>SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN OUR THROATS!!!!" or words to that effect.
>> Insofar as the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
>> of America goes... the government can't shove a religion down our 
>> throats.
> Doesn't sound like a request for facts to me.

As John Updike said:
Facts are generally overesteemed. For most practical purposes, a thing is 
what men think it is. When they judged the earth flat, it was flat. As long 
as men thought slavery tolerable, tolerable it was. We live down here among 
shadows, shadows among shadows.

Find facts to support that abortion is *wrong*.  Just the facts please - oh 
with their undisputed documentary evidence of course.

>> Can you name *anything* you believe should be secular law which 
>> contradicts a tenet of your religion?
>
> Yes - for one, there is no law mandating church attendance on Sunday, let 
> alone at any time.  I believe I *should* go, and most of the time I *do* 
> go - but, it's a matter of choice.  Innocent lives don't perish when I 
> miss a church service.

This is missing the question.  Is there something that should be a law that 
goes against your religion.

For example, Freedom of Thought...;-) *joke*
or
there should be (and is) a be law allowing abused kids to divorce their 
parents - not exactly honouring them

>>>Reduced morals = more sex = more babies.

Shouldn't this read  Reduced morals = more sex = more blessings?

> There are religions where procreation is a "big deal" - My issues were 
> with the circumstances which brought about Roe v. Wade in 1973.  Free love 
> *did* cause more *unwanted* (useless consumers, I believe you called them 
> in an earlier post) pregnancy.  Along with selling women a bill of goods 
> that they needed to be as sexually preoccupied as men are, all they did 
> was cheapen society's view of women.
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.

> Maybe I should quit worrying about abortion - if those opposed to me keep 
> killing their offspring, soon my side will vastly outnumber them, then 
> they'll have no choice.  (And no, that's not a joke.)

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.


JCE



0
defaultuser (532)
4/20/2005 7:30:09 AM
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iTm9e.9896$5f.8949@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
> news:116bk3omttk36bd@corp.supernews.com...
> > Not having addressed this previously, I'll respond.
> Why, now ? :-)

Because it was the correct time for me to respond.

> > persecution: a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away,
> > or subjugate a people because of their religious, ethical, or
> > moral beliefs or practices. [RHCD]
> >
> > To "lobby for [the criminalization of abortion] because it is the
> > right, humane, and dignified thing to do" is to attempt to subjugate
> > a people because of their ethical or moral beliefs or practices.
> > [There, no reference to religion.]
>
> Yet there is a lobby for everything.
>
> to lobby for the [repeal right to bear arms/ban on smoking/ban
gambling/ban
> pornography/ban prostitution/rip off consumers/protect patents on drugs]
> because it is the right
> thing to do, is to attempt to subjugate a people because of their ethical
or
> moral beliefs or practices.

You seem to have missed something!

In the form, "To lobby for X is to attempt to Y," Y is dependent
upon X. While some Xs may map to a same Y, all Xs will not
map to a single Y.

> Personally, if I want to go bet $50 I can pick up a woman, go with a
hooker
> and smoke after fornication.....I believe that should be my right as long
as
> it's my $50, the person I am gambling with is consenting, the hooker is
> consenting, and the cigarettes are legal......Not that I would, but I
needed
> some story to get the old geezers in clc excited.
>
> Isn't it more sinister that there are lobbies in place simply to subjugate
> entire nations with energy policies or pharmaceutical protections based on
> no beliefs other than the corporations to make money?

No! Besides, I have no evidence that your claims are true.

> > I am opposed to persecution regardless of its source; because
> > it is abuse and usurpation. Both "the blessings of liberty" and
> > "privileges and immunities", which appear in the Constitution of
> > the United States, mean freedom from abuses and usurpations.
>
> > Make either of the cases that 'government cannot function
> > properly when abortion is permitted' or 'abortion violates my
> > rights' and I may support you.
>
> Government cannot function properly when there is money involved and the
> cause of money constantly violates my rights.. I lobby to ban money.

Bogus! (derivation, orig. an apparatus for coining false money.)

> Actually, I say pay all congressmen $250,000-500,000 (or fair wage)
dollars
> and no other incentives allowed.  Investments can only be blind held.  It
> will  imho make government more equitable and cheaper to run...

H'm, it seems to me that enforcing the requirement that
members of Congress support the Constitution would be more
equitable and cheaper for us than allowing them to continue
supporting their respective political parties.

> Having said all that, I think what you said was a nice try, and I do
> understand the sentiment :-)

It was far better than a nice try. <g>



0
ricksmith (875)
4/20/2005 9:03:48 AM
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c587a$4265ab93$45491db9$30003@KNOLOGY.NET...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> > In article <34f0f$42646629$45491f85$23624@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> > LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Chuck Stevens wrote:
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>>I know lots of religious groups who think abortion is a Bad Thing and
would
> >>>counsel their members most strenuously against it, but would not dream
of
> >>>considering the idea of convincing the Federal Government to make sure
> >>>nobody had the right to act on their disagreement.
> >>
> >>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.
>
> This is to all the folks who have written similar things (not just you,
> DD).  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.  But no one wants to talk facts - all you
> (opposed) say is "YOU CAN'T SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN OUR THROATS!!!!"
> or words to that effect.
>

Daniel, I have never suggested you are shoving religion down my throat in
discussing this. I attempted to discuss it in the previous post regarding
the chicken cult in this thread, posted on the 19th, but you haven't
responded.

If you are lobbying for the criminalization of abortion (your post above
seems to contradict a previous position where you agreed it was OK to let
the mother decide), then I would really like to hear your response to my
post. I would seriously disagree with the illegalization of abortion for the
reasons I outlined there.

But, I agree it should be possible to discuss this like any other issue, in
a civilised way.

<snip>>
> But. heaven forbid someone suggest that someone else should do something
> "right" or "wrong" - seems "rights" these days merely consist of "I
wanna"s.

Suggesting that people do something, is far removed from legally enforcing
that they MUST do it, and the implications of the latter are far-reaching. I
explored this by analogy in my post.

Pete



0
dashwood1 (2140)
4/20/2005 9:14:02 AM
In article <3f0b$4265c574$45491db9$10349@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>[I'm not even responding to the "write my religion into law" stuff - I 
>made it abundantly clear that was not my intent, and I really have 
>better things to do with my time than defend that sort of 
>mischaracterization to people who don't really care one way or the other.]
>
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <c587a$4265ab93$45491db9$30003@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>> LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>But no one wants to talk facts - all you 
>>>(opposed) say is "YOU CAN'T SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN OUR THROATS!!!!" 
>>>or words to that effect.
>> 
>> Insofar as the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of 
>> America goes... the government can't shove a religion down our throats.
>
>Doesn't sound like a request for facts to me.

It is a statement of fact which contradicts your assertion.

>
>> Can you name *anything* you believe should be secular law which 
>> contradicts a tenet of your religion?
>
>Yes - for one, there is no law mandating church attendance on Sunday, 
>let alone at any time.  I believe I *should* go, and most of the time I 
>*do* go - but, it's a matter of choice.  Innocent lives don't perish 
>when I miss a church service.

Thanks much for the example.

>
>>>Didn't my little summary of the 60's give any indication of how I feel? 
>> 
>> ASCII might just not be the best medium for the transmissions of 
>> 'feeling'; there have been times I've thought I've had indications of such 
>> things but when someone points out that the language used is petty, nasty, 
>> small-hearted and bigotted the Original Poster has responded with 'Hey, I 
>> was only *joking*... what's'a matter, can't'cha take a *joke*?'
>
>Well, in my one statement there, I said I was joking, so as to leave no 
>doubt in the reader's mind that I was *not* saying that, and I did *not* 
>actually feel that way.

Thanks again for the clarification.

>
>>>Reduced morals = more sex = more babies.
>> 
>> Hmmmmm... I think that both Catholics and Orthodox Jews might consider 
>> that statement to be flat-out wrong... have you ever read the Old 
>> Testament?  There's a Divine Commandment about this in Gen.I:28; it is 
>> interesting to see you call the fulfilling of such 'reduced morals'.
>
>There are religions where procreation is a "big deal" - My issues were 
>with the circumstances which brought about Roe v. Wade in 1973.

That is not clear at all from the equation above.

>Free 
>love *did* cause more *unwanted* (useless consumers, I believe you 
>called them in an earlier post) pregnancy.

It might be that free love can cause pregnancy in the same wa