The Terri Shiavo Controversy - DPChallenge Forums

03/29/2005 12:39:29 AM · #451

To put this in perspective about what the press sees as priorities, on CNN right now you will see about 30 minutes out of the hour devoted to the Schiavo case, 10 minutes to the Jackson sex trial, 5 minutes to the 300+ people who died today in a 8.9 earthquake, 2 minutes to whatever people nobody cares about who died in Iraq today and the rest of the time to advertisments.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/29/2005 12:59:38 AM · #452

RonB,

Since you commented on my signature block, let me tell you why my signature includes an up-to-date death toll of American service men and women in Iraq. In the post-draft era, where many of the people that join the military do it for a combination of things, including service to country to the benefits that the military provides, I found that many of the people that I served with did not come from the better-to-do homes -- and, too frequently, not even from so-called middle class homes. Instead, many of the Marines that I served with came from poor urban neighborhoods and under-developed rural towns -- and, though some may be surprised by this, there were quite a few first generation immigrants, too. Accordingly, unless there's literally a war going on, too many of our fellow citizens -- specially decision makers -- are not confronted on a daily basis with the sacrifice of having a family member serving in the military -- much less what this means during a time of war. For most of us this war, and all recent American wars for that matter, have been too painless, far too clinical and distant, and have required no sacrifice on our part. It is because of this, my need to be aware of the sacrifice that those families have had to make, that I have an up-to-date tally of the American dead... so that I know. Now, if you or others happen to notice the count, and then click on the link, well, good for you... I belive that at the very least we should all know the death toll, just as there are many of us that can recite batting averages, sports scores, etc., our death toll is something we should all be reminded of on a daily basis -- it's the smallest sacrifice we can be asked to make.

As for the Iraqi civilian dead, I'm frankly surprised to read that you're now concerned over their death toll -- this is not a sentiment that I recall you expressing before. At any rate, it is an outrage that the Iraqi civilian death count does not get any mention on our air-ways -- again, we're only presented with a clinical view of the war... no sacrifice... no casualties... all BS. Estimates on the Iraqi civilian death toll as a direct result of the invasion range from 17,000 to 100,000 -- of course, we'll never know the exact number.

For more the Iraqi civilian death count see:

//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

//www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

//www.fair.org/index.php?page=2472

And if you're really interested, simply do a search for "iraqi civilian death toll."

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 01:10:37.

MadMordegon

03/29/2005 01:00:35 AM · #453

General, that Dave Ross was gold, thanks for sharing.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/29/2005 02:30:24 AM · #454

As the author points out below, in contemporary America we're adverse at confronting extremists and don't belive that our homegrown fundementalists present a danger; however, as you'll read below, at the very least, the exploitation of Mrs. Shiavo's tragedy should serve as a warning to pay attention.

March 29, 2005
What's Going On?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.

But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.

Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America.

One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.

Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.

Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through "Terri's law." But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge's order that she remain there.

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.

The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.

But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.

[...]

The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.

America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

[For the complete column click here - free subscription required]

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/29/2005 07:49:45 AM · #455

Originally posted by bdobe:

Yet another blatant attack by bdobe on fundamentalist Christians, under the guise of using the Schiavo tragedy. The opening paragraph neatly equates "extremists" with "homegrown fundamentalists" that "present a danger". He then goes on to say that the Schiavo tragedy should "serve as a warning". A warning against what? The only obvious answer is "homegrown fundamentalists", of course.

Worth noting is that NOWHERE in the article linked to is the word fundamentalist used - that extension has been gratuitously added by bdobe as part of his agenda to denigrate fundamentalists.

While bdobe CLAIMS to not be anti-Christian, his posts show otherwise.

cbeller

Nikon D300

03/29/2005 08:15:45 AM · #456

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bdobe:
As the author points out below, in contemporary America we're adverse at confronting extremists and don't belive that our homegrown fundementalists present a danger; however, as you'll read below, at the very least, the exploitation of Mrs. Shiavo's tragedy should serve as a warning to pay attention.

Yet another blatant attack by bdobe on fundamentalist Christians, under the guise of using the Schiavo tragedy. The opening paragraph neatly equates "extremists" with "homegrown fundamentalists" that "present a danger". He then goes on to say that the Schiavo tragedy should "serve as a warning". A warning against what? The only obvious answer is "homegrown fundamentalists", of course.

Worth noting is that NOWHERE in the article linked to is the word fundamentalist used - that extension has been gratuitously added by bdobe as part of his agenda to denigrate fundamentalists.

While bdobe CLAIMS to not be anti-Christian, his posts show otherwise.

There is a difference between a "Christian" and a "fundamentalist Christian". I have a good friend that went to a Christian college and has a father that is a minister and he even has a very definate view of fundamentalists and the way they try to force their views.

I think by saying bdobe is "anti-Christian" is uncalled for, and nothing more than a "personal attack" on him. But I've noticed it's not uncommon for you to take someone's comments out of context and twist them around.

Extremist fundamentalists could "present a danger". Not a physical danger, mind you, but a danger of invading our personal life & rights by forcing their views and trying to change laws to support their views. There is nothing wrong with someone objecting to these actions and pointing them out. Doesn't make you an "anti-Christian".

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 08:16:13.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

03/29/2005 08:41:50 AM · #457

Originally posted by cbeller:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bdobe:
As the author points out below, in contemporary America we're adverse at confronting extremists and don't belive that our homegrown fundementalists present a danger; however, as you'll read below, at the very least, the exploitation of Mrs. Shiavo's tragedy should serve as a warning to pay attention.

Yet another blatant attack by bdobe on fundamentalist Christians, under the guise of using the Schiavo tragedy. The opening paragraph neatly equates "extremists" with "homegrown fundamentalists" that "present a danger". He then goes on to say that the Schiavo tragedy should "serve as a warning". A warning against what? The only obvious answer is "homegrown fundamentalists", of course.

Worth noting is that NOWHERE in the article linked to is the word fundamentalist used - that extension has been gratuitously added by bdobe as part of his agenda to denigrate fundamentalists.

While bdobe CLAIMS to not be anti-Christian, his posts show otherwise.

There is a difference between a "Christian" and a "fundamentalist Christian". I have a good friend that went to a Christian college and has a father that is a minister and he even has a very definate view of fundamentalists and the way they try to force their views.

Then your father is also painting with too broad a brush. "They" do not all "try to force their views".

Originally posted by cbeller:

I think by saying bdobe is "anti-Christian" is uncalled for, and nothing more than a "personal attack" on him. But I've noticed it's not uncommon for you to take someone's comments out of context and twist them around.

I don't think I've "twisted" his statements that Dr. Hammesfahr has "close ties to fundamentalist evangelical organizations". He stated that as though it were fact, but STILL hasn't been able to provide ANY evidence of such a relationship. Lacking such evidence, I can only conclude that he was making that statement purely as an attack on fundamentalist evangelicals. So, let me restate my charge - he appears to be anti-fundamentalist Christian and anti-evangelical Christian.

Originally posted by cbeller:

Extremist fundamentalists could "present a danger". Not a physical danger, mind you, but a danger of invading our personal life & rights by forcing their views and trying to change laws to support their views. There is nothing wrong with someone objecting to these actions and pointing them out. Doesn't make you an "anti-Christian".

Extremist fundamentalist COULD, indeed, present a danger. So could extremist Islamists. So could extremist Liberals. So could extremist Feminists. And while there may be nothing wrong with pointing out LEGITIMATE examples of INDIVIDUAL or ORGANIZED activities, William goes to extreme lengths to denigrate an entire faith for the actions of a very few, even to the extent of inventing "close ties" where none exist, just to support the agenda.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

03/29/2005 09:06:04 AM · #458

RonB...YOur response of an anti-Christian charge towards Bdobe is not only unwarranted, but shows your own fears and hatred of any criticism against the Christian fundamentalists that exposes their political agenda. I know of no other relgious group within the US that has become as involved in the political apparatus for pushing legislation, not only at the local or regional levels, but at the national level as well. Because of their involvement in the political machinery of the US, these groups of Christian extremists who are trying to change the political makeup of the country...in fact, trying to change The Constitution itself, open themselves up to criticism against what they are trying to do. This criticism in no way means, or implies, an anti-Christian stance by any of the critics.

Bdobe's post of Paul Krugman's NY Times article goes to the heart of the Terri Schiavo case and exposes what this case is all about. Denial of choice. As in the Right-to-Life movement, this case is really about an extremist group and a bunch of politicians trying to take away the rights of individuals to make, and carry out, the decisions that they deem to be correct for themselves. Why do you think Randall Terry of Operation Rescue got involved? Terry is outwardly against the use of living wills. Why do you think the Terri Schiavo case has gotten such wide media attention? We are losing thousands of men and women in Iraq, and thousands more are coming home maimed and broken, not to mention a very high number of suicides in the military, yet one woman in Florida, whose life was really lost 15 years ago, is at the heart of a controversy that is being pushed on us by the Christian Fundamentalists and those politicians related to this group. It's because people like Randall Terry and other politicians who are outwardly outspoken for blurring the lines of seperation of church and state have gotten involved, despite the polls which show that a majority of the people in the country (75%, to be exact) are against intervention by government in personal matters.

I applaud Bdobe for his courage in bringing this issue to light. It's about time this issue is brought to light.

Originally posted by RonB:

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 09:31:00.

03/29/2005 10:34:03 AM · #459

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I do not fear criticism in the least - as my Saviour said "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake" and as Paul, the apostle said, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
As for hatred, you are correct, I do have strong feelings against criticism against "the Christian fundamentalists" when referred to as a single entity, since "they", as a single entity, do not have a "political agenda". SOME fundamentalists do, just as SOME liberals do, but it is irresponsible to say that "THE Christian fundamentalists" do.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I know of no other relgious group within the US that has become as involved in the political apparatus for pushing legislation, not only at the local or regional levels, but at the national level as well.

Try Secular Humanists. They have worked tirelessly to erase every evidence of God from the public spectrum. Just yesterday a trial verdict was dismissed because a couple of jurors quoted bible verses during the deliberations. If THAT isn't a deliberate attempt to quash free speech, I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Because of their involvement in the political machinery of the US, these groups of Christian extremists who are trying to change the political makeup of the country

There, now YOU are essentially calling fundamentalists "Christian extremists". For your information not ALL fundamentalists are extremists. But you are free to make such sweeping condemnations at will, since DPC seems to permit, indeed, even support you.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

...in fact, trying to change The Constitution itself, open themselves up to criticism against what they are trying to do. This criticism in no way means, or implies, an anti-Christian stance by any of the critics.

Of course it does.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Bdobe's post of Paul Krugman's NY Times article goes to the heart of the Terri Schiavo case and exposes what this case is all about. Denial of choice. As in the Right-to-Life movement, this case is really about an extremist group and a bunch of politicians trying to take away the rights of individuals to make, and carry out, the decisions that they deem to be correct for themselves. Why do you think Randall Terry of Operation Rescue got involved? Terry is outwardly against the use of living wills. Why do you think the Terri Schiavo case has gotten such wide media attention? We are losing thousands of men and women in Iraq, and thousands more are coming home maimed and broken, not to mention a very high number of suicides in the military, yet one woman in Florida, whose life was really lost 15 years ago, is at the heart of a controversy that is being pushed on us by the Christian Fundamentalists and those politicians related to this group. It's because people like Randall Terry and other politicians who are outwardly outspoken for blurring the lines of seperation of church and state have gotten involved, despite the polls which show that a majority of the people in the country (75%, to be exact) are against intervention by government in personal matters.

Once again you use the generic, unqualified term "Christian fundamentalists" to refer to isolated extremists. Believe me when I say that people like Randall Terry are NOT representative of "Christian fundamentalists" as a whole. It is this broad-brush approach of equating ALL Christian fundamentalists with a few extremist elements that I object to.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I applaud Bdobe for his courage in bringing this issue to light. It's about time this issue is brought to light.

That is evident from your own biased, inaccurate posting.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/29/2005 11:02:25 AM · #460

Originally posted by RonB:

Believe me when I say that people like Randall Terry are NOT representative of "Christian fundamentalists" as a whole. It is this broad-brush approach of equating ALL Christian fundamentalists with a few extremist elements that I object to.

What I don't hear is the leaders of the "moderate" Christian Fundamentalists decrying these "extremists" for highjacking their religion for political purposes, much as I rarely hear calls from the Imams for right-thinking Muslims to turn in Mr. bin Laden or the Palestinian bombers.

While you say "we're not all like that," you also "seem" to allow them to speak in your name, and represent your religion to the world.

03/29/2005 11:15:52 AM · #461

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Believe me when I say that people like Randall Terry are NOT representative of "Christian fundamentalists" as a whole. It is this broad-brush approach of equating ALL Christian fundamentalists with a few extremist elements that I object to.

What I don't hear is the leaders of the "moderate" Christian Fundamentalists decrying these "extremists" for highjacking their religion for political purposes, much as I rarely hear calls from the Imams for right-thinking Muslims to turn in Mr. bin Laden or the Palestinian bombers.

While you say "we're not all like that," you also "seem" to allow them to speak in your name, and represent your religion to the world.

Are you using the term "you" in the generic sense, as in "you fundamentalists", or directing it specifically to me. If the latter, be it known that I am a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, and I say that neither right-wing nor fundamentalist extremists speak for me. That's one of the reasons why I kept pressing bdobe to NAME the "fundamentalist evangelical organizations" that he charged that Dr. Hammesfahr has "close ties with" ( though it appears that there aren't any ) - so I dresearch them and communicate to them that they need to either a) clarify that they do not represent the majority of fundamentalists or b) moderate their rhetoric or c) make it clear that they are a separate group, NOT associated with fundamentalists in general ( or denounce them, if they persist ). While I do agree with SOME of what they have to say, I disagree with OTHER things they have to say. But, then, the same holds true of any OTHER group, be it liberals, feminists, etc.

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

03/29/2005 01:10:23 PM · #462

Originally posted by milo655321:

Goldberry,

The term "Ms.", pronounced miz, was adopted by the business community starting in the 1950s as women began to increasingly make a larger percentage of the business workforce. It was meant as a marriage-neutral address for women, as opposed to "Miss" or "Mrs.", for business communications, much the same way that the term "Mr." is marriag-neutral towards men.

Guys, I know what Miss means. Ray was alluding to my age and me apparently not knowing my ass from my elbow... and actually, I do know where to locate at least one ass.:-)
(j/j)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/29/2005 01:46:04 PM · #463

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Believe me when I say that people like Randall Terry are NOT representative of "Christian fundamentalists" as a whole. It is this broad-brush approach of equating ALL Christian fundamentalists with a few extremist elements that I object to.

What I don't hear is the leaders of the "moderate" Christian Fundamentalists decrying these "extremists" for highjacking their religion for political purposes, much as I rarely hear calls from the Imams for right-thinking Muslims to turn in Mr. bin Laden or the Palestinian bombers.

While you say "we're not all like that," you also "seem" to allow them to speak in your name, and represent your religion to the world.

Are you using the term "you" in the generic sense, as in "you fundamentalists", or directing it specifically to me. If the latter, be it known that I am a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, and I say that neither right-wing nor fundamentalist extremists speak for me. That's one of the reasons why I kept pressing bdobe to NAME the "fundamentalist evangelical organizations" that he charged that Dr. Hammesfahr has "close ties with" ( though it appears that there aren't any ) - so I dresearch them and communicate to them that they need to either a) clarify that they do not represent the majority of fundamentalists or b) moderate their rhetoric or c) make it clear that they are a separate group, NOT associated with fundamentalists in general ( or denounce them, if they persist ). While I do agree with SOME of what they have to say, I disagree with OTHER things they have to say. But, then, the same holds true of any OTHER group, be it liberals, feminists, etc.

I meant you -- I appreciate the additional detail and partial disclaimer. I agree that there is usually something to both agree and disagree with in an variety of extremism. However, your response was a bit vague as to WHICH parts of the extreme agenda you disavow -- mostly the major area of concern I have is whether you (or anyone) seeks to replace our secular legal/governmental system with one ruled by -- not just "based on" -- a strict interpretation of Judeo-Christian law.

You are free to practice your beliefs as long as that doesn't impair my ability to practice mine.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/29/2005 01:51:29 PM · #464

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Guys, I know what Miss means. Ray was alluding to my age and me apparently not knowing my ass from my elbow... and actually, I do know where to locate at least one ass.:-)
(j/j)

Actually... I was not alluding to either... I merely pointed out that some things cannot be answered by a simple YES or NO answer.

I am convinced that if you review the submissions made you find that I never made any reference whatsoever to your age, nor did I ever make any comments closely resembling those you just made.

Have a great day... :O)

Ray

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 14:03:00.

03/29/2005 02:00:37 PM · #465

Originally posted by GeneralE:

-- mostly the major area of concern I have is whether you (or anyone) seeks to replace our secular legal/governmental system with one ruled by -- not just "based on" -- a strict interpretation of Judeo-Christian law.

You are free to practice your beliefs as long as that doesn't impair my ability to practice mine.

But I'd wager that you would not hold that restraint upon the imposition of YOUR belief's now, would you? Even though such imposition would and does impair my ability to practice my beliefs. Good for the goose, but not for the gander, eh?

FWIW, one of the reasons I object to broad-brush denunciations of religious groups it clearly shown in a news release out of Mustang, Oklahoma this morning ( ref this article

"MUSTANG, Okla. -- Mustang school officials sent notes home with students from Mustang Middle School on Monday that threats had been made against certain students.

"This morning at 10:30 a.m., the administrator at Mustang Middle School discovered a written threat that stated: 'On Thursday, March 31st, all Christians and preps will be shot,"' said Superintendent Karl Springer."

Why Christians? Well, for one thing, because there are a lot of people such as those exposing themselves in the DPC community that feel compelled to use emotion-, fear- and hate-filled rhetoric against fundameltalist and evangelical Christian groups. The unfortunate thing is that the younger members of our society do not have the ability to discern the difference between fringe factions and the majority - and they only believe that all such rants are against Christians in general.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/29/2005 02:06:08 PM · #466

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
-- mostly the major area of concern I have is whether you (or anyone) seeks to replace our secular legal/governmental system with one ruled by -- not just "based on" -- a strict interpretation of Judeo-Christian law.

You are free to practice your beliefs as long as that doesn't impair my ability to practice mine.

But I'd wager that you would not hold that restraint upon the imposition of YOUR belief's now, would you? Even though such imposition would and does impair my ability to practice my beliefs. Good for the goose, but not for the gander, eh?

But my beliefs do not prevent you from practicing your beliefs, except to the extent that your beliefs compel you to prevent me from practicing mine. I guess with that kind of irresistable-force vs. immovable-object conundrum, folks will just have to decide whether to err on the side of freedom or oppression -- although I thought that issue was decided in this part of the world in 1776.

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 14:06:34.

melking

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

03/29/2005 02:31:20 PM · #467

Oh Girlfriend you are on Fire!

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Guys, I know what Miss means. Ray was alluding to my age and me apparently not knowing my ass from my elbow... and actually, I do know where to locate at least one ass.:-)
(j/j)

03/29/2005 03:25:03 PM · #468

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
-- mostly the major area of concern I have is whether you (or anyone) seeks to replace our secular legal/governmental system with one ruled by -- not just "based on" -- a strict interpretation of Judeo-Christian law.

You are free to practice your beliefs as long as that doesn't impair my ability to practice mine.

But I'd wager that you would not hold that restraint upon the imposition of YOUR belief's now, would you? Even though such imposition would and does impair my ability to practice my beliefs. Good for the goose, but not for the gander, eh?

But my beliefs do not prevent you from practicing your beliefs, except to the extent that your beliefs compel you to prevent me from practicing mine. I guess with that kind of irresistable-force vs. immovable-object conundrum, folks will just have to decide whether to err on the side of freedom or oppression -- although I thought that issue was decided in this part of the world in 1776.

Yeah, me too. I thought that the colonists fought for freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Apparently you think otherwise.

FWIW, my beliefs do not prevent you from practicing your beliefs. And my beliefs do not compel me to prevent you from practicing yours, unless, of course, your beliefs include tying tin cans to dogs tails, setting cats on fire, dragging homosexuals through the street, burning crosses in front yards, etc. If those were ways that you practiced your beliefs, as it may be for some, then I would feel compelled to impose my beliefs on you - and if the laws of the land said that you were within your "rights" to commit those acts, then, yes, I would feel compelled to work to change the laws.

03/29/2005 03:34:50 PM · #469

Originally posted by RonB:

FWIW, my beliefs do not prevent you from practicing your beliefs. And my beliefs do not compel me to prevent you from practicing yours, unless, of course, your beliefs include tying tin cans to dogs tails, setting cats on fire, dragging homosexuals through the street, burning crosses in front yards, etc. If those were ways that you practiced your beliefs, as it may be for some, then I would feel compelled to impose my beliefs on you - and if the laws of the land said that you were within your "rights" to commit those acts, then, yes, I would feel compelled to work to change the laws.

Do you feel compelled to put your religion in our courthouse in the form of the Ten Commandments when it is well known they do not accurately represent US law? Just need to see where you draw the line in imposing your religious will on the rest of us.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/29/2005 03:47:56 PM · #470

Originally posted by RonB:

... Yeah, me too. I thought that the colonists fought for freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Apparently you think otherwise.

They also fought for freedom from state-mandated religion -- that's why they they added the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1791:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Originally posted by RonB:

Nope -- none of those on my list of rituals. Although that's a rather restricted list of thou shalt nots -- are you sure you want to dispense the RonB Seal of Approval quite so cavalierly?

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 15:48:48.

03/29/2005 03:49:34 PM · #471

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, my beliefs do not prevent you from practicing your beliefs. And my beliefs do not compel me to prevent you from practicing yours, unless, of course, your beliefs include tying tin cans to dogs tails, setting cats on fire, dragging homosexuals through the street, burning crosses in front yards, etc. If those were ways that you practiced your beliefs, as it may be for some, then I would feel compelled to impose my beliefs on you - and if the laws of the land said that you were within your "rights" to commit those acts, then, yes, I would feel compelled to work to change the laws.

Do you feel compelled to put your religion in our courthouse in the form of the Ten Commandments when it is well known they do not accurately represent US law? Just need to see where you draw the line in imposing your religious will on the rest of us.

Again, "no leeway for circumstances", so I decline to answer the question as posed.
Be that as it may, here's what I think: if the Ten Commandments are already there, leave them there, if they are not there, don't put them there.
I can't see spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money to reconstruct all of the federal, state, and municpal courthouses that already have the Ten Commandments inscribed or otherwise made a part of the building's structure. If they are in a standalone display, fine - remove them.
Neither do I expect states or municipalities to change their flags because they are offensive to a few. There is a cross in the city seal of Los Angeles. There have been suits filed to have it removed.
Nor do I expect municipalities to change their names because they have religious connotations. San Diego has to change it's name because it means Saint Diego? Los Angeles has to change its name because it means The Angels? What about Santa Cruz? San Luis Obispo? Santa Monica? San Antonio? Sorry, but I don't concur.

03/29/2005 03:59:57 PM · #472

Originally posted by RonB:

Be that as it may, here's what I think: if the Ten Commandments are already there, leave them there, if they are not there, don't put them there.
I can't see spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money to reconstruct all of the federal, state, and municpal courthouses that already have the Ten Commandments inscribed or otherwise made a part of the building's structure. If they are in a standalone display, fine - remove them.
Neither do I expect states or municipalities to change their flags because they are offensive to a few. There is a cross in the city seal of Los Angeles. There have been suits filed to have it removed.
Nor do I expect municipalities to change their names because they have religious connotations. San Diego has to change it's name because it means Saint Diego? Los Angeles has to change its name because it means The Angels? What about Santa Cruz? San Luis Obispo? Santa Monica? San Antonio? Sorry, but I don't concur.

Then I would agree with you on that. We go through a bit more radical attempted impositions here in Alabama then you might be aware of in California. I live in a dry county if that is any indication of the influence of the radical right here. Jesus served wine to his friends. I just donâ��t understand where hard line Christians are coming from sometimes.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/29/2005 04:19:55 PM · #473

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Jesus served wine to his friends.

But that was as part of a Jewish ritual.

03/29/2005 04:30:59 PM · #474

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by nsbca7:
Jesus served wine to his friends.

But that was as part of a Jewish ritual.

I know you are being sarcastic, but being a Christian is supposed to mean following the ways of Christ or Jesus. Many Christian nations don't even have a drinking age, yet the certain sects that rule predominant here in Alabama see otherwise. They see alcohol as evil supposedly based on their religion while it is apparent from the gospels that Jesus shared no such opinion.