The Terri Shiavo Controversy - DPChallenge Forums

03/29/2005 04:46:01 PM · #476

Originally posted by nsbca7:

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.

As to your very last statement, neither do I.

RonB

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/29/2005 05:06:54 PM · #477

Originally posted by nsbca7:

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.

You have to look beyond the Gospels. Jesus' opinions were rooted in Scripture. Though you are correct that Jesus did not see wine as being evil in and of itself, his opinion would have taken consideration of the warnings of Proverbs 20, verse 1: "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."
FWIW, In the first century, only barbarians drank wine at full-strength. It was customarily mixed with other liquids at about a 3:1 ratio - hence yielding an alcoholic content of about 3% ( full-strength first century wine was only about 9% alcohol ), compared to today's wines, which are closer to 11% and typically drunk at full strength. It took quite a bit of wine to get drunk in those days.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

03/29/2005 05:09:17 PM · #478

RonB, you still have not stated where you disagree with the political agenda of the Christian right-wing. I know you're anti-abortion, and I know that position agrees with the political agenda of the Christian right-wing. I know you're in accord with the politican agenda of the Christian right-wing regarding homosexual marriage. So where do you differ?

You also have not stated how your right to practice your religion has been abridged.

RonB

03/29/2005 05:30:56 PM · #479

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

If you will post the political agenda of the Christian right-wing, I will respond with my position for each specific element of that agenda. Sources of your information would be helpful - especially cut & pasted statements from identifiable Christian right-wing organizations. Time being short, I'd like to address REAL agenda items, not those that are often perceived, formulated, and propagated by other organizations, often erroneously.
You don't have to list them all at once. I'd be glad to respond one agenda item at a time.

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 17:32:38.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/29/2005 05:32:22 PM · #480

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

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)

But apparently you don't know what Ms. means. It's not the same as Miss.

Originally posted by dictionary.com:

Ms. also Ms Audio pronunciation of "Ms." ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mz)
n. pl. Mses., also Mses also Mss. or Mss (mzz)

1. Used as a courtesy title before the surname or full name of a woman or girl: Ms. Doe; Ms. Jane Doe.
2. Used in informal titles for a woman to indicate the epitomizing of an attribute or activity: Ms. Fashionable; Ms. Volleyball.

[Blend of Miss, and Mrs..]

Usage Note: Many of us think of Ms. or Ms as a fairly recent invention of the women's movement, but in fact the term was first suggested as a convenience to writers of business letters by such publications as the Bulletin of the American Business Writing Association (1951) and The Simplified Letter, issued by the National Office Management Association (1952). Ms. is now widely used in both professional and social contexts. As a courtesy title Ms. serves exactly the same function that Mr. does for men, and like Mr. it may be used with a last name alone or with a full name. Furthermore, Ms. is correct regardless of a woman's marital status, thus relegating that information to the realm of private life, where many feel it belongs anyway. Some women prefer Miss or Mrs., however, and courtesy requires that their wishes be respected.

-Terry

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 17:54:34.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

03/29/2005 05:44:45 PM · #481

What about my last question? How has your freedom to practice your religion been abridged?

SirBiggsALot

Sigma 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 DC for Canon

03/29/2005 07:52:40 PM · #482

is there anything left of the debate of this woman on this thread, or is it now Christianity vs. whatever...if thats the case someone close this thread

03/29/2005 08:32:08 PM · #483

Ron, you stated that you are a â��fundamentalist evangelical Christianâ�� from an earlier post. Here are some associations I make with these terms: evangelical = zealousness, preaching, conversion to Christianity, missionary work, strict acceptance of scripture as the rule of law, inerrancy of the bible. Fundamentalism = THE authority, intolerance, militancy, aggressiveness, rigidity. Are these accurate descriptions? There are probably plenty of people who would mirror these views.

An example of a threat that comes from Christian fundamentalists that I believe to be still before Congress (in committee?) is the Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004. As I read it, it would acknowledge god as the sovereign source of law and limit or prevent the US Supreme Court from hearing appeals if lower courts acknowledged god as the source of law. It would also allow biblical punishments to be meted out, such as eye for an eye, stoning, etc, without judicial review.

â��Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that elementâ��s or officerâ��s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.â��

Would you be for or opposed to such legislation which would be a gross change in our structure of government in favor of a theocracy?

Read more about The constitutional Restoration Act of 2004

03/29/2005 08:44:25 PM · #484

Olyuzi,

I read the article you posted, and I do not see any mention of this being a position of the Fundamentalist or Evengelical Christian movements, but rather of the extremist Dominionism movement.

Please note that Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christianity are specific Christian sects, as contrasted to, for example, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, etc. When using those terms, please be sure you are using them accurately.

-Terry

03/29/2005 09:20:35 PM · #485

Terry,
In the beginning of the article I cited, it reads:

On January 6, 2004, the Yurica Report published â��America Stands on the Edge of a Grave Constitutional Crisis Linked to Pat Robertson.â�� In that article we reported that televangelist Pat Robertson devised a number of ways of limiting the power of the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of America. To quote from the article, Robertson said as early as March 24, 1986, â��Congress could say, â��Thereâ��s a whole class of cases you canâ��t hearâ�� and thereâ��s nobody can do anything about it!â��

On February 11, 2004, we published â��The Despoiling of Americaâ�� by Katherine Yurica. To quote Robertson from this article, â��Godâ��s plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen to take dominionâ�¦to reign and ruleâ�¦Thereâ��ll be a reformationâ�¦.We are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. Weâ��re not gonna stand for it. We are going to say, â��We want freedom in this country, and we want powerâ�¦â��â��

First, I associate Pat Robertson with Christian fundamentalism and it seems he backs this congressional act as it may have even been his idea. Secondly, I am using the term "funadamentalism" in a more broad stroke, as RonB has already pointed out, but it's my opinion that these groups differ not so much by differing idealogies, but rather by degree. I may be wrong but would like Ron, or anyone else, to show me the differences. The CRA-2004 is a radical piece of legislation, imo, but is it only embraced by Reconstructionists/Dominionists or fundamentalists in general?

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

03/29/2005 09:23:19 PM · #486

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Youâ��re wrong on that one Terry. Fundamentalist and evangelical are general terms applied to certain sects of certain religions or certain religions as a whole. For example, Southern Baptist would be considered an evangelical religion, but only some of its members or certain groups of its members would be considered fundamentalist. Most are moderates. the hardliners call these moderates hypocrites.

There are churches with the word evangelical in their title such as the Evangelical Covenant Church, but that is not what is required to be clasified as evangelical.

The Pentecostal religion on the other hand is both fundamentalist and evangelical. I've been to a few Pentecostal churches in my day. Entertaining would be an understatement.

03/29/2005 09:25:22 PM · #487

I think it is no secret (or maybe it is) that Robertson does not represent the mainstream of the Fundamentalist movement, or at least of many Fundamentalists. Please do not generalize his views as those of all Fundamentalists.

I think it's also critical that we use caution when using the phrase "fundamentalist Christian" when we mean something other than "Fundamentalist Christian." To the casual observer, it appears to be a generalization of the followers of that faith. It might be best to find another term to use.

-Terry

03/29/2005 09:33:24 PM · #488

Basic definition of Fundametalist Christian: Someone who believes in the "five fundamentals"
Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth (or deity) of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The miracles (or, alternatively, the second coming) of Jesus Christ

In has wider conotations.

03/29/2005 09:40:42 PM · #489

Pat Robertson is founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, and while he may not represent the views of all Christian fundamentalists, he wields great power in influencing the views of the people that watch his broadcasts. The CBN is an extensive network and has great reach.

I agree with you, however, that we need to use caution with this term and I do NOT intend to paint all fundamentalist Christians in one way. That is why I'm asking for clarification as to whether there is difference in ideology or degree amoungst the different groups that would fall under the term Christian Fundamentalism. Karmat has also pointed this out before and I respect this thought. I am also concerned about the state of this country when legislation like this is before Congress.

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

jaredldr

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/29/2005 09:41:52 PM · #490

.

Message edited by author 2005-08-23 08:09:19.

03/29/2005 09:57:01 PM · #491

In another interesting twist to the Schiavo case, yesterday we learned that Rep. Tom DeLay who has been an outspoken critique of removing Terri's feeding tube, had life support removed for his own father back in 1988 (removed from ventilator and he and his family refused kidney dialysis). Today it has come to light that Terri's father also remvoved his mother from life support when she had pneumonia. Mr. Schindler also stated that should a catastrophic event happen to him that he would want his wife and family to make the medical decisions. This from an article by Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian. Article can be found at Democracy Now. org

edit to say that Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian is interviewed on DemocracyNow.org and it's not her article from The Guardian.

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 22:06:16.

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

03/29/2005 10:01:56 PM · #492

Originally posted by jlhudson:

I know this question was not pointed at me but I will answer as someone who condsiders themselves a fundamentalist Christian (gasp!).

I think dolling out biblical punishments "such as eye for an eye and stoning etc." would be more in line with Jewish Fundamentalist as those punishments are described as being acceptable in the old testament and are not in line with the teachings of Jesus (IMO).

It is however in the King James version of the Holy Bible and the first tennant of the funamentalist movement is the inerrancy of that book. Obivously not all people who call themselves fudamentalists are party to such strict adherence to the line and word of the Bible, but many are.

cbeller

Nikon D300

03/29/2005 10:48:22 PM · #493

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Then maybe the SC could explain in detail exactly what words can and can not be used on this site, before you (in a collective and not personal sense of the word) go and start banning other people for referring to a particular "group" incorrectly??

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/29/2005 10:59:00 PM · #494

Just be careful not to negatively stereotype any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group. That means if you want to refer to a position held by or express an opinion of certain leaders or members of one of those groups, you should not generalize it to the entire group.

"Pat Robertson and some other fundamentalist leaders advocate..." reads very differently than "Christian fundamentalists advocate..."

Replace "Christian fundamentalists" with "Jews" or "Blacks," for example, in some of the posts I have objected to, and see how they read, and I think you will see our concern.

-Terry

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 23:02:29.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

03/29/2005 11:12:46 PM · #495

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

So then the qualifier "some" should suffice in most instances? And will you require of RonB when he negatively stereotypes liberals that he be required to use the "some" qualifier? For example: "Some liberals believe" or "some liberals advocate"....

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 23:15:16.

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

03/29/2005 11:17:32 PM · #496

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Just be careful not to negatively stereotype any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group. That means if you want to refer to a position held by or express an opinion of certain leaders or members of one of those groups, you should not generalize it to the entire group.

"Pat Robertson and some other fundamentalist leaders advocate..." reads very differently than "Christian fundamentalists advocate..."

Replace "Christian fundamentalists" with "Jews" or "Blacks," for example, in some of the posts I have objected to, and see how they read, and I think you will see our concern.

-Terry

So then the qualifier "some" should suffice in most instances? And will you require of RonB when he negatively stereotypes liberals that he be required to use the "some" qualifier?

In most instances, yes... though there could be exceptions to that... for example if a user showed a pattern of trying to single out a particular group negatively.

As to your second question, nether liberals nor conservatives are an "ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group." Though I would personally appreciate it if Ron, as well as several other people on the site, softened their language in the manner you have requested, there is no requirement under the Terms of Service that they do so.

-Terry

cbeller

Nikon D300

03/29/2005 11:42:35 PM · #497

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

As to your second question, nether liberals nor conservatives are an "ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group." Though I would personally appreciate it if Ron, as well as several other people on the site, softened their language in the manner you have requested, there is no requirement under the Terms of Service that they do so.

-Terry

Wouldn't that fall under the same TOS section 4.2?

(vi) is designed to or does harass, threaten, defame or abuse others, or maybe even the "catch all" (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste.

You can shoe horn many users posts into being in violation of the site TOS. I hope the SC is going to be consistent when determining if a certain user's posts are in violation or not.

*Note - Not picking on you Terry, you just happen to be the one responding. ;)

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

03/29/2005 11:49:33 PM · #498

My feelings on this topic is that politics is not for folks with thin skin. The entire arena exists in the realms of labels. Each party earns their own labels by their very actions and to expect the other side not to use them is then to enter a different or neutral discussion which belongs in a more blander thread. Politics, by its very nature gives forth to the heated exchange of ideas.

Of course, personal attacks do not have a safe home anywhere nor are they invited...but attcking ideas as represented by labels is not at all a personal attack. In other words, if your convictions are well grounded than you should take any criticism because you are able to defend your stance.

One must be able to separate the personal from labels which depict movements. Example, if you are a right to anything, the other side may and may consider your ideas wacky. No harm done here. Consider all the verbiage and attack and lies that are exchange in politics.

Politics is a double edge sword because while there are many good politicians, the system spoils many and some enter with varied ambitions.