Starting Campaign 2008 In Church

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

"What is wrong with socialism?"

Hmmm, mixed with atheism and state control of everything, it becomes Communism.

Without that, it is simply a system of rewarding the lazy.

August 18, 2008 10:15 AM

*************************

History does not reveal many Western European countries having turned into state controlled Communist states. The gap between the rich and middle class is not that great. The poor have their basic needs met. Is that so terrible, uh unChristian?

Is a capitalism where CEOs earn *literally* 400% more salary than the average employee, and the poor have to work three jobs to make ends meet, that is better, more just and more Christian?

Susan,

Going into a chop-shop and having your living baby hacked to death is not "Medical Care". If you you don't "get" that point, then no one can convince you of anything.

Seems like you are totally against religious freedom of any kind and free speech too. Let the people decide and stop your propaganda push.

Better yet, move to China where religion (except atheism) is already outlawed and all speech is either relegated to specific approved forums or forbidden altogether depending on the topic.

CCNL writes:

Farnaz asks: What is wrong with socialism?"

No, I never asked that question. Another very "pure" American, FDR, didn't either. However, he recognized that the country had an obligation to all of its citizens. Others, such as LBJ held the same view.

A nation doesn't have to have a socialist economy to consider the rights of all its citizens, that political and economic rights go hand and hand. Jefferson, who cribbed wildly from Locke changed "life, liberty, and estate" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Interesting.

When taxpayers such as those I described, persons who must decide whether to drive to work or eat, persons who must line up and wait overnight for free healthcare, persons whose children receive xeroxes instead of textbooks, etc. have no say in ameliorating their hardships through their tax dollars, then we have no protection of estate. The protection of estate goes to those who have money or who will bring money to a particular area. So it is in New York where families are displaced to make room for developers who will attract the rich, while the tax dollars of those displaced families are used to ready the area for the plunderers.

So what you have then, is capitalism, yes, but without the protection of estate FOR SOME without the provision for the pursuit of happiness FOR SOME. This is capitalism without democracy. What I'm asking for is capitalism with democracy, which, for quite a while this nation was committed to.

Outside of religious institutions, all man-made systems are godless, and that includes communism, capitalism, republicanism and democracy. In fact, democracy is the opposite of the heavenly system, which is a kingdom. There are no votes in heaven.

Godless capitalism. Gotta love it.

CCNL - since when is your neutered brand of Catholicism superior to atheism? Surely the differences are more imagined that real.

With or without the divinities, religion is just one of many social organizations that humans are partial to. BTW, any brand of secular humanism on the planet must be considered at least the equal of Crossanized Catholicism - which seems suspiciously akin to a modern form of Deism.

Hopefully churches will concentrate more on performing acts of charity in the future, rather than co-opting the political process.

Don't let your fears and prejudices cloud your judgement - have any of the world's recent socialized democracies yet fallen to Communism? Admittedly the rate of atheism is probably far higher in Europe than in the good old USofA. And how is that a bad thing?

Given that we have 40 million without healthcare in America, we're hardly in a position to impune the value of a wee bit of socialism where it counts.

Personally, I think the Communist scare is pretty much over. The threat of communists taking over Washington, D.C. is not among our biggest worries these days.

Real representation of the people is far more problematical - your hyperbolic salute to capitalism and voter power notwithstanding.

I see a disconnect between voters and their elected representatives that call for big-time resolution - while I'm kind of lukewarm about the probability of democrats fixing our problems, I'm positively shivering in my breeches with ice cold dread at the prospect of republicans re-taking control of Washington again. With any luck, I don't believe it will happen.

And which group of lazy people are currently being rewarded by socialism at present? Where are they located? I'd be most curious to know.

With our present hyper-capitalist system in unrestrained overdrive & enabled by a conspicuous lack of government oversight, we have inflation, increased unemployment, a housing crisis, a mortage crisis and a financial crisis of epoch proportions.....and was this all the result of socialism? I know, I didn't need to ask that question.

Just like unfettered capitalism and extreme nationalism can lead to Fascism? Anything carried to the extreme is leads to abuse. Socialism benefits the lazy? Of course. Capitalism benefits the powerful over the weak. I'm not sre that is a benefit to society, either.

Farnaz asks: "What is wrong with socialism?"

Hmmm, mixed with atheism and state control of everything, it becomes Communism.

Without that, it is simply a system of rewarding the lazy.

I missed the debate. I wonder what channel it was on? I still don't know. On Saturday night, I had forgotten all about it. What was I watching? I think I was watching the Olympics. I saw Michael Phelps win the eighth gold medal, live, since China time is tweleve housr ahead of Eastern Time, and it was morning for them.

CCNL, why is socialism considered a bad word? European countries which are less religious than the US are doing well with a brand of socialism which reflect true Christian values in practice.

The Socialist Farnaz, The Socialist Farnaz, The Socialist Farnaz,

Again, we the USA Taxpayers lead the world. We are not as you noted, "voiceless, helpless, victims or witnesses, not makers, of history."

God Bless the USA and her Taxpayers!!!!

God Bless the USA and her Democracy!!!

God Bless the USA and her brand of Capitalism!!!!

Goodnight, Anon!

Anon:

"Iranian Jews had a better time under the Shah!"

"Shah" was a visionary, a buffoon, an exploiter, and a dictator. He did want to modernize Iran, but he was corrupt, had a "secret police," and with Khomeini safe in France, a limited political life span. That was obvious. Had the US not backed Shah, Iran would have had a chance at democracy. The longer he stayed in power the worse things got until it became too late. Now look at who leads Iran. How did he win? Or, did he win? Many believe there was election fraud. Those votes he did garner came from people who bought into his promise to improve the economy. He promised jobs, but look: there are no jobs. What there are are daily demonstrations, many of which end in an unpleasant way with the police. This incompetent, corrupt, and evil fool must keep up his anti-Western, antisemitic rhetoric, just like all the other Middle Eastern "leaders," in order to distract the masses, but the Iranian natives are increasingly restless, including the Kurds, with whom he has an unpleasant history.

Things are not going well there, and they will get worse.

"Go through all the previous discussions on Susan Jacoby and identify your reaction to Benazir Bhutto"

That is your job, Anon. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

As I see it, you have two choices: (1) produce the evidence since otherwise you are slandering both Maria Janna and Mary Cunningham or (2) continue your blathering obsession with me.

Still obsessed with me, Anon? Oh, well, it's okay. Obsess and speculate away.

Farnaz, I do admire your great intellect and EDUCATION. So don't get me wrong. I'm puzzled about some things, that is all.

Iranian Jews had a better time under the Shah!

Farnaz, even Mary Cunningham joined in the exchange with you.

Farnaz, in order to get through the US Citizenship test one is expected to know a lot about the country. No brainer. But your extensive reading on Pakistani and Indian history (in which you expressed a distinct Pakistani Muslim bias)is not so readily explainable coming from an atheist Iranian Jew.

Go through all the previous discussions on Susan Jacoby and identify your reaction to Benazir Bhutto.

Susan,

Thanks so much for answering my second question. I just saw your reply.

Farnaz

Anon:

"She has read a lot about Jinnah and Pakistan's political history."

This is true, ditto India. The part about Benazir Bhutto is not true, and, again, I don't believe Maria Janna said any such thing.

It's also true that I've read Jonathan Edwards, whom many view as this country's greatest Christian theologian, and I'm familiar with just about all of Emerson.

Let me connect the dots for you. They spell EDUCATION, which one gets through various not the least of which is reading and research.

Still obsessed with me, Anon?

CCNL, CCNL, CCNL,

"Two, I am a pure "USAish"!!!!"

I doubt it. If I have a voice, then why is it that in New York City, students in the public school system get xeroxes instead of textbooks? If I have a voice, why is it that they go to schools with metal detectors, schools in which security guards sell drugs? If I have a voice, why is it that from kindergarten through college, publicly funded schools serving those in greatest need receive the least funding?

If I have a voice, why do we not have national health care? If I have a voice, why a few weeks ago did "pure" Americans, 1,000 of them line up the night before for a weekend clinic? Among the pure who showed up was a woman who had had breast cancer surgery two years before with NO FOLLOW-UP,
a child, who for months, had had an unusual lump on his arm, a three-year old with a two-week long persistent caugh.

If I have a voice, why are families having to choose between paying for gas to get to work and feeding their families? If I have a voice why are developers destroying communities to build cogated luxury communities, with state, city, and local governments, changing zoning laws, committing funds to beautify areas to be plundered, combing each blade of grass, planting flora, etc., to attract the rich, while children are illiterate, without adequate healthcare, etc.?

If I have a voice, why are we in Iraq? If "pure" Americans had a voice, why did no one listen to them when they protested this country's support of Shah?

CCNL, do you drink? I have told you my story many times, but you seem to forget. I am "impure." I come from Iran. I am one of those three million Middle Eastern Jews in exile, a people you never hear about, since we are a people without oil, you see. For this and other reasons, to many of the "pure," we are of no consequence. That obtains even for your "pure" self to whom one of us has told her story.

Farnaz, that you would refer to yourself as "brown," in reference to discrimination you experienced in the US, surprised me too.

Farnaz, you are a mystery. I'm simply trying to connect the dots. I do happen to have a fairly good memory, which might not suit you in the least.

"She has read a lot about Jinnah and Pakistan's political history. Surprisingly for an Iranian Jew, she went completely ballistic when one poster (?Maria Janna) wrote that Benazir Bhutto had her assassination coming."

This is not the case. I also find it difficult to believe that Maria Janna said anything of the sort.

Still obsessed with me, Anon?

CCNL, according to her posts, Farnaz has lived in the US for eighteen years. She is supposedly a (brown) atheist Iranian Jew. Farnaz has done Jewish studies. She seems to have specialized in the history of the Holocaust. Since Iran denies it, it makes sense that she wants to know all about it. She has lived also in Pakistan and India. She visits Pakistan. She has students and someone whom she loves like a sister who still lives there. She has read a lot about Jinnah and Pakistan's political history. Surprisingly for an Iranian Jew, she went completely ballistic when one poster (?Maria Janna) wrote that Benazir Bhutto had her assassination coming.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

One, you did not answer the original question, i.e. are you a natural-born citizen of the USA?

Two, I am a pure "USAish"!!!!

Three, we the USA Taxpayers lead the world. We are not as you noted, "voiceless, helpless, victims or witnesses, not makers, of history."

Four, God Bless the USA and her Taxpayers!!!!

CCNL:

I meant to write "I've never seen any such arrogance anywhere else except in France." However, the French, for sure, have a kind of elegance, which, alas, you do not possess.

CCNL:

I doubt you were born in this country. Your language and demeanor are distinctly European. I'm guessing English. No offense intended to said colonialists, but I have yet to see such arrogance anywhere outside of France.

How my post on Great Awakenings, the incomparable Jonathan Edwards, and the remarkable Emerson could lead you to the conclusions you come to are quite beyond me.

Would you not care to return to "this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England"? No need to reserve early. Your fellow Brits aren't exactly flocking home, now.

Farnaz,

Your criticism of USA citizens indicates a previous non-citizen history. Based on your "sourpuss" review of "we" citizens, one would think there would be a mad dash to exit the USA. This is not happening of course with the mad dash coming in the opposite direction.

CCNL:

Btw., Edwards and Emerson were also US citizens.

"Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:
Farnaz,

Are you a citizen of the USA??"

Yes. Are you?

Why ask this question?

At Saddleback, McCain said exactly what the evangelicals and rightwingers wanted him to say - and not very well at that. But all in all, they loved him - with one caviat, unfortunately he didn't grovel in his faith to a sufficient degree, according to some commentators.

Obama reiterated his usual well thought-out albeit liberal stands, and adroitly as always. This is the guy that neocons and evangelicals love to hate, lest we forget. And the follow-up on Fox News? Stay tuned.....

Farnaz,

Are you a citizen of the USA??

PAM:

And my name is Pam - not PAM. Are you so unobservant that you haven't noticed that all names are in caps as WaPo lists them in this forum? Possibly not, since you can't be bothered to select a name, and you have to point out that it's not you every time someone else posts anonymously. How stupid is that?

August 17, 2008 1:20 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry about misspelling your name. I thought "A" and "a" were the same alphabet, "M" and "m" were the same alphabets too. My bad and my stupid. :(

Anonymous says:
"You say that you justify your stand based on your definition of life."

Where did I say this? Direct quote, please.

As usual, you are making unsupported statements that you pull out of thin air - or somewhere.

And my name is Pam - not PAM. Are you so unobservant that you haven't noticed that all names are in caps as WaPo lists them in this forum? Possibly not, since you can't be bothered to select a name, and you have to point out that it's not you every time someone else posts anonymously. How stupid is that?

It's interesting that whenever overwhelming advances in thinking and/or technology occur, great awakenings accompany them. The first in this country was led by Jonathan Edwards, perhaps the greatest Christian theologian the US has produced, IMHO a great man. However, it was, of course, the poor he drew to him, first and foremost. Unlike some of today's evangelicals, Edwards never sought to enrich himself, lived humbly, died in an extraordinary way, from a small pox innoculation he'd taken to encourage others to be "vaccinated."

If I'm not mistaken, Lyman Beecher was a figure in the Second Great Awakening, which brought with it renewed vigor in reformist battles, including the struggle against slavery.

Emerson was a young man during the second, Emerson, an ordained Unitarian minister, who for various reasons couldn't remain with the church. His Divinity School Address should be required reading.

http://www.online-literature.com/emerson/3778/

Quite a scandal it caused, with the fellow not being "invited" back for decades, but it does explain why those less enfranchised are frequently drawn to "enthusiasm." More attention to their material and spiritual needs, more help for the poor could change this.

While this Obama religious outreach troubles me, I think we need to ask why people need an 800 number to dial and pray. Numerous books and articles have been written on how we have developed a culture of fear, fear of terrorism, fear for our continued employment, fear about our job performance, fear for the safety of our homes and children. With gas and food prices what they are, insecurity has mounted, especially among those less well off.

More and more, ordinary Americans feel voiceless, helpless, victims or witnesses, not makers, of history.

PAM ---

You do your thing, I do mine. We express and defend what we believe to be true. You say that you justify your stand based on your definition of life. I base my stand based on science - human embryology, Fetology and the standardard expected by Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine.

Reasonable not hateful:

It is quite true that Washington always realized the value of religion as a glue that held society together (usually!). He was also quite tolerant in his insisting that all religions, or lack thereof, be accepted in society without bias. He apparently attended church (Church of England) quite steadily before the revolution. After the revolution, his attendance was less frequent, and he never took communion. It is not known if he became a deist at this point, but it seems probable. This in no way would detract from what he did.

Whatever, he is among the greatest of Americans. His achievements are mind-boggling. No less than Frederick the Great of Prussia praised his campaigns of Trenton and Princeton as two of the greatest battles of military history. George was the MAN!

Unfortunately, Gerry, the founders were not in unison on this. Washington thought that religion was very important in our society and in our politics.

He said the following:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

So it is not so cut and dry. The founders also put chaplains in the Senate from the almost the inception of that part of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate

I disagree with you about this.

Washington was someone we need to listen to....

Why the US Taxpayers are still the world's great leaders.

Our War on Terror and Aggression:

An update (or how we are spending or how we have spent USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent Body Count:

1) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4137 US troops and 86,136 – 93,995 Iraqi civilians http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!!

3. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot.
4. NK has finally started to destroy in nuclear weapons’ capabilities.
5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends. Radovan Karadzic was finally captured on 7/23/08 and is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the law of war -- charges related to the 1992-1995 civil war that followed Bosnia-Herzegovina's secession from Yugoslavia.

14. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Farnaz - agreed regarding Obama....while I feel compelled to support him, the religion business gives me great unease. For a democratic candidate to ride this bandwagon points towards cynicism or conviction and I'm betting on the latter with Obama. After Bush, I'm not at all happy about this.

"The U.S. was once a great nation...too bad it's going down the drain from sin, godlessness, liberalism and its associated dogmas (environmentalism, multiculturalism, relativism, socialism, anti-gun hysteria, feminism, evolution, the gay agenda, etc.)."

I had decided to abandon my contribution to the "On Faith" discussions, but to read a comment from intellectual fossils like Mr. Roberts, accompanied by an incredible, ludicrous condescension, just motivated me to once more join the discussion.

People like Mr. R.- all voters, deciding even my personal fate as a non-US citizen, explain why the US has lost all respect in the world, is hated and feared.

To let time-honored institutionalized superstition (aka religion) guide the badly needed rational decisions the world faces today represents the infinite stupidity Einstein refers to when he said, "there are two things which are infinite: Stupidity and the universe, and I am not even so sure about the universe."

True, to quote Mr. R., "America was once a great nation". Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were 200 years more modern in their agnostic prescience than Mr. R. and his GOP ilk. The world is very afraid and has a lot of reason for it.

Obama should have rejected such a sorry spectacle.

"On what grounds do I believe it is not the other way around that you were offered money to be an advocate for them?"

LOL - don't I wish!

Considering that I've been posting to this forum off and on since it first started, and none of my posts dealt with this subject until you started your ranting, it doesn't seem too likely, does it?

But you just go ahead and believe whatever floats your boat - I don't give a rat's patootie.

BTW, how many adoption applications did you fill out today?

Sorry Mr Mark, Gallop shows this as a dead heat.

http://www.gallup.com/HomePage.aspx

Better get ready for a close one.

I see you are repeating the mantra of "Bush 3"

Is that the best Dems can do?

Come up with some ideas for once- I don't see much in your "Messiah".

Americans don't like COngress and the Presidency to be dominated by one party.

It could happen, but if it does, he will be a repeat of Jimmy Carter, another failure.

Pam:

To AAA (Anti-Abortion Anonymous):

Just want you to know that, as a direct result of your off-topic list spamming, I donated money today to both Planned Parenthood and NARAL. I've never done that before, but it gave me great pleasure, and I intend to keep it up.

I suggest that everyone else who finds the spamming annoying do the same.

August 15, 2008 2:41 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On what grounds do I believe it is not the other way around that you were offered money to be an advocate for them?

All in all, I'm not thrilled about this, especially after having read Mark Warren's post on the Forum.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/08/saddlebacks_civil_forum_with_m.html

This whole religion business is getting way out of hand. That Obama, my candidate, should have initiated faith and values outreach, repleat with an 800 number to dial and pray, makes me apprehensive. It is not that I object to candidates being religious. It is that their religiosity or lack thereof should play no role role in the government of a secular society.
At this rate, we might as well hold the election in tents.

Brambleton says:
"Barack's plan would "require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history." The plan would also allow people to 'buy into government-offered insurance instead'."

I wasn't speaking of Obama's plan, per se. I prefer universal health care of the kind that Canada, Great Britain, and many other civilized countries enjoy.

I know our chances of getting it are slim to none with the Ooga Booga association in the American mind for anything "socialized", which is really a shame.

Spiritual Mongrel:

We seem to agree on some things.

I have no problem with Warren furnishing the venue for this. For a megachurch pastor, he is pretty moderate, even progressive in some ways. And he is non-political, at least so far. Others should note that it is not a debate, nor a town hall meeting; each candidate will be questioned separately.

Health care? Yes, for all. It is telling that America spends almost twice the amount per capita for health care as the 'socialized medicine' in Europe does. Health for profit for sure. Some things, like health, are too important for profit systems.

Susan.

I don’t agree with you on your first point. Warren is more moderate so I can stomach that, not to mention it is a crafty move on Obama’s part. I do not attend a church, I’m “self taught” we it comes to spirituality, but the candidates making their first appearance at a church based event is fine by me. The majority of people in this country are religious and most of them are Christian so they are pandering to the masses which seems logical to me.

I do agree with you on points two and three.

As for the healthcare discussion here is my short take. All people should have access to healthcare, period.

Doesn’t anyone see a problem with accountants and Wall Street telling doctors how to provide healthcare? Buueller? Bueller? Bueller? As for Churches running a hospital that’s a bad idea, plain and simple.

I won’t claim that socialized medicine is the magic bullet but capitalism isn’t, at least not in the way we conduct ourselves today.

Capitalism is a fine tool until we get down to choosing between profits and the benefit of human life (or the environment). Far too often we choose profits over people and that I find morally wrong.

If I were there, I would ask the candidates this question:

"What is the difference between sincere religious inquirey, on the one hand, and dangerious religeous mania, on the other?"

Pam,

Barack's plan would "require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history." The plan would also allow people to "buy into government-offered insurance instead."

As Paul Krugman wrote, "an Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else."

Farnaz--

The answer to your question, which I just noticed, is yes. "Without penalty" means they can receive any taxpayer money.

To AAA (Anti-Abortion Anonymous):

Just want you to know that, as a direct result of your off-topic list spamming, I donated money today to both Planned Parenthood and NARAL. I've never done that before, but it gave me great pleasure, and I intend to keep it up.

I suggest that everyone else who finds the spamming annoying do the same.

Brambleton says:
"what's to stop someone from declining the health care until they really need it?"

Nothing, but why would they? I suppose some small percentage of the population might have an aversion to doctors, but I don't think it's large enough to be statistically significant. It tends to be the other way around in Canada, England, etc. - people go to the doctor for every little ache and pain.

Currently in the USA, we have doctors willing to give care, patients who need it, and in the middle, the insurance industry, whose goal is to see to it that as few as possible in the other two groups ever get together.

They are a *for* profit venture, and their profits depend on denying as many claims as they possibly can, and denying coverage to anyone who might actually need it.

This is fundamentally flawed and needs to go away.

Everyone I know (more than a handful) from universal health care countries, pities us.

DKW,

Statistically, you might have some merit in regards to health care. My opinion is based mostly on conversations and stories I've heard from people I work with in the U.K. and Canada. While it's not all gloom and doom, it certainly would be worse than the care I presently receive.

And if health care is mandatory, then (a) why are we revamping health care in the first place, and (b) what's to stop someone from declining the health care until they really need it?

As far as Georgia is concerned, as I understand it, months in advance of Russia's military operation, the U.S. was very outspoken in its desire to put U.N. peacekeepers on the ground to replace the Russian peacekeepers already there. But France and its ilk didn't want to provoke Russia or upset them in any way so the action was shelved. Granted, the U.S. should have shown more backbone and forced the issue, but we laid down and allowed Russia to trample all over an ally.

A mega-church is a sort of strange hybrid, quasi-relgious "thing." They are usually quite large, so that the personal social interactions of smaller churches do not function well, or not at all. Their services are often more "show-biz" presentations than traditional worship. They are usually centered around a charismartic "cultish" figure, whose presence sustains them, and in whose absence, they often wilt and flounder. And they are congregational islands, and follow their own local, specialized theology, with any number of add-on's and make-shift modifications.

Of these types of Evangelical leaders, Rick Warren is more generous than most. But, I do not think he will trod into any territory that is very controversial, because of the nature of his congregation, because he owes them the respect of their individual beliefs, and because if he offends too many of them, and they leave his church, he will loose money. This is the nature of the mega-church.

I guess I am not hiding the fact that I generally do not hold much respect for this mega-church trend.

Geez Brambleton, you bring up every right-wing canard. But thanks for the obligatory "I'm not pro-repub" blurb at the beginning.

Just to clear up something about health care, in most universal health care countries (Canada, England, Germany, Japan, etc) waiting for your "strep throat to be diagnosed" is actually faster than in the US. Doctor wait times in those countries are longer due to longer wait to see specialists for non-emergency care. Clinic and emergency room waiting times are actually shorter in these countries.

Because more people in these countries get preventive care and regular health checkups, the specialist wait times aren't as critical since problems are found at earlier stages.

And tell me again what the US did leading up to situation in Georgia right now as opposed to the Europeans? What should Obama be emulating?

Dr. Cope:

Anon/anti-abortionist - nobody really disagrees with your point of view in particular. However and for the record - abortion is a legal right that may be exercised at the discretion of the patient, up to the beginning of the third trimester, at which times legal limits are automatically imposed.

Your arguments notwithstanding, that is the law of the land - and so it shall remain.

August 15, 2008 8:02 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

With due respect Dr Cope, this is an On Faith Forum and issues which intersect with faith are discussed.

As to law of the land, Roe vs Wade did not exist until 1973. The science of Fetology developed after the law came into effect.

Laws are man-made. They can be changed if circumstances and new information demands a change.

That is what this forum is partly about - to discuss issues and suggest changes if they are warranted.

Abortion-on-demand pro-abortionists has redefined human life in the uterus to suit a social convenience. That redefinition needs to change and be brought in line with the reality that the science of Fetology reveals.

Free,

I apologize if I took your comments out of context. Don't know if I have an answer to your question regarding the candidate's and the separation issue.

Personally, I don't have a horse in this race yet. While I'm certainly very much Republican leaning, I don't simply vote based on whether or not there is an "R" next to someone's name.

That said, I can say that there are a number of reasons why I am presently not in Obama's camp. The Warren Harding Effect would be one. Second, a McCain victory would also move the Supreme Court in the right direction to challenge Roe v. Wade. Third, I'm not sure if Obama's health care plan will work, that it won't develop into a black hole of federal inefficiencies, or that I will now have to wait six months for my strep throat to be diagnosed. Also, the fact that, as presently constructed, it's not mandatory is puzzling to say the least.

Finally, I have absolutely no faith in the man to defend our country. Granted, this might be some residual fallout from President Clinton's unwillingness to confront terrorism, but it bothers me nonetheless. In the current Russian conflict, would Obama have acted more like the Europeans or like the U.S. had for months leading up to the conflict? Unfortunately, I'm guessing the former.

Steven,

I don't think anybody is suggesting that inflating tires or getting regular tune-ups isn't beneficial or that it conserves gas usage. The point is that the whole concept is a gimmick. Driving naked or biking two hours to work everyday would accomplish the same thing, but those aren't solutions any moreso than inflating tires or getting tune-ups.

Ghostbuster - everything I've ever read on offshore drilling absolutely negates any real benefit - and certainly not in the here and now. This is a 10 year long process with very uncertain production capacity at the end of that time period, and at monumental cost. In the short term, this is a republican ruse to appease the voting public. They know better, but don't think that you do.

Who do we suppose would benefit from this relative exercise in futility? The petroleum industry, of course. And the same is even more true with drilling in Alaska - no predictable payoff for many years, modest oil reserves at best, and with a lot of down side.

A better immediate plan might be to increase refinery capacity - and this probably should be federally mandated. Too much blame has been leveled at states for refusing to accomodate refinery placements - as it turns out, to the huge benefit of Big Oil...and who have been cashing in mightily based on the simple equation of supply and demand.

Who are the real culprits here? Big Oil gets a pass every time Congress brings in the bag men for a CEO palaver. It's about time Big Oil and Corporate America in general begins paying their fair share of taxes - and no exceptions.

Making this happen apparently takes more courage than Congress possesses. And that is a very large part of the price escalation and cost run-up disaster - and in fact, inflation in general. The Wall Street collapse, and the present real estate and fiscal crisis can be traced back to lack of government oversight, period - with corporate greed run amuck. Think Fannie May and Freddie Mack.

And the general public fully shares in the blame - until we cease being pawns in the game, we play by their rules. Washington is supposed to work for us, not them. How did things get so turned around?

Anon/anti-abortionist - nobody really disagrees with your point of view in particular. However and for the record - abortion is a legal right that may be exercised at the discretion of the patient, up to the beginning of the third trimester, at which times legal limits are automatically imposed.

Your arguments notwithstanding, that is the law of the land - and so it shall remain.

Dear Reasonable -

Yes, you're back at it. And, like McCain and the rest of the RW smear machine, you don't bother addressing the questions about McCain - you respond with a hollow attack on Obama.

McCain is a moderate? Not a chance. But even if he were, he's a dottering old man who can't keep countries or decades clear, who can't remember who is running what country, and who has made enough bad judgments in this campaign to make any honest person wonder if he's fit to even remain in the Senate.

At this point, carrying the blue collar vote is the least of McCain's problems. I don't know a single person near his age who is planning on voting for him, and that includes lifelong Rs, because they all rightly see him as bush 3, and their retirement portfolios can't take another minute of bush, let alone 4 more years. And I don't know a single person under 45 who is willing to throw away their vote by voting against hope, which is the entire point of McCain's campaign.

McBush is going down in flames. A sad ending to a facade of a political career. He wasn't ready for prime time. In the meantime, the R are whistling past their political graveyards.

2008. The year the Rs put themselves into permanent minority status. I'd be loving it if they hadn't effed things up so completely.

Whether Rick Warren is or is not nonpartisan is beside the point. Saddleback Church is an evangelican Christian megachurch. Clerics should not be the moderators of our presidential debates.

That is your opinion Susan, but it has NOTHING to do with separation of church and state, as this is two private individuals NOT part of the government (they are not president yet) and free association is still a constitutional right in this country.

ANYONE can be a moderator, and your anti religious bigotry is showing, dear.

You don't have a real point...just prejudice.

No need to resort to limericks - just stick to the topic and ignore the trolls.

Sorry, Mr Mark, I am back at it..

And Obama is a full suit? Just because a guy smiles good and speaks real well, does not mean he is a going to make a great president.

No experience.
No major legislation.
Questionable company he keeps( Read Rev Wright)
Extreme leftist policies.

You really think middle blue class America is going to go for this dude?

McCain is a moderate, all you have to do is look at his voting record.

I want experience in the White House, not some wanna be JFK(who was a medicore president) ......

Anti-Life Farnaz/Wiglaf/Pseudo/Amro/Starbucks trio et al on a Limerick spree to distract from abortion issue being discussed again, seeking to drown the posts with limericks...

Too late!

Limerick by Wiglaf

There once was a lizard JC
Whom Arminius sent me to see
The chap walked on water
Which was a tall order
That small odd-footed lizard JC

How Pleasant to Know Mr. Lear

"How pleasant ot know Mr.Lear!"
Who has written such volumes of stuff!
Some think him ill-tempered and queer,
But a few think him pleasant enough.

His mind is concrete and fastidious,
His nose is remarkably big;
His visage is more or less hideous,
His beard it resembles a wig.

He has ears, and two eyes, and ten fingers,
Leastways if you reckon two thumbs;
Long ago he was one of the singers,
But now he is one of the dumbs.

He sits in a beautiful parlour,
With hundreds of books on the wall;
He drinks a great deal of Marsala,
But never gets tipsy at all.

He has many friends, lay men and clerical,
Old Foss is the name of his cat;
His body is perfectly spherical,
He weareth a runcible hat.

When he walks in waterproof white,
The children run after him so!
Calling out, "He's gone out in his night-
Gown, that crazy old Englishman, oh!"

He weeps by the side of the ocean,
He weeps on the top of the hill;
He purchases pancakes and lotion,
And chocolate shrimps from the mill.

He reads, but he cannot speak, Spanish,
He cannot abide ginger beer:
Ere the days of his pilgrimage vanish,
How pleasant to know Mr. Lear!

Edward Lear

Limericks
by Edward Lear

There was an Old Man with a beard,
Who said, 'It is just as I feared!
Two Owls and a Hen,
Four Larks and a Wren,
Have all built their nests in my beard!'
--------------------------------------------------
There was a Young Lady of Ryde,
Whose shoe-strings were seldom untied.
She purchased some clogs,
And some small spotted dogs,
And frequently walked about Ryde.
--------------------------------------------------
There was an Old Man with a nose,
Who said, 'If you choose to suppose,
That my nose is too long,
You are certainly wrong!'
That remarkable Man with a nose.
--------------------------------------------------
There was an Old Man on a hill,
Who seldom, if ever, stood still;
He ran up and down,
In his Grandmother's gown,
Which adorned that Old Man on a hill.
--------------------------------------------------
There was a Young Lady whose bonnet,
Came untied when the birds sate upon it;
But she said: 'I don't care!
All the birds in the air
Are welcome to sit on my bonnet!'
--------------------------------------------------
There was a Young Person of Smyrna,
Whose Grandmother threatened to burn her;
But she seized on the cat,
And said, 'Granny, burn that!
You incongruous Old Woman of Smyrna!'
--------------------------------------------------
There was an Old Person of Chili,
Whose conduct was painful and silly,
He sate on the stairs,
Eating apples and pears,
That imprudent Old Person of Chili.
--------------------------------------------------
There was an Old Man with a gong,
Who bumped at it all day long;
But they called out, 'O law!
You're a horrid old bore!'
So they smashed that Old Man with a gong.
--------------------------------------------------
There was an Old Lady of Chertsey,
Who made a remarkable curtsey;
She twirled round and round,
Till she sunk underground,
Which distressed all the people of Chertsey.
--------------------------------------------------
There was an Old Man in a tree,
Who was horribly bored by a Bee;
When they said, 'Does it buzz?'
He replied, 'Yes, it does!'
'It's a regular brute of a Bee!'
--------------------------------------------------

I think we should begin drilling for domestic oil ASAP while primarily focusing our efforts on developing alternative energy sources.

It is nice to see the democrats in congress hopping on the offshore drilling train. Not sure if they're hoping on cause they agree, or because they know they'll get run over if they don't.

Republican or Democrat, they've both blown it on energy for years. To say Obama or McCain or any clown in congress has an answer and will fix it all is nieve IMO. It's easy to blame someone else. The solution begins when the frustration of the American people reaches a critical mass and we demand better energy, starting with ourselves and reaching all levels of society.

Quick poll, how many of you all carpool, conserve on gas, drive hybrids, recycle, save energy...

Not accusing, just curious :)

For pro-abortionists ---

Why should any hospital which abides by the Hippocratic Oath with regard to abortions be punished because they will not succumb to the pressure made by advocates of social engineering?

Hospitals which refuse to offer what is OUTSIDE ethical medical practice should not be punished. It makes more sense to send abortionists involved in social engineering to jail. But Roe vs Wade protects them. That should be compromise enough.

Abortion-on-demand is social engineering, NOT standard medical practice.

Abortion on demand as per Roe vs Wade 1973 is NOT standard medical medical care. The law had to be introduced to protect abortionists precisely because abortion on demand is not standard medical care. Please read information provided on your previous thread, even if you may choose to remain in a state of denial about scientific facts regarding abortion on demand.

The continuity argument has been used by many writers. Here is C. Everett Koop's version of the argument taken from his The Right to Live the Right to Die. He writes as follows:

My question to my pro-abortion friend who will not kill a newborn baby is this: "Would you kill this infant a minute before he was born, or a minute before that, or a minute before that, or a minute before that?" You see what I am getting at. At what minute can one consider life to be worthless and the next minute consider that same life to be precious? So much for logic.

Here is another version of the argument from an essay by Sidney Callahan.

As embryology and fetology advance, it becomes clear that human development is a continuum. Just as astronomers are studying the first three minutes in the genesis of the universe, so the first moments, days, and weeks at the beginning of human life are the subject of increasing scientific attention. While neonatology pushes the definition of viability ever earlier, ultrasound and fetology expand the concept of the patient in utero. Within such a continuous growth process, it is hard to defend logically any demarcation point after conception as the point at which an immature form of human life is so different from the day before or the day after, that it can be morally or legally discounted as a nonperson. . . .

The same legal tradition which in our society guarantees the right to control one's body firmly recognizes the wrongfulness of harming other bodies, however immature, dependent, different looking, or powerless....

No human can be treated as a means to an end without consent. The fetus is an immature, dependent form of human life which only needs time and protection to develop. Surely, immaturity and dependence are not crimes.

Reference: C. Everett The Right to Live the Right to Die, p. 27. See also the selection from Callahan in the Baird anthology p. 132-33. Callahan's article originally appeared in Commonweal in the April 25, 1986 issue.

http://ivory.lm.com/~jdehullu/abortion/absckoo1.htm

Jabberwocky

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought--
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One two! One two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

~ Lewis Carroll

Why should any hospital which abides by the Hippocratic Oath with regard to abortions be punished because they will not succumb to the pressure made by advocates of social engineering?

Hospitals which refuse to offer what is OUTSIDE ethical medical practice should not be punished. It makes more sense to send abortionists involved in social engineering to jail. But Roe vs Wade protects them. That should be compromise enough.

Abortion-on-demand is social engineering, NOT standard medical practice.

Susan Jacoby abortion on demand as per Roe vs Wade 1973 is NOT standard medical medical care. The law had to be introduced to protect abortionists precisely because abortion on demand is not standard medical care. Please read information provided on your previous thread, even if you may choose to remain in a state of denial about scientific facts regarding abortion on demand.

For pro-abortionists ---

The continuity argument has been used by many writers. Here is C. Everett Koop's version of the argument taken from his The Right to Live the Right to Die. He writes as follows:

My question to my pro-abortion friend who will not kill a newborn baby is this: "Would you kill this infant a minute before he was born, or a minute before that, or a minute before that, or a minute before that?" You see what I am getting at. At what minute can one consider life to be worthless and the next minute consider that same life to be precious? So much for logic.

Here is another version of the argument from an essay by Sidney Callahan.

As embryology and fetology advance, it becomes clear that human development is a continuum. Just as astronomers are studying the first three minutes in the genesis of the universe, so the first moments, days, and weeks at the beginning of human life are the subject of increasing scientific attention. While neonatology pushes the definition of viability ever earlier, ultrasound and fetology expand the concept of the patient in utero. Within such a continuous growth process, it is hard to defend logically any demarcation point after conception as the point at which an immature form of human life is so different from the day before or the day after, that it can be morally or legally discounted as a nonperson. . . .

The same legal tradition which in our society guarantees the right to control one's body firmly recognizes the wrongfulness of harming other bodies, however immature, dependent, different looking, or powerless....

No human can be treated as a means to an end without consent. The fetus is an immature, dependent form of human life which only needs time and protection to develop. Surely, immaturity and dependence are not crimes.

Reference: C. Everett The Right to Live the Right to Die, p. 27. See also the selection from Callahan in the Baird anthology p. 132-33. Callahan's article originally appeared in Commonweal in the April 25, 1986 issue.

http://ivory.lm.com/~jdehullu/abortion/absckoo1.htm

Mr. Mark, Arminius -- a couple of years ago on Saturday Night Live there was an animated John McCain skit, did you see it?

He'd make some horrible degrading, suck-up gesture to Bush, then he'd go off and vomit somewhere, then come back with a sick smile on his face, suck up again and go off and vomit.

Very graphic and very easy to understand. Still, sad to see.

The Tale of Custard the Dragon
by Ogden Nash

Belinda lived in a little white house,
With a little black kitten and a little gray mouse,
And a little yellow dog and a little red wagon,
And a realio, trulio, little pet dragon.

Now the name of the little black kitten was Ink,
And the little gray mouse, she called hum Blink,
And the little yellow dog was sharp as Mustard,
But the dragon was a coward, and she called him Custard.

Custard the dragon had big sharp teeth,
And spikes on top of him and scales underneath,
Mouth like a fireplace, chimney for a nose,
And realio, trulio daggers on his toes.

Belinda was as brave as a barrel full of bears,
And Ink and Blink chased lions down the stairs,
Mustard was as brave as a tiger in a rage,
But Custard cried for a nice safe cage.

Belinda tickled him, she tickled him unmerciful,
Ink, Blink and Mustard, they rudely called him Percival,
They all sat laughing in the little red wagon
At the realio, trulio, cowardly dragon.

Belinda giggled till she shook the house,
and Blink said Weeck! which is giggling for a mouse,
Ink and Mustard rudely asked his age,
When Custard cried for a nice safe cage.

Suddenly, suddenly they heard a nasty sound,
And Mustard growled, and they all looked around.
Meowch! cried Ink, and Ooh! cried Belinda,
For there was a pirate, climbing in the winda.

Pistol in his left hand, pistol in his right,
And he held in his teeth a cutlass bright,
His beard was black, one leg was wood;
It was clear that the pirate meant no good.

Belinda paled, and she cried Help! Help!
But Mustard fled with a terrified yelp,
Ink trickled down to the bottom of the household,
And little mouse Blink strategically mouseholed.

But up jumped Custard snorting like an engine,
Clashed his tail like irons in a dungeon,
With a clatter and a clank and a jangling squirm,
He went at the pirate like a robin at a worm.

The pirate gaped at Belinda's dragon,
And gulped some grog from his pocket flagon,
He fired two bullets, but they didn't hit,
And Custard gobbled him, every bit.

Belinda embraced him, Mustard licked him,
No one mourned for his pirate victim.
Ink and Blink in glee did gyrate
Around the dragon that ate the pirate.

But presently up spoke little dog Mustard,
I'd been twice as brave if I hadn't been flustered.
And up spoke Ink and up spoke Blink,
We'd have been three times as brave, we think,
And Custard said, I quite agree
That everybody is braver than me.

Belinda still lives in her little white house,
With her little black kitten and her little gray mouse,
And her little yellow dog and her little red wagon,
And her realio, trulio little pet dragon.

Belinda is as brave as a barrel full of bears,
And Ink and Blink chase lions down the stairs,
Mustard is as brave as a tiger in a rage,
But Custard keeps crying for a nice safe cage.

For pro-abortionists ---

The continuity argument has been used by many writers. Here is C. Everett Koop's version of the argument taken from his The Right to Live the Right to Die. He writes as follows:

My question to my pro-abortion friend who will not kill a newborn baby is this: "Would you kill this infant a minute before he was born, or a minute before that, or a minute before that, or a minute before that?" You see what I am getting at. At what minute can one consider life to be worthless and the next minute consider that same life to be precious? So much for logic.

Here is another version of the argument from an essay by Sidney Callahan.

As embryology and fetology advance, it becomes clear that human development is a continuum. Just as astronomers are studying the first three minutes in the genesis of the universe, so the first moments, days, and weeks at the beginning of human life are the subject of increasing scientific attention. While neonatology pushes the definition of viability ever earlier, ultrasound and fetology expand the concept of the patient in utero. Within such a continuous growth process, it is hard to defend logically any demarcation point after conception as the point at which an immature form of human life is so different from the day before or the day after, that it can be morally or legally discounted as a nonperson. . . .

The same legal tradition which in our society guarantees the right to control one's body firmly recognizes the wrongfulness of harming other bodies, however immature, dependent, different looking, or powerless....

No human can be treated as a means to an end without consent. The fetus is an immature, dependent form of human life which only needs time and protection to develop. Surely, immaturity and dependence are not crimes.

Reference: C. Everett The Right to Live the Right to Die, p. 27. See also the selection from Callahan in the Baird anthology p. 132-33. Callahan's article originally appeared in Commonweal in the April 25, 1986 issue.

http://ivory.lm.com/~jdehullu/abortion/absckoo1.htm

Anonymous:

JJ, i no longer want or desire to read your post, there is emptitness and revenge inserted in them

you are losing your touch~

August 14, 2008 8:39

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who is this Anonymous who has not even noticed JJ has not posted on this thread?

JJ, i no longer want or desire to read your post, there is emptitness and revenge inserted in them

you are losing your touch~

Abortion-on-demand is social engineering, NOT standard medical practice.

Susan Jacoby abortion on demand as per Roe vs Wade 1973 is NOT standard medical medical care. The law had to be introduced to protect abortionists precisely because abortion on demand is not standard medical care. Please read information provided on your previous thread, even if you may choose to remain in a state of denial about scientific facts regarding abortion on demand.

Hi, Mr Mark,

Yes, McCain has - well, he has PROSTITUTED himself.

Gone is the maverick of 2000, who defied his party and grandly slammed the religious right, before being backstabed by the Shrub and Rove. But now, whenever religious right or big business walks nearby, poor McCain stands up, drops trow, and bends over.

Even Nixon qualified as a Greek tragedy. McCain is simply a bad soap opera.

Dear Arminius -

McCain is worse than an idiot, he's a total sell-out. He's become his own nightmare - a politician who will do whatever he thinks is necessary to win (not that this will work in McCain's case).

I used to buy the hype about McCain being a maverick, but it's become clear in this campaign that his shooting-from-the-hip image had nothing to do with being a maverick and everything to do with being a lazy politician who couldn't be bothered with gaining a real working knowledge of an issue, preferring to toss out red meat to the contrarians among us. Yes, McCain never met an issue he couldn't deal with on a purely surface level.

It's clear at this point that as a politician, McCain is the embodiment of an empty suit. The all-too-familiar DC celebrity who's a celebrity simply because he's a celebrity. McCain's grasp of issues is, sadly, a mile wide and an inch deep. Always has been, always will be.

The ol' Straight Talk Express is headed straight for the junk yard. McCain would have been better off keeping his reputation wrapped in an aura of media Teflon, rather than exposing his bumbling disconnection from reality to the light of 24/7 examination.

A sorry end for the guy.

Jim Roberts Jr. wrote:

"Let's get a few things straight, little lady"

and I didn't even bother reading the rest of his post.

What an insufferable, patronizing, a-hole!

Freestinker:

Good reply to Brambleton. Shopping... just what the Shrub told us to do after 9/11. Fight? Sacrifice? Pitch in? Nah... go shopping. Ranks right up there with the most stupid political statement ever.

Conservation, yes! Carter was right on this, and no one listened. We could reduce our oil consumption by 10% overnight just by conserving... but does McSame listen? Hell, no! Drill here, drill now! Mind you, we will need all the oil we can get, because we can't solve the whole problem very soon. Drilling, if done safely, is not too bad. But the key thing to remember is this: it is NOT a silver bullet. The usual figure given, probably low, for offshore expansion production, eight to ten years from now, is 200,000 barrels a day. Oh, wow, be still my beating heart... 1% of our current consumption. One percent. Would reduce the cost of gas at the pump maybe 4 cents.... in 8 to 10 years... stunning, huh? McSame is an idiot.

Bambleton said:
"Your best "hope" is a candidate whose solution to oil consumption is to "properly inflate our tires and get regular tune-ups"??"

Thanks for using my quote completely out of context! I said Obama is our best hope for preserving church/state separation. Do you disagree?

But since you brought it up, conservation seems like a good place to start to me! Easy to do with immediate results.

What is your candidate's best advice for reducing gas consumption? Just go shopping?

Brambleton,
I don't know how much political mileage we'll get out of the inflate-the-tire issue, but I guarantee you that's precisely what I do (among other things) to attempt to get better gasoline mileage for my car. It's in the shop getting the 120,000 service, and to me the inflate-the-tires and tune-ups not only sound like good advice, it's common sense, and responsible ownership. A little conservation effort never hurt anyone, and we'd probably do well to heed that political (and mechanical) advice... whatever political spin we want to assign it.

Brambleton,

Mr Mark is right, your post was pretty lame. Even NASCAR came out and supported Obama on the tire gauge thing. Is that the best you have?

Dear Brambleton -

Your "properly inflate our tires and get regular tune-ups" mantra has been effectively countered by me and others in last week's threads.

C'mon, Brambleton! You can do better than this. You've offered good debating points in the past, but this one is on the Spidey-Limbaugh level on debate...which means its both a non-starter and patently inane.

Hoping to see you put your best foot forward, rather than tossing your smelly sock into the ring.

Susan,

The syntax of the second paragraph in my last email is a bit rugged. (Sorry.) Here is what I meant to ask:

There are states with conscience clauses that permit hospitals to refuse abortions "without penalty." Does this provision mean that such hospitals are eligible for local, state, and federal funding?

Freestinker,

Your best "hope" is a candidate whose solution to oil consumption is to "properly inflate our tires and get regular tune-ups"??

Beware the Warren Harding Effect.

Susan,

Thank you very much for your reply. I googled conscience clauses and found that they are state based. New York State doesn't appear to have one.
Also, the specific types of healthcare providers these clauses apply to is not uniform. In some states, they don't apply to pharmacists, for example.

Clearly, I need to do more research, but can you tell me, are hospitals in those states which have conscience clauses allowing hospitals to refuse to perform abortions, "without penalty," eligible for public funds? Is this what I can conclude?

In New York State, which doesn't seem to have such a clause, are such hospitals denied public funds--city, state, and federal?

Thanks again--

Farnaz

While I understand that agreeing to an appearance hosted by Americans United would be tantamount to political suicide,

...

it does remind me that I need to own up another $100 to pledge to that Americans United for Separation of Church and State organization, and I just did! (...and it felt great!) For anyone interested, here's the link:

http://www.au.org

Thank you Susan for the reminder that in this great country, we can put our money where our mouth is, and individually make things happen.

I've seen Mr. Roberts' cut-and-pasted comment on other boards, verbatim.

His tactic is to simply repeat a lie enough times with the hope that someone will believe it.

He's one of those hit-and-run Dominionist propagandists and won't be back to even read, much less answer any criticism of his post.

Isn't that right Jim?

That's what I thought. :)

Farnaz--

If you Google "conscience clauses," you will find a good deal of material on this subject. Federal law allows any hospital to receive funds without providing services that violate the religious beliefs of the sponsoring organization. This has caused a great many problems in recent years because of mergers between Catholic and nonsectarian hospitals. In many instances, if the Catholic institution was the takeover institution, there have been attempts to impose various policies (such as not offering the morning-after pill to rape victims) on the secular hospital. A good source of information on this whole subject is a group called Mergerwatch, which has a Web site.

States, which administer Medicaid, have a wide variety of policies on these issues. Some states require that hospitals receiving Medicaid perform abortions or, at the very least, provide referrals. Others don't. In the South, there have been numerous cases involving rape victims who weren't informed of the morning-after pill by the hospital emergency room to which they were taken.

Farnaz--

If you Google "conscience clauses," you will find a good deal of material on this subject. Federal law allows any hospital to receive funds without providing services that violate the religious beliefs of the sponsoring organization. This has caused a great many problems in recent years because of mergers between Catholic and nonsectarian hospitals. In many instances, if the Catholic institution was the takeover institution, there have been attempts to impose various policies (such as not offering the morning-after pill to rape victims) on the secular hospital. A good source of information on this whole subject is a group called Mergerwatch, which has a Web site.

States, which administer Medicaid, have a wide variety of policies on these issues. Some states require that hospitals receiving Medicaid perform abortions or, at the very least, provide referrals. Others don't. In the South, there have been numerous cases involving rape victims who weren't informed of the morning-after pill by the hospital emergency room to which they were taken.

JR Jr.:
"The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is no where in the Constitution."

Neither is the phrase "Christian Nation"

Other things that are not in the Constitution:
Jesus, God, Salvation, Son of god, Christian, Christ, Church, Sin, The ten commandments, the beatitudes, the sermon on the mount, bible (or any quotes from it).. . .etc.

Please, please.. go on flip ahead in the christian nation playbook, (your copy of David Barton) to bring up 'the year of our lord' and claim THAT means this is a christian nation... we're eagerly awaiting...

At least get a new opening line... as soon as we see "the phrase separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution" We already know exactly which books/websites you've read..

Susan,

The questions you raise are excellent. I find it increasingly ironic that as the nation becomes more and more frightened of Islamic states per se, it becomes more and more....how does one put it?
"Religious" won't do. Faith-based funding is a dimension of institutionalizing religion. So...in which direction are we moving?

Along these lines, I'm not certain that the third question you raise--on the differential effectiveness of faith-based and secular initiatives--is relevant. The answer may go to a goes a consequentialism, of which, I think, we should always be wary.

Speaking of institutionalizing, albeit "defacto," we can look at what amounts to our abandonment of compulsory education, our withdrawal of support for public schools. Vouchers, especially among the poor, are used for parochial schools, usually near the children's homes, definitely better, in most cases,than the public school alternative. Even with vouchers, few poor parents could afford secular private schools and the likelihood of such schools being close by is slim. (This is not to say that with vouchers, all poor families can afford parochial school tuition.) And the poor get...religion.

I wonder if you could clarify this for me:

You write: "For example, many religious hospitals receive public funds and refuse not only to perform abortions but to refer women who seek abortions or even contraceptives to another hospital."

I thought that such hospitals could not receive public funds. Are you referring to state and/or local funds? Federal funds? Is there a source you could provide.

Oh my God, here we go again on the 'Christian Nation' mythos.

This may shed some light on the myth, a treaty passed unanimously by the Senate and signed by President John Adams:

In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Dear Jim Roberts -

You are the one who is absolutely wrong about the Establishment Clause. While the phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution, the phrase does appear in case law decisions rendered by the SCOTUS, particularly Lemon v Kurtman (1971) and Everson v Board (1947). These decisions directly address and explicitly clarify the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and are fully operational in this country as examples of Constitutional law.

You make a mistake if you believe that case law does not apply in this instance, just as you would be wrong to apply such faulty reasoning to any other Constitutional issue.

For instance, the First Amendment only explicitly disallows any of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights from being abridged by Congress. Over time, however, the courts held that this extends to the executive and judicial branches. The Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First Amendment against the actions of the states.

So, go ahead and spout your so-called strict Constitutionalist BS, but don't start whinging when the Executive Branch starts abridging your rights because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say they can't (oh, wait, bush has already been doing that).

As far as the founders considering this a "Xian nation" - get yourself to a History 101 Class. Your local elementary school will probably have something available that will disabuse you of this particular bromide.

Dear God, please save us from your followers - amen.

JIM ROBERTS, JR.,

"Atheists and agnostics make up less than 1% of the U.S. population, it's no wonder that not even Osamabama would pander to them."

Boy, do I have news for you. According to the Pew Forum a whopping 16.1% of Americans are unaffiliated. Atheists account for 1.6%, Agnostics 2.4%, and those who consider themselves nothing in particular account for 12.1%.

That's about 50,000,000 people. Let's say only half of them are able to vote, that would still be about 25,000,000 votes. Definitely enough to swing the pendulum in a close election.

Yes, we can!!! (Thank the holy no-man god!)

Oh, boy. Let's get a few things straight, little lady. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is no where in the Constitution. The founding founders intended the establishment clause to protect religion from government, not the other way around. The founders considered this a Christian nation and the U.S. Constitution is unfit for any other type of people. Of course religious groups are better than secular (that is to say godless) groups. They've got the LORD on their side (the Christian and Jewish ones, anyway).

Atheists and agnostics make up less than 1% of the U.S. population, it's no wonder that not even Osamabama would pander to them.

Abortion is a sin and should be banned. It's never OK to take the life of a child who is too young to know right from wrong. Christians shouldn't have to do anything they find morally objectionable. That's what Freedom of Religion is all about.

The U.S. was once a great nation...too bad it's going down the drain from sin, godlessness, liberalism and its associated dogmas (environmentalism, multiculturalism, relativism, socialism, anti-gun hysteria, feminism, evolution, the gay agenda, etc.).

Susan,

The first "debate" being held at an evangelical mega-church, as disgusting as it is for all the reasons that you cite (and more), is absolutely great politics for Obama! At this point, it's a very practical move for him play this game. If he plays well and wins, we'll have a much better chance to turn the church/state tide for the long run. I have no doubt at all that once elected, Obama will honor church/state separation like no President has since JFK. We don't live in perfect world and Obama is our best hope so I say just hold your nose, plug your ears, and let him play to win.

Oops... that post about the Americans United for Separation of Church and State was from me. My bad, apologies offered. Thanks for the reply, Susan.

What are the flaws and errors in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism???

Anonymous is quite right. Americans United for Separation of Church and State is now a very different organization than it was before 1960. However, it was never a "hate" or an "anti-Catholic" organization. In its early days, the organization was indeed strongly opposed to the Catholic Church's blatant efforts to prevent the sale of contraceptives and to obtain taxpayer money for parochial schools. It is not "anti-Catholic" to oppose a church's attempts to impose its religious views on other Americans. Today, AU is equally opposed to attempts by the Protestant Christian Right to write its views into law.

Whether Rick Warren is or is not nonpartisan is beside the point. Saddleback Church is an evangelican Christian megachurch. Clerics should not be the moderators of our presidential debates.

I would ask this question: What burden of proof would you apply to a claim that a particular individual was the child of god? For example, would you be looking for (1) evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) clear and convincing evidence, or (3) a preponderance of the evidence.

As I understand it, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State were indeed very anti-Catholic in their early history. But in 1960, they started a dialog with John Kennedy, and his replies, and especially his speech on religion, turned them around, and they issued a statement saying that Kennedy had made the best statement on separation of church and state since Jefferson. I don't see that group as being anti-Catholic now. They do, however, go after the right-wingers, and more power to them for that.

Folks,
Susan Jacoby asks if McCain or Obama would have accepte an invitation from "Americans United for Separation of Church and State." I hope not.

That organization always has been a hate organization. It's the infamous "POAU" because it used to be called "Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State" back in the 1940s to 1960s. It was one of the most virulently anti-Catholic organizations around. Paul Blanshard, a real anti-Catholic hater, wrote under the POAU's aegis.

I am a passionate supporter of separation of church and state, and have no use whatsoever for the religious right such as Dobson, Robertson, etc.

However... from what I understand, Rick Warren is by no means typical. For one, he is scrupulously non-political. Two, he has irritated the hell out of the waning powers-that-be for his push to tackle AIDS, hunger, poverty world-wide. Three, he apparently has a moderate life style, no mansion, no expensive cars. And he definitely does not wear $800 suits!

In short, I don't think we have to worry too much.

No, I don't go to his church, I am Episcopal.

Spot-on assessment - this is a grim development for those that mourn the loss of the bright line between church and state.

All we can expect of this church-based forum is more church speak. My major reservation with Obama has always been with his early overt pandering to religion and religous groups - especially here in South Carolina where I live.

His future vulnerablility to religious interests and the religiously influential is open to question. This is most unfortunate from my point of view.

And pandering to the evangelicals is nothing new for McCain - so Rick Warren is a pretty good fit for the ever-equivicating hyperbolic 'super patriot' Teflon John - and so goes the myth of the 'maverick' that never was.