online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Atheists, boy Scouts, and the new commemorative coin
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Atheists, boy Scouts, and the new commemorative coin
Posted: 5/21/2008 5:03:25 PM
Well, the Boy Scouts is a part of the American heritage. While they wrongfully discriminate they have provided much good and benefit to society. The coin being minted is only worth the face value. It will be minted for a year, that will put a great number of them into circulation. Now if the BSA wants to by them up and then resell them as a mint coin, they can. Those purchasing the coins will basically just be making a donation. The value of the coin is likely to no more than it's face for generations.

The really sad thing is that the Scouts continue to be discriminatory in spite of having been shown the error they make. This has the effect on the general public of making discrimination an acceptible action. Sad!
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Does the Death Sentence Work?
Posted: 5/20/2008 9:46:44 PM
Apologist

I’m sorry, but it seems you've misunderstood my post. First of all I wasn’t responding to your post in any way. It was not my intention to dispute statistics, I was simply reporting some that I had researched.

Secondly, I think you stopped reading after you took offence or you would have seen how I viewed the little bit of pain those people had to endure - I am in favor of the death penalty, IF it’s carried out properly. But it is not, and housing many thousands of aging inmates at societies expense is not what I’d like to see happen. Instead I would hope that this country and OTHER COUNTRIES would learn from our mistakes and instead of concentrating of KILLING 1099 people every 30 years, that we should educate and rehabilitate the young offenders before they become ‘REPEAT’ offenders, and murderers.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
The psychology of dreams
Posted: 5/20/2008 6:10:15 PM
Psychology is a science and as such it 'really does' examine how the brain functions, why it functions as it does. More modern brain imaging techniques have led to a better understanding of what causes dreams.

Dreams are believed to be products of the lower brain stem. Neurotransmitters are inhibited which does not allow movement of the voluntary muscles. In other words, 'normally', while in the dream state your muscles will not react. At the same time the lower brain area is sending random signals to the cortex in which vision, hearing and other senses are interpreted.

In the waking state, the interpretations are from currently occuring perceptions. However, in sleep the cortex struggles to make sense out of the random signals because there is nothing to see, or hear, or smell or feel. So it takes parts of other random memories and puts them together in an attempt to explain (interpret) what it thinks it should be perceiving. In other words it synthesises a reality from subjective bits and pieces of memory.

Now there are other theories as to exactly how our brain determins what memory bits to process. A more current theory activation-infromation-mode model (AIM) is that people tend to use more current infromation from their recent daily life experiences and this is the time that the brain may also access suppressed information. Possibly bringing it to the forefront at a time when you are least likely to maintain it's suppression.

So that is usually why so many people believe dreams hold meaning. Because if you remember your dream and can be honest with yourself, you may be able to analyze stressors, or personality issues and make corrections.

Good luck? (oh, and by the way, it's also believed that some people have the ability to direct their dreams, I'm one of those people who believe that, because I've done it. Just as you have described. Those recurring dreams! Try controlling them, you will be amazed. ) If you can get it to work, you'll understand this whole dream thing much better.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Does the Death Sentence Work?
Posted: 5/20/2008 5:30:57 PM
I have always been in favor of the death penalty. When I began researching the issues the first things I came across were the ‘complaints’ of how painful the execution can be. In one case it took over 20 minutes and many attempts for the inexperienced person to insert the IV. I’ve had that problem, myself not fun but I've had much worse pain. My son was a preemie with double pneumonia. The screams from his tiny, fluid filled lungs rang through the halls as they attempted more that 7 times, and failed to find a vein for live-giving fluids and antibiotics. They would begin the process again in two hours. He survived, as did I. What’s 20 minutes of pin prick to a vicious killer?

Still, I read on and found more. If the injections are not given properly, in accordance to various medical factors, the injection can cause sever pain. It took me fifteen minutes to find how long the process is between first injection and death; seven or eight minutes. That’s it, all this for pin pricks and less than ten minutes of pain; compared to whatever reason they are receiving this punishment? I’ve known women who have suffered worse in child birth. I was so baffled I just had to read more.

Looking at the statistics confused me. Of the 7,115 convicted to death row since 1977, thirty years, only 1099 have been executed. There were 127, eventually found innocent, what happened to the rest? That’s where it got interesting. All it took was for one person to test the waters, set in motion a claim that his civil liberties, under the Eighth Amendment, were being abused. It doesn’t take long for those on death row and those who are against capital punishment to pick up the torch, spewing forth claims of civil rights abuse, and pass it on. Soon, it became a last ditch effort for a stay of execution. Some were allowed; some were not. Some were granted a Supreme Court hearing but were not given a stay of execution, how logical is that? They were executed before their case was pulled up to be heard. Where is the logic in this system I have always admired, I wondered?

In the mean time it comes to public attention that the procedure for the lethal injection was never validated or researched, and those who administer it, are not medical professionals. Further, there are horror stories of the errors and mishaps during the procedure. I wondered for a long time how the medical profession could be involved with capital punishment. Actually, they can’t, not if they don’t want to suffer legal repercussions.

So what we have now is a legal system that simply is not working. How much deterrent can the death penalty reflect if it can’t even be carried out? Making it far worse is the incredible expense to the public as legal issues continue to flood the appellate courts.
There are always those cases where an inmate sits on death row for many years sometime up to 15 and then finally being exonerated. My question would be: Why was he sitting on death row for that long? Why do we have hundreds on death row spanning up to 20 years? The expense of this, far exceeds the probable expenditure for a life sentence. Death row is a highly individualized maintenance program, totally unlike the more inexpensive programs of regular prison life.

While I would still agree to the death penalty, I have learned a great deal more about it, and I know now without some kind of national policy, regarding this punishment, including who warrants it, I would not vote in favor of it. Instead, consider these two things. We can either keep people in prison for certain offenses until they die, in which case the public will be responsible for supporting an aging prison population, including all the medical costs associated with “MAINTAINING” geriatric health. Things like long term Alzheimers care, heart transplants, cancer treatments, and any number of catastrophic illness. Or we can keep releasing these prisoners, allowing them to do more harm and they become repeat offenders, but at least while they are on the streets they take care of themselves (we must wonder about at what cost to innocent people). We should also consider who is being incarcerated and first time offender ages. Males between the ages of 20 and 29.

I would rather see the largest portion of funds being expended to educate and rehabilitate those who still have a chance of becoming productive members of society, upon their release. Keep only the most dangerous, those who most likely can not be rehabilitated and educate the rest. It has to be cheaper than spending billions to keep an aging prison population “alive”.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Does the Death Sentence Work?
Posted: 5/20/2008 5:25:51 PM
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since the beginning of 1977 to the
end of 1007, there have been 1099 executions in this country. The number of death
row inmates has continued to rise from 423 in 1977 to approximately 3,350 in 2007. The number of those actually convicted to death row since 1977 until 2006 is 7,115. Of those convicted over half were between the ages of 20 to 29. Since 1973 there have been 127 inmates exonerated with proof of their innocence, most of these are consistent with updates in medical and scientific technology. The average time an inmate spends on death row continues to escalate, with the time spent spanning up to 20 years, and rising. (deathpenaltyinfo.org)

Everything about these statistics is unsettling but they are doomed to worsen. Prisoners are still entitled to certain civil liberties and a great many of them have and will file law suits claiming their Eighth Amendment rights are being ignored. This amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment” from being exacted on an individual. The use of lethal injection, once thought to be painless, is now under scrutiny and has become the focus of the Eighth Amendment debate. A review of the most up to date details, from the Death Penalty Information Center and its links, indicate that the issue of pain may be alleviated if proper medical provisions were requirements within each state statute. This cannot be accomplished without Supreme Court involvement. There are certain legal and ethical restrictions placed on the medical field which prevent open and honest involvement between them and the states regarding oversight and administering lethal injections.

The death penalty is determined by state statute. Each state that incorporates a death penalty must take responsibility for the provisions that would uphold the Constitutional rights of inmates in accordance with the Eighth Amendment. No state can make the medical field yield to this need, only the Supreme Court can intercede. Each state that continues to incorporate capital punishment will only leave the door open for more law suits, appeals, and a system of massive inequality in the treatment of prisoners. This inequality only heightens the involvement of empathetic individuals and advocacy groups, and further exacerbates an already overloaded appellate court system, placing the burden of these great expenses on the public.

In the last twenty years, 1099 executions have been carried out. The ripple effect of those executions has cost this country a great deal more than it would have, if we had only maintained those prisoners for their lifetime. A sentence of life in prison, without parole, for the most dangerous and least likely to be rehabilitated is simply the most efficient choice at this time. But we must be vigilant in early rehabilitation as well.

Referenced
Death Penalty Information Center, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org , accessed 2/11/08
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 121 (view)
 
Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 8:02:49 PM
Warmth

The US Constitution does not give the Courts any authority to create law. That right is reserved for the Congress with the approval of the President or congressional override of the President. The courts only have the right to interpret the law and strike down anything that is found to be unconstitutional.


If my original message was unclear, I apologize, and I agree with one adjustment, “the courts” being boiled down to ONLY the U.S. Supreme Court. State Supreme courts only have jurisdiction to interpret State Constitutions, that is why, in California, the peoples vote was struck down, because it went against the Constitution of that state.


The US Constitution does not have authority over marriage laws because that exclusive right was given to the States so that is probably why the Federal courts have kept their hands off of it.


You are incorrect, there was NO definition of marriage in within the Constitution and the Supreme court set presidence and forever, took away the right of states to define marriage, in 1967 "Loving v Virginia". Several states TRIED to make laws prohibiting interracial marriage, Virginia was sued and the Supreme court disallowed the states privilege to set laws that would discriminate, in marriage, over the constitution. SO, until the enactment of DOMA which is believed to be an unconstitutional ACT Marriage includes in our Federal code the laws to which GLBT are trying to gain benefit of. Below is just a portion of those laws.

On January 31,1997 the United State General Accounting Office fulfilled a request by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives. Here is an excerpt of the 58 page document that was supplied. (Office, 1997)
To find laws that meet these criteria, we conducted searches for various words or
Word stems ("marr," "spouse," "widow," etc.), chosen to elicit marital status, in several electronic databases that contain the text of federal laws. From the collection of laws in the United States Code that we found through those searches, we eliminated
(1) laws that included one or more of our search terms but that were not relevant to your request2 and
(2) as agreed with your staff, any laws enacted after the Defense of Marriage Act. The result is a 1Public Law 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. 2For example, our search for the word stem "marr," designed to capture words such as "marriage" and "marry," also produced references to laws mentioning bone marrow transplants, the city of Marrakesh, and proper names containing the letters "marr." GAO/OGC-97-16 Defense of Marriage Act collection of 1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor.
This collection of laws is as complete and representative as can be produced by a global electronic search of the kind we conducted, but such a search has several limitations. Most significantly, it cannot capture every individual law in the United States Code in which marital status figures. However, we believe that the probability is high that it has identified those programs in the Code in which marital status is a factor.
The letter goes on to provide an accounting of the laws that discriminate against the GLBT community. Keep in mind that the list is topic relevant, meaning, there are many relevant laws that link directly to these topics. Remember, also, these are laws whose benefit is determined through marital status. Marriage union contracts that GLBT are excluded from
• CATEGORY 1–SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS
• CATEGORY 2–VETERANS' BENEFITS
• CATEGORY 3–TAXATION
• CATEGORY 4–FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY SERVICE BENEFITS
• CATEGORY 5–EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND RELATED LAWS
• CATEGORY 6–IMMIGRATION, NATURALIZATION, AND ALIENS
• CATEGORY 8–TRADE, COMMERCE, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
• CATEGORY 7–INDIANS
• CATEGORY 8–TRADE, COMMERCE, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
• CATEGORY 8–FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
• CATEGORY 10–CRIMES AND FAMILY VIOLENCE
• CATEGORY 11–LOANS, GUARANTEES, AND PAYMENTS IN AGRICULTURE
That’s just a very small fraction of law headings that, through exclusion of GLBT, have allowed the injustice of discrimination to prevail. In this country the majority of these laws are a direct extension of the word marriage and they ARE LAWS in the Federal Code.

It has been repeated many times over that the laws (the Constitution) of this country were based on Christian morals. I asked; if that is so, why is the sin of homosexuality (only mentioned 6 times in the entire Bible) any more serious than divorce or premarital sex and of course there is always that horror; marrying outside ones’ race (religion) I did embellish this but it holds the same value.
You responded:


1) Divorce is allowed according to the Bible.
2) Premarital sex is punished but at a higher level than the federal government.
3) How God sees sin is quite different than how man sees sin. You are correct that God sees all sin as equally wrong. It may be hard to believe but even Christians see saying “damn it” as less wrong than murdering someone.



I have no idea what you are trying to say, because you have not addressed the question. If these sins are all equal, then why is only Homosexuality punished by the law? (or the lack of protection and benefit of the law) that is the question, would you like to try again?

Scorpio

ALL of these issues should be clarified, and none of them have to have anything to do with marriage. So why not just make a legal definition of a partner, that has nothing to do with marriage, in the first place, and why not make it very clear what is the law applying to partners?


It has always been my opinion that the word marriage is the issue because it supports an age old “religious” tradition. But an attempt to add the words “CIVIL UNION” to all places in the Federal Code that recognize marriage, brought out the bigoted Christian Right Wing and DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was the answer. This past session in the states review there were actually those legislators who commented that they feared that Homosexuals would want more than just a civil union, that they would also want all the “BENEFITS” of an actual marriage. These words from state legislators????


Montanan

GLBT want there to be a definition of what marriage is. If they are able to get the states to get together (or one at a time) to ratify what is marriage so all states can go by an agreed upon law of marriage and what it encompassess, they will also have to define what is not held as marriage


You’re a bit off base here. A recent research study showed that 75% of college students in two year colleges and 50% of students graduating from a 4 year college can not read a newspaper editorial and effectively summarize it. So regardless of your education I will not write an editorial, just short and sweet.

GLBT never wanted to change the definition of marriage. Marriage had never been defined, until 1996 and the DOMA ACT which has never been reviewed for Constitutionality by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was the DOMA ACT that defined marriage and in so doing created a Federally acceptable discriminatory action against a minority; the GLBT.

That action has been viewed by the States as appropriate and so they also believe that such discrimination has the blessing of the highest authority in this country. Therefore, many states have already included in their constitutions, the definition as written under DOMA. This is clearly NOT what our founders had in mind, when they expected every citizen to be embraced by the full protections and benefits of our laws.

Insolent

And if they conclude that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Is that the end of it? I think not..what you are really trying to say is that the Federal Supreme Court should see things as you see them...


If you’ve been paying attention you would see that it would be unconscionable for the Supreme Court to rule “out of favor” with the GLBT issues. To be honest, I would rather take the chances with the Supreme Court than with each state. The States take their cues from the Federal government. If the Federal Government can be so moved by the religious right, then the States don't want to push it either. Also, if the states reinforce the approval of discrimination, then you can be sure that the trickle down theory will soon see the same kind of discriminations that the Civil Rights Act was meant to STOP.

There is far more bigotry and prejudice at the state level than at the elitist level of the Judiciary Supreme Court. I'd be happy to take my chances.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 114 (view)
 
Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 9:12:18 AM
The last post was quite long and I didn't was this message to get lost in the lenght.


you see, marriage was never defined in the Constitution, it is not defined even now, not until the Federal Supreme Court makes that determination.

FINALLY for those who think that Civil Unions at the state level is enough, consider that in the Federal Code (federal law) it has been proven by a government agency that over 1045 laws linked to the contract of marriage are denied to citizens because they cannot marry. GLBT are not asking for SPECIAL priveleges or considerations, they are simply fighting a system of injustices.

Furthermore, as long as we are looking at WHAT EFFECTS such a change in the word marriage could make, let us consider the following. What is family? What makes up a family in terms of government legal contractual agreements? Who is a head of household? Who is entitled to death benefits, to medical decision making, to military benefits, Social Security, inheritance.

Should a 25 year old homosexual be allowed to adopt their underage siblings if they are orphaned? What about special needs children, even family members? Are homosexuals barred from their own family, simply because the law discriminates – BECAUSE IT DOES.

Those who see only evil and depraved things from a law that would serve to equate millions of citizens under our laws, have an immoral agenda. They can not see beyond the limited scope of the comfort they hide behind, the comfort of the "priviledged" who have the benefit of all that law has to offer.

One last comment, for those who believe (fallaciously) that this country included the Christian morals in its laws, then I would ask, why is divorce allowed? Why is premarital sex not punshed? Why is any one sin considered any greater than any other in this country? Your logic will not help you in these questions. Because the truth is that Marriage was a convenient and readily available way to determine what a family is, what the family order is, who is the head, who inherits. THAT MY FRIENDS, is the one and only reason the word, the tradition was even considered in our legal system at all.

It's time for a change, its time to make the Federal Supreme Court preform its one and only function; to clairfy the Constitution in this matter.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 113 (view)
 
Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 9:08:54 AM
Ok, I’m going to work backwards here, starting with:
Scorpiomover

I have read your entire post. You took a turn toward the illogical a bit early. It seems you forgot to consider how our government functions and what the functions of the three branches of government are, legislative, executive and judicial. Each branch having their own powers, each setting checks and balances over the others. In this country the legislative (congress) creates the laws, however, it is the judicial branch that interprets those laws.

Yes courts do use president and yes that president often becomes part of the ‘interpretation’ of previous laws, but they are also addendums, or supplemental additions to laws. There is one branch in the judicial system, The Federal Supreme Court, that has one purpose only. That purpose is to review cases where claims have been voiced about the Constitutionality of previous laws as well as precadent set in lower courts. Perhaps you’re essay would have been more purposeful if you had considered HOW these cases get to the Supreme Court in the first place. Therein, lies the conundrum to the same-sex marriage issue.

You see, the Supreme Court CHOOSES which cases it wants to review. Obviously it does not want to review this case, most likely due to the volatile religious nature not to mention there is the question of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

In 1996 President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This was done as a direct result of Christian conflict over the rights that GLBT were demanding; the right to benefit from all the laws woven into the fabric of the Constitution, into our federal code, under the word marriage. At that time the states were beginning to yield to visible discrimination of the GLBT community. Since so many laws pertaining to family and personal rights are tied to the act of marriage and since the Federal Government refused to raise the issue of same sex marriage to the highest level; the United States Constitution, the states are forced into taking action to legalize same-sex marriage.

Article V section 1 of the Constitution says that, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State."” This means that the decisions made through a states’ judicial proceedings as well as acts, recorded in accordance with state law, should all be recognized by every other state. DOMA was a quick response to the possibility that states would legalize same-sex marriage. If that happened every state would be forced to recognise the legality of the civil union. It seems that DOMA was meant to override the Full Faith and Credit Clause, specifically and, only, with regards to same-sex marriage. In other words, if a state legalized same-sex marriage, other states could ignore the marriage and all legalities stemming the act.

I think it obvious that the Constitutionality of this act are of questionable origin and blatantly call attention to its biased perspective. By 2000 it was clear this issue was still on the burner and presidential candidate Bush waved the issue into the realm of state law. By 2004 the same sex marriage line was being pushed by many more states and it became part of the platform that candidate Bush would adopt. From this platform he assured the Christian factions that same sex marriage would not prevail and traditional marriage (religiously speaking) would rule the law. President Bush continues to back DOMA without addressing the country-wide discrimination that exists at the Federal level for the GLBT community. In 2006 President Bush being urged on by the Christian coalition backed the legislation that would ban same sex marriage under federal law.

While Federal law fails to protect all citizens equally, Constitutional law is being remanded into the mouths of the people, via referendum, instead of residing in the U.S. Supreme Court where it belongs. The Court seems woefully avoidant of taking on the issue of Constitutionality of DOMA or of a word that includes over a thousand tangible laws, the benefits of which GLBT are excluded from.

Today and everyday, since 1996, there are constant updates, changes and more legal issues being divulged with regards to same sex marriage. Tens of millions of dollars are spend in legal action each year. Since the states can not effectively proceed against federal law and DOMA says that marriage can only be between one woman and one man, many states have also adopted similar wording for their own constitutions, aligning their Constitutions with the outright discriminatory wording of DOMA, that has never, yet, been considered by the Supreme Court of the land.

So you see, marriage was never defined in the Constitution, it is not defined even now, not until the Federal Supreme Court makes that determination.

FINALLY for those who think that Civil Unions at the state level is enough, consider that in the Federal Code (federal law) it has been proven by a government agency that over 1045 laws linked to the contract of marriage are denied to citizens because they cannot marry. GLBT are not asking for SPECIAL priveleges or considerations, they are simply fighting a system of injustices.

Furthermore, as long as we are looking at WHAT EFFECTS such a change in the word marriage could make, let us consider the following. What is family? What makes up a family in terms of government legal contractual agreements? Who is a head of household? Who is entitled to death benefits, to medical decision making, to military benefits, Social Security, inheritance.

Should a 25 year old homosexual be allowed to adopt their underage siblings if they are orphaned? What about special needs children, even family members? Are homosexuals barred from their own family, simply because the law discriminates – BECAUSE IT DOES.

Those who see only evil and depraved things from a law that would serve to equate millions of citizens under our laws, have an immoral agenda. They can not see beyond the limited scope of the comfort they hide behind, the comfort of the "priviledged" who have the benefit of all that law has to offer.

One last comment, for those who believe (fallaciously) that this country included the Christian morals in its laws, then I would ask, why is divorce allowed? Why is premarital sex not punshed? Why is any one sin considered any greater than any other in this country? Your logic will not help you in these questions. Because the truth is that Marriage was a convenient and readily available way to determine what a family is, what the family order is, who is the head, who inherits. THAT MY FRIENDS, is the one and only reason the word, the tradition was even considered in our legal system at all.

It's time for a change, its time to make the Federal Supreme Court preform its one and only function; to clairfy the Constitution in this matter.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 83 (view)
 
Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 5:44:53 PM
lostincali, does your theory hold true for the Asian countries as well? I don't recall them having medicine men and women or Shamans?

Also, arranged marriages may have nothing to do with religion, but they do have everything to do with a "contract". In this country, prohibiting any sane and otherwise cabable adult, from enterign into a contract is illegal and to prohibit it bases on selection criteron is discrimination.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 82 (view)
 
Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 5:35:09 PM

At one time homosexuality was equated with beastiality. That is a fact. But that fact is changed. A good lawyer in a court of law, using the non-moral principles that are used more and more to show what are rights to be had and enjoyed could get laws against beastiality changed.


Fist you suggest that homosexuality was equated with beastiality. Explain that, I have never seen such an equation? Secondly, you propose that lawyers use “non-moral” principles. Please present an example of a non-moral principle that a lawyer would follow according to you?


But that has not happened because a majority of people think it is evil, wrong, perverse and down right mentally ill to even think of having sex with an animal. When that thinking strays from such a negative tone, beastiality laws shall change.


Yes I may think that ‘beastiality’ is an illness but no amount of legal argument is going to change the fact that the laws require sexual acts can only place between “consenting” adults. The word CONSENTING is the focal point in that conversation.


That was my point. Don't read more into it then I stated.


As someone stated earlier in this thread, you ride the faulty argument of the slipper slope. You do so blatantly, and that can only be due to ignorance or a predetermined homophobic bias.

In the words of Mr.MXYZ

If you can even hint that legalized gay marriage in any way implies a potential tolerance for bestiality, or that it is even appropriate to bring bestiality into this debate, the only failure of understanding is yours - and it's a failure that goes far beyond understanding the legal issue.

The topic here is gay marriage, NOT bestiality. Homosexuality and bestiality are not related in any way. No matter what may have been thought in the distant past, to introduce bestiality into this debate today is disgusting beyond words.

The same, of course, must be said for other posts involving pedophilia.


Very well said, but unfortunately it won’t get past the gate keeper of the mind it was meant to touch.

Cheers to all! And good points Icy43
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 63 (view)
 
Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 9:57:49 PM

"Practicing bestiality is a manifestation of a mental illness, possibly severe -- similar to other severe paraphilias, eg, coprophilia/coprophagia, necrophilia, etc (all of which, including true bestiality/zoophilia, are quite rare in any case)."
I just Googled the word animal sex and this was the result..."Results 1 - 10 of about 22,800,000 for animal sex." I also Googled beastiality and this was the result..."Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680,000 for beastality." A lot of "mentally ill" out there eh? One day, maybe not in our time, they to will be seen as "normal."


Results 1 - 10 of about 22,300,000 for slavery
Does this mean the majority of people believe in slavery? You’re kidding, right?

Because the “Google” comment is beyond sad, I can only imagine that all your logical faculties are running based on the same faulty connections. Mostly ignorance based.

There are legal consequences that exist in tangent with the word marriage. These legalities would prohibit a marriage contract between more than two people, therefore, your argument has no basis in reality or in conjunction with the logic that exists in the laws of this land.

You also seem to be confusing a tradition with how and when humans should and can have sexual relations. That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of which two people can be given all the protections and benefits that the law allows, simply by granting the observance of a “marriage contract”. You see, that is ALL that marriage is meant to be in the eyes of the law; a contract. The problem is not tradition, if the tradition is tied in any way to religion, because religion has no place being instituted within the law. The problem is not the inability of two people to enter into a binding contractual agreement. The problem is not that permitting the extension of these contractual benefits hurts society in any way. In fact the only problem is the problem I see in the arguments you give. Those arguments include a severe ignorance of how things work, as well as, a severe lack of motivation to listen to the opposition and research the new information provided. I suspect this is NOT a matter of tradition, but rather a matter of a lazy mind, all too willing to allow the tradition of bigotry and prejudice to be handed to another generation.

Yours, is a path of traditional legacy, but it is not the one most would desire to leave behind, anymore than we would want to reinstate slavery or segregation.

Knowledge is within our grasp but having it doesn't guarantee that is will override a deeply ingrained sense of bigotry.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 35 (view)
 
today in california
Posted: 5/17/2008 3:25:57 PM

I've always believed that individual states should decide on the matter of same sex marriages.. my state voted "no". Marriage is just a legal document anyway..it's becoming more of a partnership..


Just an utterance of disagreement with the above statement. There isn’t anything further from the truth. Marriage; the word, conjures up that once religious ceremony that led to a tradition that followed for thousands of years. At the time this country and its laws were being established, “marriage” just happened to work as a very convenient contractual form for determining a man’s property, ownership rights and the legal distribution upon death of a mans assets. The only inclusion of women in these “legal” contracts (regarding marriage) was their mingling of bloodlines with the male. As the years went by and women became independent, a great many laws evolved, new ones came into being and with each new finger, that the federal government extended into our daily lives, more laws were required and were easily attached to laws, that existed, based on the contract of marriage.
On January 31, 1997 the United State General Accounting Office fulfilled a request by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives. A 58 page document ensued estimating a “collection of 1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor.” (Office, 1997)
There has been more discrimination discovered since that time, some estimate as high as 1400 laws in which GLBT are not allowed protection and benefit of, simply because they are denied to enter into a contract that the government "borrowed" from a religious tradition. WHY?
Because the creators of this country’s’ laws used a religious tradition wrapped up in a word by which to define a contract of property ownership and disbursment of MEN. The last great upheaval correcting similar discriminations within the law took place 100 years AFTER Lincoln ‘verbally’ freed black slaves. It took a Constitutional amendment called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to give black Americans, women and other racial minorities, the rights they had been denied “by law”. Black Americans, especially, were not always allowed all the benefits and protection of marriage either, as many “STATES” prohibited the “marriage” of a racially mixed couple, based on the religious interpretations of marriage at that time. It took the Federal government, the Supreme Court of this land, to stop that discriminatory action by making Federal Law binding. No state can override Federal law, they can, however, request the Supreme Court of this land to review and make amends for actions the state deems discriminatory.
Now, today, we have a President who puts the same religious slant into the law, only this time the bias is against GLBT. We have a Supreme Court that ignores the issue and rather than risk taking a stand against religion, in our laws, it has determined that such things need to be addressed at the STATE level.
The vote to ban same sex marriage in California was considered by some to be illegal as the California STATE constitution was never amended and did not include words that would deny same sex couples the right to marry.
NOW, what will happen, and what has already happened in many states, is that the religious right wing will attempt to raise some 10 million dollars to address this issue within the California Constitution at the next session. At the same time the GLBT, and all those supporting equality, will attempt to raise an adequate amount of money to fight the religious right.
In many states ALREADY, there have been constitutional amendments defining marriage, similarly to the Federal code (a contract between one man and one woman).
The States in this instance have taken a cue from Federal documentation and just as the Federal code allows discrimination to exist within Federal law, so the States have determined that discrimination is justified at the state level.
What happens from there is that prejudice, hate and bigotry are allowed to flourish at city, local and township levels and in business, in schools between neighbors……..

When will it stop and how much will it cost this country!

Office, U. S. (1997, January 31). archive. Retrieved 5/17/2008, from www.gao.gov: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Singles Party~Apr 4th~6pm~Britton Tavern~Fishers
Posted: 3/31/2008 8:51:36 AM
About time I get out of this cave for a while. I don't post much here so I don't know any of you. I'll be hangin out by the pool tables, come on over and let's meet.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Philosophy Needed?
Posted: 3/17/2008 8:17:40 PM
Philosophy WAS the original science and philosophers were the scientists.

All science begins when a perception presents a question, which then becomes a hypothosis. In anchient times it was the philosopehrs who 'wondered' about life, things like reflection and light, but there were no scientists to provide any answers, so it was up to the philosophers to create their own tests and record their theories. It was philosophy about how the mind works that created a whole new field of science.

Today, it is philosophy that continues to provoke questions in the minds of scientists. One becomes a philosopher any time they question why, where, when, how. Fortunately we have very specialized poeple in the fields of scientific and technelogical study. It is the questions they consider that lead them to make discoveries, they are the philosophers of their field.

Don't discount those who wonder and theorize about the behavior of man, or animal, or about the use of language and how it affects our thoughts, they are providing the questions of tomorrow.

You, have posed a question, that is what a philosopher begins with, will you be one of those you discredit, or will you think and research and become the scientist who will find an answer? One path takes work and effort and may offer only knowledge as a reward, the other path requires nothing of you, and the reward is to remain the same, still questioning?
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 1 (view)
 
So much for ETHICAL Politicians
Posted: 3/12/2008 8:53:58 PM
http://www.victoryfund.org/files/listening.html

Sally Kern – Oklahoma Representative
What are your thoughts about any political figure who speaks in public as Kern has in the above?

Would you TRUST such a Representative?

Do you believe all our ‘political’ Representatives have a responsibility to all the people for the “content” of their public speeches? Do you think if a Representative relates any ‘statistics’ or, supposed research studies that there should be support for those research & statistic results in the form of a verbal citation?

How many people do you think would believe a Representative, just on “their” word?

Do YOU believe Representative Sally Kerns’ ‘opinions’ in this speech are valid?
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Time to Make A Distinction Between Salafis And Kharjities
Posted: 1/1/2008 9:17:53 AM

And there is no excuse for taking the life of an innocent person. No exception, No excuses.


As long as there are factions in any socieity, that are willing to commit mass murders, no matter what the reason - there is an excuse to take a life.

It's called defensive action.

This course of action will lead to the loss of innocent lifes, it is the cost that all humanity pays for the heartless, illogical actions of those of who 'believe' they have the right to take lives in support of an ideology; 'belief'.

The belief does not matter, what matters is what side of the line you are on, when the battle commences. In other words, it is action that gives your words creedence. Which side of the line will you be on when the weapon is placed in your hand, which direction will you aim?

Personally, I do not defend any religious belief system, I will not fire into a crowd, especially when the groups in contention are fighting over the interpretation of morals based on a religious value. I will not fight, unless it is in defense of my loved ones and my life.

When two factions of a single religious belief system are at odds, it is the believers who should be doing battle. When one of those factions attacks 'innocent' others, in the name of "your mutual" religious label, then there will be retribution in the name of 'defensive action'. It would be best for those who do not back the actions of the attackers, to take up arms in alliance with those 'defending' their lives and 'way of life'.

No words you say, will stop innocent lifes from being lost. No words will change how the label you identify with is viewed, when threatening, aggressive, and murderous actions are being justified in the name of that label.

It is only the actions, which side of the line you are on, and in which direction you point your weapon, that will identify your intentions in the heat of the battle.

In some cases words can be weapons, when they are used as a battle cry, to defend one's honorable stance, against aggressive action. In this way, you would then be 'defending' the honor of your beliefs, of which your words speak. Words in support of the defensive action, can be your weapon. But do not seek to defend the 'label' that is seen at the aggresser.

Otherwise, it is simply your belief. How it is percieved by others is the price you pay for maintaining that belief. Either defend it against those who do it injustice, or suffer the consequences. That is simply the way of things.

I am sorry that people of honorable intentions must suffer in such circumstances. But no matter what conscience guides the morals or ethics of an individual, they are subject to dispute and sometimes, attack. It is only action, or lack action, that prove how strongly and how firmly one is entrenched in that conscience, to others.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 484 (view)
 
Is there Proof for evolution being true? [Read OP - Stick to the topic]
Posted: 12/28/2007 11:01:09 AM
Ravenstar is correct, but what fails in this discussion is the ability of those opposed to evolution to provide a curriculem that could be adequatly used in a school environment to support 'intelligent design'.

So instead of this continuing to disprove evolution, why not argure using science, how we would teach and why we would teach intelligent design?

Don't forget in such an argument, you must also find a way to allow for evolution to continue to be taught, without discourse to the intelligent design theory. In other words how would both sciences be taught without conflict to each other, and without any bias extended to any particuar idea of a deity or deities?

This should be the real arugument, not whether science is worthy of being taught in our schools. Science, even intelligent design science must follow the same logical progression in order to be worthy of being called knowledge.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Wow.. just wow... westboro does it again.
Posted: 12/28/2007 10:49:38 AM
Just a thought, but what if all this man really hates is Christianity? What if he uses this public platform and his family and friends to justify his hate.

What if all he is trying to do is force others to hate Christians and Christianity, by pushing the most hateful and judgemental of all Christian doctrine into view of all of society?

No one here can argue that there are many who view such hate filled demonstrations, (in the name of Christianity), and walk away with the idea that such views encompass all Christian doctrine?

Then of course in almost all such threads, there is always at least one, who say something like "but they are right, they are only preaching what the bible says"?

Then, as someone else had mentioned, there are many protestants who do not even consider the Catholics to be Christian. And there are a great many Christians who are very offended by being included under certain Christian doctrines.

So we have a group of people who seem very proud to claim that their religion is the major religion of the world and because it has stood for over 2000 years, it must have merit.

But viewing Christians as a mass from outerspace, is not at all conclusive of the picture we see up close.

We can not ever presume that all of one sect believes the same thing. For there are many Baptists, but they are certainly not a single unit, just as there are divisions of many other sects.

So, Like Sassy says, why does this offend and surprise so many? Personally I find all such behavior offensive. I am an atheist, that is true. But my childhood years were spent behind the walls of a Christian religion and my adult years have included much reasearch and study to gain a perspective.

The perspective I have found is that there is one Christian doctrine that speaks of love, concern and consideration for all that is inclusive of this world. What I have never been able to bring into focus is how judgment, bias and disregard for others and nature can be alligned with the first philosophy?

So deny other Christians all you want, as long as the umberella exists, from outerspace they will all be seen as one? Perhaps, it's time to change the labels one uses, as a cover all, to define their beliefs?
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 481 (view)
 
Is there Proof for evolution being true? [Read OP - Stick to the topic]
Posted: 12/28/2007 10:16:46 AM
There are really only a couple things in question within this thread.
These questions all seem to be with regards to animation. What started it all, how did the universe becomes animated, get set in motion? What elements had to be introduced, and where did they come from? Exactly, what was required for all the ‘right’ elements to come together, within the animation process to form the kinds of ‘living’ three dimensional forms that exist?

In response to these questions there is the theory that only intelligent design could have had the ability, foresight, and power to create, oversee, and continue to be an inspirational and creative force. This theory is a belief only, at this time. There is no way to disprove or prove the validity of such beliefs.

However, we can discuss what considerations we might extend to the theory of intelligent design. But first are we really discussing ‘intelligent’ design? The very idea would, logically, lead to an entity, or to a collective intelligence, that may or may not consist of individual characteristics or tendencies.

Either way, if intelligent design is the creative force than we must conclude that such intelligence, is still equated to ‘entity or entities’ that are, in some way, limited or confined by whatever forces contain it or that it is contained in. In other words, we could not assign to such a being or beings the capability of ‘creating’ simply by the process of thought alone. Unless, of course, all we are and all we precieve and all we think are merely illusion. But that idea was dispelled by philosophy.

Is there any here who would deny that there is movement and motion within and throughout the universe that we know? Is there any here who would deny that we and all we know are given validity through our senses and that this validity is inherent of the mass and form and are affected and driven by this motion?

These things alone must mean that IF intelligent design is the motivator than that intelligence could not have created the raw materials through thought alone. But because those who believe in a deity as the ‘intelligence” behind the design theory, then magic is attributed to that deity.

How can we prove or disprove magic? There is no science that relates to the physical world and the properties that are inherent in the environment of the physical that can begin to delve into a logical, quantifiable study, if the object of study is magic.

Therefore, those who seek to “teach” intelligent design in schools must be willing to dismiss their belief, when that belief lies in a deity whose power is to create and control by thought and magic alone. Of course if those who believe in a deity as a creative/intelligent designer relinquish such beliefs in lieu of teaching a theory of intelligent design, then what exactly would be taught? Simply put, we do not have the answers, scientifically, to disprove that our very being was not “originated” through a series of intelligent interventions. DONE: end of lesson.

Now, what we do have to teach is what we have discovered. It seems that most within this post, agree that evolution does exist. We know that a virus can mutate, we know that humans can form natural immunities; we know this happens through evolution. We also know that there are multitudes of extinct species and many links that would indicate that change has occurred leading to continuation of life through change, and not through continued and immediate changes from the intelligent designer/s. AGAIN we are, as logical beings, making assumptions to think this way, but not without sufficient evidence to keep this train of logic in the face of unknowns.

If we truly believed that our existence was only quantified by the allowance of some all powerful intelligent designers, than why would we ever consider medicine? What good is there in any science when we are totally and ‘absolutely’ at the mercy, as individuals and as a species, to the whim of an all controlling, other intelligence?

So science carries on with quantifiable knowns and theories, based on our questions of the unknown and often using assumptions that have been proven, through uncounted experiments, to be accepted facts.

So this is what we teach, this is how we get the answers to continue to grow, to be healthy, to assure the continuance of our species. If we believed only in magic, we would surely succumb to sickness, starvation and the elements, soon enough , to put an end to any questions we might have.

These things I present can not be denied, not in a world where all ,but a handful of the most extremely ardent magical deity believers, partake of all the useful health equivalents that science has put at our disposal. Look in your medicine cabinet, why is health care so vigorously sought at the federal level, who would not take an ailing family member to the emergency room?

Believe in whatever you will, but teach our children that which has the greatest capability of advancing and maintaining the continuance of the species. Such teaching can not be without ethics, it can not be without conscience but it can not include magic.

So I contend that all this arguing can only be to support a belief system. Or the arguments would contain the “science” behind HOW and WHAT to teach that would add to the progression and the answers to support “with scientific knowns” a course of study with regards to ‘intelligent design”. In the end this is just another battle of deity belief systems versus the science that conflicts with those beliefs.

In essence a loosing battle!
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 57 (view)
 
Synchronicity
Posted: 12/16/2007 11:46:33 AM

Another thing I have not been able to accomplish is to spend any time in a crowd and not be overwhelmed by all the energy and emotions around me. I get panic attacks and have to go cocoon for several hours afterwards. Holiday shopping is a nightmare.

It's easier outside though...a festival or outdoor concert is tolerable.

When I don't follow my intuition things go downhill fast also. Seems the farther I go on this path the less "logic" I use and the more intuition I do use. It works very well... and I have come to trust my gut implicitly.


I have similar experiences, though I don't seem to have any affect on electricity. Even as a kid, very competitive, I discovered that I preformed much better in sports and events in which the outcome or results were mostly based on me. Tennis, racketball, track, tumbling, bowling. These were mostly outdoors or in large spaces, where I was able to detach from the overwhelming energy of lots of people in a confined space.

I began playing pool about 11 years ago. Learning the game was just one component to this effort. For the first time I was forced to deal with a lot of people in confined spaces on a regular basis. I discovered this. It's not the 'energy' per say that affects me, if the energy is positive I thrive on it. Hense the reason open spaces serve me best, as I can connect with the positive energy of nature. It's the negative energy, from large groups in confined spaces that have to be dealt with.

It can be done, I have accomplished it. But, like you, I still need several hours after or between such events to re-group.

I used to wonder how people coped. It took me many years and a lot of discussion with friends to find that not everyone is 'tuned' in the same way.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 47 (view)
 
Synchronicity
Posted: 12/16/2007 12:25:57 AM
Synchronicity; one of my favorite topics for discussion when meeting new people. I discovered many years ago that this is one thing almost everyone has in common. I wrote a English paper on this subject this semester, and just tonight I was discussing some philosophical points relating to this topic.

My whole life has been filled with varying degrees of such experiences. Some have gone on over the course of two or three years, others in the course of a day.

It’s quite interesting to see how people’s beliefs affect how they perceive and qualify these experiences using those beliefs. Because we all tend to look for answers, almost ‘need’ to have some explanation, it seems normal to attribute such events to a belief system that offers an easy answer.


Jung tried to correlate the synchronicity principle explain ESP and clairvoyance. Although the line has been blurred by today’s modern parapsychologist, some modern psychologists suggest these events are not worthy of study or consideration (Myers, p 223), and for most people, synchronicity isn’t discussed too much in modern society


I have to disagree with this statement on many counts. First of all, it is discussed, we are doing so now. I’ve heard the teenagers discussing it in my house. I have often had discussions of these experiences on many levels with many people.

The APA (American Psychology Assn.) Has an entire section of study devoted to the psychology of religion. The experience of synchronicity and it attribution to religion is part of that study.

Further, there have been any number of philosophers from the 1930’s through today who have formed a number of theories that would explain such experiences.

Here is a link to one “Ken Wilber”.

http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html

He has been influenced by others: Terrence McKenna, Aldous Huxley, Alan Watts or Daniel Pinchbeck, as well as Piaget's theory of cognitive development, Kohlberg's stages of moral development, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Erikson's stages of psychosocial development, and Jane Loevinger's stages of ego development.

So there is a great deal of theory directly related to this topic, it’s just that it continues to develop with each new idea. Wilber has attempted to incorporate all of nature, the total ‘experience’ as a whole by connecting evolution, (biological and physiological), para & psychological. He has developed a theory, AQAL, and uses it as well, in relation to civil, social and political philosophy.

Personally I think he has much more work to do, if he ever realizes that he has not yet, given his original theory the vision it is due. He seems to have failed the test of a great philosopher/scientist. It seems he has accepted the ‘truth’ of his own theory, closing the door to the work that remains incomplete.

That does not mean he has missed the mark, he has simply strayed from the path. Because I hold no basic ‘belief’ structure, I tend to side with the less religious aspects of this topic and more with the philosophy of the last 50 years.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Christian biologist fired for not believing in evolutionism
Posted: 12/12/2007 2:34:29 PM
Obviously we are not sure of all that might be involved in this case but, unlike homosexuals, the Civil rights act protects some people from discrimination by prohibiting this action based on race, color, RELIGION, sex or national origin.

In many states there is 'at will' employment. Depending on the size of the company and its incorporation charter, the number of employees and such, one can be hired, fired or can quit without, too much, justification required. EXCEPT for those ‘specifically’ covered under the Civil Rights Act, as in the case of religious discrimination.

If this man has an actual case, than he submit a complaint to the EEOC, which was set up in conjunction with the Civil rights act, for the purpose of oversight to the code. Whenever there is a secondary claim of “lawsuit”, one must wonder why the EEOC failed to ‘protect’ those rights; OR did they?


The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed the case this year, saying Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories.

Abraham said this condition was never spelled out in the advertisement for the job and that his dismissal led to severe economic losses, an injured reputation, emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish.

The case underscores tension between scientists, who see creationist views as anti-science, and evangelical Christians who argue that protections of religious freedom enshrined in the U.S. Constitution extend to scientific settings


So it seems the commission found it valid that this person could not function up to the standards necessary. It is his right to pursue other avenues, of course.

I would like to point out at this time, for the GLBT, there is no option available to seek repayment for severe economic losses, injured reputation, emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish. For them there is no law that phrohibits ANY BUSINESS from firing "at will" for being gay, lesbian, or transgender.

For them there is only the Christian fundamentalist faction that do not want to submit to the same hiring practices as the rest of America. I wonder if Mr. Abraham would look upon a Gay man (or woman) as his equal, and work confidently and cohesively with that person as a peer at the University in which he works.

Of course I don’t expect, at that university, that this would ever happen. But he expects a lot better consideration for apparently no other reason except his belief. (Is that not a “special” privilege?) This is what has been coined by the Christian fundamentalists when referring to the modification the GLBT seek to make to the C.R. Act.

I do find this kind of thing most disturbing. I don’t believe that one’s religion, necessarily has to conflict with any job that person chooses. I am offended by any prejudice at any level and what is most disconcerting is the thought that open minded and intelligent people might actually be forcing others into a little square box full of limitations. (look at where this ‘scientist’ is working now? But perhaps he felt ‘forced’ into a more limited role – who knows!

But as I said, there are laws already in place to protect this person, and if those laws have been broken at least this person’s reputation can be saved and so might his ability to keep his open and scientific mind, if that was ever his concern. For that I am happy, for he does have options. On the other hand, if this person was incapable of completing scientific tasks that were not consistent with his religious views – then it has nothing to do with discrimination.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 78 (view)
 
agreeing with rockondon
Posted: 12/9/2007 4:28:57 PM

1. do you care if other people share your opinion on the subject of religion?
2. Do you actively try to enlighten others to your point of view and
3. ever get frustrated with the sheer idiocy and repetion of arguments against you with holes so large you could sail an oil tanker through them?


1. Yes I do care - the more people that share my opinion the more likely we are to get away from the limited viewpoint of fundamentalist thinking. Mind that I am not referring to any specific religion, but to all those who seek to impose their religious morals and ideals into a mainstream - whether it be though intollerance, proactive lobby efforts in government policy, or a country willing to mass murder in the name of their belief.

2. I often attempt to 'enlighten' and fundie. I can not say for sure if my logic has ever worked, but I do believe that most poeple have some propensity toward logic, and perhaps at some point in, that fundie, may realize that their beliefs do not require the restricting and limiting requirements of any religious doctrine, but only their belief in whatever power they feel drawn to.

3. Yes I get frustrated, for the children of those who are being raised with a fundamentalist mind set. There is so much to disover in this life and so little time to enjoy the discovery process. So many minds limited by the restrictions of doctrinal adherance.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Why Evolutionists don't have to disagree with Creationists
Posted: 12/9/2007 4:09:05 PM
I think the OP, is inconsistant with the fact that not all Christians are like minded.

There is a HUGE faction of fundamentalists - you are NEVER going to convince them that 'a day' is any lenght of time other than a day. True they may consider a day to be a different number of hours, but all are the same length and once the mystical words were uttered "let it be, so shall it be, so be it " what ever interpretion one used, the THING SIMPLY WAS.

To the fundamentalists there can be no change to what God has created, unless God has willed it and THAT to the fundie, is not evolution.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Fossils debunk evolution.
Posted: 12/9/2007 3:59:01 PM
I have just spent 3 ½ hours researching and comparing “the finds” and conclusions of the ‘creation scientists’ and what they are providing as evidence vs. actual archeological digs of those “finds”.

The conclusions of the creation scientists per their ‘finds’ are that Humans & dinosaur fossils – human bones and tools coexisted in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs bones – they even provided places. What they provide, however, as evidence in these cases, is not the bones and tools, not even the fossils, but human artistic rendering of men and dinosaurs interacting. The dinosaurs taking on features of dragons, griffins, and any number of animals that the mind can imagine.

On the other hand, when I research these same archeological sites, using the museums that back the ‘actual’ digs, and the times and dates of the digs (to verify that we are on the SAME dig as the creation scientist) We find a COMPLETELY different version of the story. On-going archeological digs, going on LONG after the creation scientist have found what they wanted, completed their diagnostics and thus came to their conclusions. In other words, the only science they seem to have used is one of creative ingenuity whose only purpose is to back up data from the Bible.

The creation scientists who are writing of these finds, as though THEY complete the archeological efforts, are not found in any of the record of the on-going (multi-year) efforts that contintued to shed light on the finds.

I found the following particular ‘theory’ to be pretty typical of the kind of oblivious information provided on the creation science websites that I researched.


http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm
Skeletons of ten perfectly modern humans have been excavated from fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone, over an area spanning about 50 by 100 feet. This formation is a member of the Lower Cretaceous, supposedly 140 million years old. It is known for its dinosaurs and is the same formation found at Dinosaur National Monument. At least four of the ten individuals are female. One is an infant. Some of the bones are articulated. Some are not, appearing to have been washed into place. No obvious tools or artifacts were found associated with the bones. The

Malachite Man
The evidence appears obvious that these 10 men, woman and children, were buried rapidly by some catastrophe, like a flood. Articulated skeletons indicate rapid burial. Some propose to explain these bones by arguing that they were mining, when the mine collapsed. However there is no indication of tunnels, and woman and small children would not likely be included in a mining operation. Additionally, no tools have been found and there are no crushed bones which would be expected if the mine caved in. Another invalid explanation is that this is a mass grave and they were buried. This cannot be true because the living would have to dig a grave 50-100 feet deep through extremely hard sandstone layers. The modern mining operation was halted in the 1970's because the sandstone was so hard it was destroying the bulldozers. These humans appear to have been buried by the same catastrophe that buried dinosaurs in this continent spanning formation. Humans and dinosaurs must have lived at the same time!


I’m sorry, but can anyone read this and not laugh? There’s not even consistency between the two paragraphs. In the fist an ‘impossible’ situation is proclaimed – in the second, suddenly it’s not an impossible situation, but proves to be easily overcome. Then some amazing ‘analysis’ is interjected without any substantiation what-so-ever.

This is typical of what I found in my research. It was even more difficult because the creation scientists supporters do not give a lot of specifics. So when I researched their claims, I had to research by state, state museums, colleges and the like, in order to find digs or archeological finds in the location and by the date given.

Oddly enough, once I found them, there were numerous updates as the dig expanded, (over years), while there is no update beyond the original “find” that the creation scientists gleen their data from.

I will be most happy to entertain more on this subject, when/if such on-going, verifiable science is documented by those attempting to substantiate the ‘young earth’ theory.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Dalai Lama on Homosexuality
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:42:03 PM
It was very interesting to see the entire thought process of the interviewer. She did mention that she "leaned heavily toward Buddhist teachings", which tells me that her understanding and knowledge of the philosophy was limited.

It's not that the original quote in the OP was taken out of context, what I meant was that the response from the Dalai Lama was take at face value without benefit of a fuller understanding of the sentiment behind the answer. Which is why I shared a tiny portion of that sentiment. It is not a philosophy that delves into elaborate quantifiable reasoning, rather, it's complexity is more in structure and attitude than in language.

Either way, the interviewer, had her own issues, at the time. Even in this statement:

"So where did that leave me a gay woman who leaned heavily towards the Buddhist teachings should I now throw all that out the window because I didn’t fit anymore?

Is that what has happened with Gay Catholics or Christians?"

there is misconception. For there are a great many GLBT who have held so strongly to their beliefs that they have created their own churches. Personally I think it's rather sad that personal identity and sense of worth are so inextricably tied to any single religion. But the benefit of all those sheep being left out in cold, is that new generations are being raised, with new religious perspectives, with a new tolerance, acceptance and respect of individuals, not based on a religious labels but on their charachter.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Dalai Lama on Homosexuality
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:19:14 PM
"His Holiness the Dalai Lama states in a 1994 interview with OUT magazine (February/March, 1994):
"If someone comes to me and asks whether [homosexuality] is okay or not, I will ask...'What is your companion's opinion?' If you both agree, then I think I would say, if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay."
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance include the article "The Buddhist Religion and Homosexuality" on their website (accessed on 3/17/2006):

We often ask questions and get an unexpected answer. The reason the answer may be unexpected is because we did not clearly state the questions. Or maybe the answer is too complex to give for the situation and therefore the simplest breakdown is given.

Buddhism is a way of life. There are philosophies that guide. NO not morals, like Christian morals, the goals of Buddhists are not to please a God, but to achieve Nirvana. Traditionally Buddhists (Monks) are not interested in the kind of relationships that the western world considers 'right'. Marriage, family and such. In fact, for those who spend a lifetime or choose the path later in life of a practicing monk theirs is a life of celibacy. For no other reason than the emotions and attchments that can be formed form the sex act are counterproductive to the goals of attaining Nirvana.

For others, who practice the philosophies outside the extreme path, there are only the questions related to the basic principals that must be accounted for. For example,
Is there intention of the relationship for good
Is the relationship free from harm
Is the relationship helpful in further attaining the goals of Nirvana
Is there joy and contentment before and after the action of sex
If any of the principals are negative then celibacy is the required course of action. However, these philosophies pertain to all sexual relationships, not just heter.

Therefore, it would seem that the information we see in the OP, can be quite taken out of context by those who do not understand the nature of Buddhism. This is an interpretaion issue, based on ignorance of ones beliefs. This is yet another reason realigion can be such a volital subject.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 40 (view)
 
Matching philosophy of life is more important than mutual interest.
Posted: 11/18/2007 9:13:26 PM
The opinion of the OP, seems to be that 'interests' are subject to change, while philosophies are not. Actually, both can be transitory or permanent.

It seems to me that timing is a crucial factor in long-term relationships. Those who meet at a time when their philosophies AND interests are in sync, stand the best chance of maintaining their relationship.

Example: If their philosophies go out of sync, they have their mutual interests, which is a form of communication that can effect a philisophical syncronization once again. And if interests change, their mutual philosophies will likely ride the wave to shore.
Because of the close emotional ties formed at the beginning of such a relationship, it seems unlikely that all factors would be out of sync long enough to succumb to dissolution.

Actually, now that I think about it, there have have been several times when I've met someone and our interests and philosophies are so in tune, it seems impossible that we've only just met. And most have ended being very long-term "friendships".

The point being that this two sided equation, requires a third element; attraction.
What good are all the similarities, if there's not acctraction?

So my conclusion is this, we only live for a short time and if our mutual interests and mutual attraction lead to the fulfillment of enjoyment and adventure and new experiences then buy the ticket and let enjoy the journey to the end of the ride, and in the quiet times speak of your philosophies and the experiences that have led you to them.

What better way to know a person and enjoy their company while you journey together!
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 72 (view)
 
Hmmmmm.......
Posted: 11/11/2007 11:31:14 PM
I was happy to see more posts in this thread. Sometimes the effect we have on each other is never fully comprehended.

I've posted in several forums, but I find I gain the most from religious and more philisophical discussions.

My purpose in taking part in these forums is an attempt to understand the nature of faith. To better understand the psycology behind the need to believe in something greater than ourselves.

On a personal level, I have learned a great deal and my horizons have been extended, however, in all honesty, I have not gained any more tolerance nor have I been pursuaded away from my personal beliefs.

I have always understood that some people have a need or needs that are fulfilled through their beliefs and if those beliefs give them comfort, help them deal with their lives and make them better humans, than the gift of freedom of religious exercise is well worth the effort of a soceity to maintain.

The challenge of such a society is to find a mutual understanding based on common ground and to understand that 'common ground' may require a commitment to uphold laws that may not reflect the morals of an individual's religious beliefs. If / when this happens is when a society will be viewed as a tolerant society. Until then, those who post is religious forums will continue to find a way to meet on common ground.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 38 (view)
 
The New Revelations
Posted: 11/11/2007 9:46:02 PM
Neale Donald Walsch;

Aurthor books such as:
Home with God: In a Live That Never Ends

The Little Soul and teh Eearth I'm Sombody

What God Wants:

The Complete Conversations with God
"Boxed Set" only $37.57

as opposed to the individuall sold two books.

Quite a prolific writer with books priced at the what seems to be the normal range of for hard cover reading.

I wonder what he does with all the money he earns?
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Lack of tithing=economic diseaster
Posted: 11/5/2007 5:37:33 PM
Here's something to consider.

How much of that tithing, is spent maintaining a building, property, church supplies, office supplies, "payroll" - including benefits?

Now consider what was the purpose of tithing to begin with?

When did "ministering" to people become a job. How did it happen that the benefits of that "calling" began to include a home, a steady paycheck and insurance?

Would it be the end of Christianity if some major depression or recession forced churches to close their doors? Would those who were "called" to serve forget that calling? Or would people open their homes for community, with only their Bible, their faith, and a few pennies each week to feed those even LESS fortunate than the ones who were left churchless? That would be a true tithing.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 36 (view)
 
The Forbidden Fruit
Posted: 11/4/2007 6:58:12 PM
Consigliere, I really do understand what you are saying, in as much as what you believe. In fact, I actually accept that people want to believe it, and I know for a fact that holding certain believes is not in itself a testament to ones' character. So when I debate, as in this thread, it is not meant to be any more than my attempt to share my personal view of someone elses belief. So please continue, not to take offence.

So now I will address the last post you made. If someone is presenting the steps of a prcedure, how this cause came to this effect, that person would need to establish, not only the correct order, but also enough information for the reader to visualize, understand, and connect each step to be in agreement with the logical conclusion.

In the theory of monotheism, I'll use Christianity, there is so much information missing, and so much that overlooks the differences in the two natures in question. One nature being the realm and the being of God, the other the realm and being of humans. For the sake of time, I will give one example.

No where is it written, why God chose this particular dimension in which to create. No where is it written, why this realm was created at all. There does seem to be a general concensus that this life form was originally supposed to be eternal. That makes no sense, considering the fragil nature of the human physiology. To be eternally stuck in this limited, frail human form is much less desirable, to me, than death. Not to mention the very simple joys we would no longer be able to partake of. For to be etenal beings, surely we would no longer need to procreate, have families, trials, joys, even love could never be as fulfilling. So what need of sex, for that matter, with an eternity at our disposal, what competition could be satisfying, what work could be worth the effort if there was nothing to be gained, to be left as legacy?

Beyond that, there is the matter of this assigned nature to be a sinful one. It is out of our hands, which is why the religion has found a way of coping with that which is out of our control. If our nature is not ours to control, and because the forces outside ourselves interfere with our intentions, what harm could there possibly have been for God to give explanation for our creation, for our purpose in this form and for what end we are striving? After all, it's not like we can change our nature or the nature of the environment that surrounds us.

If the only goal to be achieved is eternal life, with absolutely no comprehension or vision of what that life would entail, and if meeting the expectations required to achieve that undetermined goal, causes us to limit our experiences and knowledge in the dogma of restrictive action, then we waste the precious short time we have to claim all that we can from this solitary existence.

That is my attempt to condense the basis of my disagreement.

No one's belief offends me, and I take an interest in everyone's belief. The only time I draw the line at being passive, in this regard, is when a person or persons attempt to limit my personal freedoms to pursue that which I consider my birthright.

Here's to peaceful discourse.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 32 (view)
 
The Forbidden Fruit
Posted: 11/4/2007 12:04:15 PM

Tell me, don't you think that it's much easier to convince an average human to eat something that would give them eternal life then to eat something that will give them whatever knowledge, but at the cost of their lives?


Yes, apparently so. And quite unfortunate that so many people today do so with so little thought. Perhaps the lesson of the parable has been completely missed. Perhaps the first made being, of the parable, had a greater understanding of its’ true nature than people, today, care to admit. Perhaps the test was to see if the ‘intuition’ or the implanted knowledge was in tact. In choosing the tree of knowledge, did Adam and Eve recognize what people today refuse to see? They were given life in a physical form, from which to experience all that the senses of that form could embrace. Perhaps the test was successful. The first, was innocent, inexperienced and what did it know of death? But it was human and had desires, ideas, questions. Why wouldn’t it choose to do what humans seem to have been created to do? To use this form to experience and gain all the knowledge that can only be attained through this form. To do so unhindered by morals or restrictions of the mind or fear, would you not choose knowledge?

For me, the answer is yes, because I've been given knowledge that history alone is witness to. Death is not to be feared, but accepted, and in that acceptance I am free to attain all the knowledge and experience to the height of all my senses, this is my birthright. From that birthright of innocence I have been given a choice to limit my experiences and my mind or to use this form to experience and gain all the knowledge that can only be gained in the interim, before the inevitable, death.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 31 (view)
 
The Forbidden Fruit
Posted: 11/4/2007 12:00:16 PM
Casheyes –


What if there were many people all around this world that were only doing whatever shows favor in their eyes in which would also possibly include extreme choices of wrong/bad/evil(whichever word you prefer)and while doing so, also taking away all accountability and consequences ....and possibly validating it all with surrounding circumstances or whatever else one buys into...ah,but wait a min...in my opinion, we do live in a world where this is happening each and every day.


What you are referring to could be the impossibility of any group (society) to function civilly without an agreed upon standard of ethics. Many seem to believe that it is only through religious means that a society can come to any agreement on a moral structure. This simply is not true. We do not need ANY religion in order to come to an agreement (within our social network) on what is good or bad.


And in my opinion, it gets tough trying to feed our kids moral fiber,...right from wrong


I thing what makes feeding our kids moral fiber, a tough job, is all the religious axioms that circulate and are changed from person to person based on interpretation.

Death is the effect of being born. Every action we take from the moment we are born has an effect somehow, somewhere, in this universe. Teaching cause and effect does not require a religion.
What seems to require a religion is simply a fear of the inevitable “death”.

The fear of death has been so profoundly instilled in us, that a great many humans can no longer make the logical conclusion of cause and effect. We are Born, therefore we will die. This is the only possible conclusion of a rational, logical mind – based on the information that, as a species, we have come to understand. Millions of years have not changed that equation. According to Christians, EVEN JESUS had to die. That is the effect of being born. (the cause of death is birth)


So… Now, what happens next? We are afraid to die – oh but don’t worry there is a way to have everlasting life. And all I have to do is … and the rules are declared. They are declared in a manner that makes a small society, like a tribe or an extended family, who will all believe the same thing, agree to follow the same set of religious morals. As society grows and learns and become a diversity of people, the rules begin to change as the myths begin to appear to substantiate them.

Until there is a world of hundreds of thousands of various belief systems and all of them seek the same end – to reverse the natural order that the universe has shown for millions of years. That the effect of birth is death.

In the mean time; what was once a great way to rule and control minimal populations of people who focused their time and effort into maintaining a limited knowledge based on their myths, has become a heritage of bias and bigotry that serves to deny humanity of all the knowledge and all the experiences that are possible between birth and death. People who will kill and die to support a theory that millions of years have not failed to prove, death is inevitable.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/3/2007 5:55:07 PM

I think those people that did this ridiculous protest should have their "church" shut down for the time being and they should be encouraged to get proper information and right Theology and values on how to conduct themselves as Christians (assuming they truly are Christians). They need to go to a different church and get better influence and teaching from other people and from other church leaders that have more Biblical understanding and their values in check.


Maybe they need to start in pre-Christian-school, they should be forced to begin again - as Jewish!

I have to say, I totally agree with all the legal arguments and the reason of Andcanitbe on this issue. My last post was intentially attempting to show what can happen when the laws succomb to the religious point of view OVER societal ethics.

Those in this post have shown as much disgust for this issue and homosexuals are shown by the majority of Christians in this country. Yet there is never this kind of reaction when thousands of people are (GLBT) are treated this way, EVERY DAY!

Forgive my bandstanding in the midst of this issue, but I find the actions of "this group of Christians" and the majority of other Christians, actions equally disgusting.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
The Forbidden Fruit
Posted: 11/3/2007 5:37:47 PM
Casheyeyesblond,
You make a very nice analogy, but you don't second part of the question, why is there eternal punishment for this condition?

My first thought on reading the OP, was not specifically of Christians, I was thinking in the broader based terms that the OP applied to number of myths who used this similar concept.

I'm stating that first, because I don't want my answer to be construed as singling out any religion.

From a broad perspective, the idea is that we were created for a limited purpose, to serve the creator (god, gods, goddesses). Expanding our horizons by questioning and then having the audacity and the determination to find the answers for ourselves, meant that we were extending beyond the limited nature/purpose that we were created for. At that point mythology began to take shape, in the form of rules, sins, doctrine, that were meant to keep us limited by dissallowing our minds to be open to grow (to sin). What kind of creators would do this - how about the head figure of a nomad tribe (mostly consisting of family), or a Rabbi in a small fairly stationary village, or a Pharaoh, or a Ceasar, or king?
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Is Freedom of Religion in danger From ENDA?
Posted: 11/3/2007 5:19:48 PM
Romanticop - thanks for the idea. As I read it I thought it sounded reasonable, and then I began to think about it more. You see the Cival Rights Act is already in place, it has been for over 30 years. Thirty years, there was basically the same battle being waged by the fanatical Christian sector, but in 30 years there has been no visable affect to the freedom of religious exercise. ENDA is simply amending the law that is already in place. It was not meant to be a "special" law, it was meant to correct a miscarriage of justice under a current (and quite extensive) law. HONESTLY, if we attempted to change ENDA so that those who are Christian and offended by the gay lifestyle could choose how to treat the GLBT, they could also choose how to treat, any of the other minorities currently proteced under this law from encountering such bias. As you can see, this would be totally unproductive.

baseballfan - has voice her opinion with regards to governments involvement with business. Basically that the government is directing business how to conduct their business practices, in spite of what business owners believe.

baseballfan - your argument is very broadbased and I wonder if it's been well thought out. Consider that the major corporations are the largest prviders of jobs in the United States. I won't bore anyone with all the little fact and figures, I will just try to stick to law. Corporations, for good reason, are considered to be an 'entity' under the law. They are owned by shareholders, who may or may not be transient in nature, but they ALL have one purpose, to make money. This is why the government decided that corporation needed to be a legal seperate entity. Because the corporation is a 'created' entity, it is assumed to be a very responsible citizen, and it WILL follow ALL the laws, as directed under federal code and by the state in which it holds its charter. There can be no argument in this, because corporations have the money, the strength , and the capacity to ruin this county - therefore its considered imperitive that they be responsible citizens.

Now, talking about other forms of businesses, most of the laws that are created that would affect business, exclude businesses bases on certain qualities. Mostly those businesses where employees are a small number have exclusion. Because its understood that to put the measures related to such law into affect could substantially financially burden those smaller businesses. Now the fact is that there are some 17 million small businesses compared to the several thousand corporations in this country. We already know that corporations are good citizens and will follow all laws, and we NOW know that there are millions of businesses that would not be affected by ENDA.

So somewhere in between the Corporations, and the small businesses are an aweful lot of Christians who think that divorce, adultery, sex outside of marriage, sex outside their race(religion), lieing, stealing, cheating, bigotry and judgmental opinions, as committed by heterosexuals, are somehow more forgivable, in fact even desirable over being admittedly gay.

I would like to make a point here. There is a major flaw in the Civil Rights Act, as it stands today. The closer ENDA gets to passing the harder Christains are going to come down on those they know, believe to be and EVEN PERCIEVE to be gay or lesbian. There is nothing in the law to protect ANYONE from being on the receiving end of that injustice. Make a silly jesture in front of the wrong person, maybe a jealeous co-worker, and find yourself without a job, because you were percieved to be gay. What's more, there is nothing to stop the person who fired you from telling future employers that you were fired because you are gay. THE LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO GLBT - whether you are or not, it was 'perceived' and it's ok, in this country, to be bigoted against those who have no law to protect them.

Don't you understand, a hole in the law, means things can come up, as well as go down.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Is Freedom of Religion in danger From ENDA?
Posted: 11/2/2007 10:02:33 PM
Clouser - thanks for trying, but I was hoping to find a more effective argument. I'm trying to be fair, but what you've stated doesn't make sense to me. The law that provides the free choice of religious exercice is also upheld in the Civil Rights Act itself. There should be no fear that religious 'organizations' would be forced to comply with something that already exempts them. This is simply a misunderstanding of what the new act (basically just an amendment to the Civil Rights Act) is trying to accomplish.

In another forum someone voiced a similiar objection in this way. That Churches and privatly run religeous schools often hier staff, including manitenance poeple, from the general public. That person didn't think it was right that the law would force them to hire an open homosexual.

But the law can't force that issue. If the school is a direct extention of the religious organization, it falls under the protection of religious rights. Do you understand?

This is why I'm so confused over the issue that is blocking so many from the gainful emploment of thier choosing.

Is there another issue?

If not, if I get no responces to any of my open forums, I well be forced to believe that some fanatical Christians are manipulating other Christians by taking advantage of their lack of knowledge with regard to the law. In so doing they are disceiving a great many people and willfully subjecting millions of poeple to oppression by their bigoted actions.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
 
George Orwell 1984
Posted: 11/2/2007 4:40:36 PM
Well Codec, at least there is no mistaking your point view. Thou doest protest with much animosity. (smile)

I like to know where I stand with people, I also like to know that those same people can find value in a tarnished old penney. It may mean they have to examine that penney closely, and it also means their mind must allow their eyes to see, even if what those eyes percieve is unwelcome to the mind.

I make no bones about my opinions of 'organized' religion. If that's where people see antipathy, than perhaps they see clearly.

Regardless, it was obviously my fault that this thread has not taken the direction it was intended to.

There are many inspiring quotes and prose in the Bible, surely they would have a place in a new world, where books have been nearly eradicated. But I couldn't help but wonder if the differences in interpretations, and views might, WITHOUT the backing of any organized religion, force individuals to stick only to the inspirations and leave the doctrine out of that new world. Or if they would defend their difference to the point of disrpting the whole of an otherwise peaceful, sharing community.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Is Freedom of Religion in danger From ENDA?
Posted: 11/2/2007 4:12:44 PM
Well for all those who have voiced opinoins against equal rights for homosexuals, there sure doesn't seem to be a lot who care to defend why?

If there's a substantial arguement I, for one, would like to hear it.

The U.S. government has it's issues, but I believe in the ideal that the Constitution sets forth. I also believe that it's my duty to make sure that no one's rights are substantially affected when any law is enacted.

Therefore, I would like to know how ENDA would limit or infringe on the freedom of religious exercise.

This makes 3 formus on which I can find no responces. It's difficult to believe that so many millions oppose ENDA but I can find no just cause as to why.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/2/2007 2:08:47 PM
Many of you have proven the points I made in my earlier post, but I don't think you really saw them.

The rights that are extended to the individual, in the U.S. are only extended until those rights infringe on the rights of others.

OF COURSE, what those fanatics did is wrong, OF COURSE it sould not be allowed.

But just were, exactly, does the line of infringement cross anothers path before it is recognized for what it is.

To deny anyone the 'same' legal rights and extensions of freedom is to ask to be considered no more than those fanatics you are all do disgusted by.

Discrimation in any form, infringes on the rights of others, so no disgust is allowd by those who would discriminate, by action or the non-action of correction of the problem.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Humanism/Atheism
Posted: 11/2/2007 11:21:20 AM
I've really enjoyed sitting back and listening to this whole conversation.

Sometimes, a label holds some measure of importance. However, labels rarely come with a clear, static and accepted difinition. Use of a label elicits the personal interpretation of those who are hearing.

I was an atheist at a time and in a family that was not accepting of that label. Because I hold no belief in the intelligent devinly inspired creative powers of an eternal entity.

However, over the many years that I have been an atheist my philosophies regarding life and the vastness of all that is, continues to evolve.

I have also found that those who attempt to live up to any particular label for too long, often find conflict between the inevitable nature of our evolution and the confines that are found under a particular heading.

For this reason, I continue to use the label atheist. No matter what else it conjures up in the mind of those who hear it, it still holds one meaning that has always been part of my psyche - the opposite of theist. All other 'qualifiers' are up to my discression, and subject to the knowledge and understanding I have reached on any paricular day.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
George Orwell 1984
Posted: 11/2/2007 10:36:57 AM
Oh my goodness, posting too late at night. My EXTREME apologies. It was more or less an attempt at some humur, perhaps it was at the expense of too many feelings.

Perhaps it was the book "Brave New World" that I was thinking of, it's been so long since I read them.

I was thinking more along the lines that there are literally millions upon millions of books one chould choose to keep alive for history sake. Not only the book but the author and the way life was at them time the book was written, miscellaneous fact, etc.

My thought was that MANY would choose the Bible because it holds such deep meaning for them. But because there is so much adversity regarding the authors, the history and even the interpretations, that perhaps it would end up causing too much animosity. That those who wanted to stay OUT of the such conflict would grow tired of hearing the same verses over and over, with so many differing views and thus create even greater animosity.

Because each would likly choose among so many different works of literature, including math, poetry and biographies and become a scholor about the works and the authors and the times, etc. It would be interesting to think that we would all have something to learn from each.

But if there were too many using the same book, most likely it would be the Bible, with differing interpretations, and conjecture, it would defeat the purpose of the intended environment. And I fear it would not be harmonious.

Maybe it wasn't right, but I just saw such irony in the idea , that I wondered if anyone else would see it that way.

My apologies for my inability to get the point accross, it was not intended to be malicious.
 Emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 1 (view)
 
George Orwell 1984
Posted: 11/2/2007 1:23:11 AM
If you've ever read the book you know about those who rebelled and became "a book".

I have always thought ,that, to be one of the most interesting features of '1984' the self outcast part of society, living in the wilderness, speaking thier books and discussing them, the authors, the histories equated with each book, with each other.

However, just recently it occured to me - how many would choose the Bible and in so doing which version? And for those, not really interested, just how often could you stand to hear the same verses repeated by so many, over and over.

And what about those with differing versions and opinions?

I think perhaps there may have to be a separation of camps.

What do you think? So much for a peaceful literary comunity, huh?
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 10/31/2007 8:15:49 PM
well doesn't this just bring up a bunch of questions.

Like - when are the rights of freedom of religious exercise and free speech no longer valid???????

For example: Is it ok, for a Christian doctor to advertise that s/he does abortions, only to get unwitting patients to the office for Christian counceling or fetus shock theropy? Full knowing that s/he would never do an abortion?

And what about Christians who refuse to give gays, lesbians and transgender all the same employment benefits as provided to the rest of society under the Civil Rights Act.

And those Christians who would use their "freedoms" clause to deny equal treatment under that same law to others.

So exactly were is the line that says "in this case,your freedom is restricted"? Where is that line?
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Is Freedom of Religion in danger From ENDA?
Posted: 10/31/2007 8:13:18 PM
I was doing some research regarding ENDA (Employment Non-discrimination Act) currently being reviewed for inclusion/amendment of the Civil Rights Act. The bill called, H.R. 2015 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In my research I've disovered that the majority of Christian opposition is claiming that to enact this law would endanger free religious exercise.

I'm trying to argue 'fairly' but in all my research I fail to find any actual examples of HOW this act would endanger the right to freedom of religion.

Can anyone offer any argument?
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 114 (view)
 
Since Man Was Created First, Why Did God Give Man Nipples?
Posted: 10/20/2007 8:46:50 PM
Well here's an interesting theory, just thought I'd share:

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/57/07879849/0787984957.pdf
The information in this document, explains the FIRST, Genesis story, and shows how God “in the Feminine” created the world. Throughout the first story, God is Feminine and created “human kind”, the word adam = human, not a proper male noun. It’s not till the second story that person of God becomes male.

http://www.ldolphin.org/Image.html
In the above reference, there is a slightly different perspective – Genesis 1 was the creation of adam, in the likeness of God (God already being identified as three or more personas – two of which are masculine and feminine. Thus, God created (human) adam as both male and female. When the adam discovers that it is not like other animals (whose sexuality is divided) God, says this is not good, and then in Genesis 2 God divides the human (by separating the feminine, depicted as the rib) into masculine and feminine. So in the beginning we were in the image of God – but “we” were not happy with that, so God made us two. So God, who is actually sexless, may still be called by the male JUST AS WELL as by female.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 107 (view)
 
God-fearing
Posted: 10/12/2007 8:35:17 PM
When I grew up, fairytales were a big thing. I really never appreciated or even liked fairytales. I have, however, always had interest in psychology - well maybe it was more of a passion, to understand why people are the way they are.

At some point I began relating all those weird childhood tales to psychological dispositions.

Here's my take of the "god-fearing".

Consider the tale of Pinocchio. The little puppet made of wood, whose only actions were a result of tugs on strategically placed strings. Happy was the puppet until it began to think for itself. Then it wanted what everyone else had - freedom from the strings. Instead what it got, was a new master, a belief. Each time he told a fib his nose would grow, until he did something good to set it right.

Personally, I think Pinocchio should have stuck with the wood and the nose, at least then he knew when he'd done wrong, and when to be afraid.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Why is it that some people spell it as G-d?
Posted: 10/10/2007 6:39:11 PM
mm - I think it's just another one of those 'fear' induced reactions. You know, if hell exists, why take a chance. (?)
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Observing one's own behaviour
Posted: 10/8/2007 1:00:16 PM
There are times when I haven't been here in a few days and a topic has become quite extensive. Or when a topic is revived and it included many, many pages of responses.

I either stay out of the topic, because I'm too far behind, or I scan for certain posters who, those who are good about referencing and paraphrasing and responding to previous replies.

I've learned not to omit anyone from my reads, apart from that. Not being in agreement with a person's previous positions, gives me more reason to read them, than those I am in agreement with. Why? Everyone has something to learn and everyone has something to teach, and sometimes what I learn from someone of an opposing view point, is a point in the opposition that I'll remember to argue better the next time.
 
Show ALL Forums