yes. and maybe it's time to let it go. but the one thing that's still not clear is what Terri's wishes were. I guess since there's no way to really know (short of taking Michael's word for it, which I'm loath to do), it has to be removed from the argument.

But that sucks. gah. no more posts from me on this today. it bums me out.

Terry on Wiki
 

This is crazy...

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

I am so tired of hearing TW prattle on about "religious extremists".

It seems like the only relgious people who are "extremists" are the ones that disagree with the way he thinks about a topic.

Without knowing any more about this than the average person, I think the law should uphold Michael's right as her husband.

And I'm filing a living will tomorrow.

Damn. I got replaced by Neil Diamond. Oh well. Can't stay on top of the charts forever. Or maybe I should try harder.

You don't like the expression "religious extremist"? Then provide a better word. But religious extremists are a core constituency of the George Jr support block, are the people he brought to George Sr's winning election, and are now a most powerful political force in Washington. No way around this fact. Terri Schiavo is the litmus test for religious extremists to target their enemies. Even Democrats are rushing to appease these power brokers. Washington has changed that much; become that adversarial.

Reality - the new politics in Washington is not going to change. The religious extremists are doing even what the Pope has decreed. Remove those who are contrary to religious doctrine.

I'm anticipating the joyous day when caring nuturer, uncle Jeb rolls a floppy pile of red white and blue Shiavo out on his campaign stage. Dead or alive, it really dont matter. Yahoo! Think of the coverage!

Dead or alive, it really dont matter. Yahoo! Think of the coverage!

That is what most seem to think: Politically, this is a disaster for Democrats. Live or die, the Democrats voted for murder. I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for years.

Once it's over it'll be dropped, immediately, not to be heard of again.

Reason: the people are split 60/30 in favor of letting her die. (10% confused.) The assumption is that the 30% are issue-driven and will vote on the basis of this single item. It'll stick in their craw. The only way the 60% will vote on the basis of this issue is if it remains prominent at election time.

Reason: the people are split 60/30 in favor of letting her die.

Are you SERIOUS? The way the news has been portraying it, I would have thought it would have been the other way around!

Here's the article. Gives me hope that there are still some issues that massively slanted coverage can't sway.

What a makeup job on the graphics on that story eh?

Tonight there was video of Jeb telling a crowd that there might be evidence she's in a "minimally conscious" state. The lawyer for the parents was on to allege that Terri had "never been examined" (blatantly false, see CT scan above and there have been flat EEGs as well). Ladies and Gentlemen, the "news".

Nice. Real nice...

"One memo circulating in the Senate last week touted how the "pro-life base will be excited by the issue."

Republican leaders strongly disavowed that, but on Friday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told the Family Research Council, a leading Christian group, that the Schiavo case was sent by heaven to focus attention on the helpless.

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what's going on in America," said DeLay, R-Texas.

He also described the stakes behind the Schiavo showdown as personal.

"This is exactly the issue that's going on in America, the attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others.""

Yeah, sure. Some will spin it this way. Here's an alternate spin.

Democrats voted their conscience. Republicans voted as they were told.

Or, Democrats voted for the rule of law, and Republicans voted to ignore and override the rule of law.

spin is spin, only the volume and quantity matter.

Terri Schiavo's parents are being represented, with their approval, by a man who's openly stated the following gems:

"Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple.... Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."

"Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the ten Commandments. No apologies."

"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed... If we're going to have true reformation in America, it is because men once again, if I may use a worn out expression, have righteous testoserone flowing through their veins. They are not afraid of contempt for their contemporaries. They are not even here to get along. They are here to take over... Somebody like Susan Smith should be dead. She should be dead now. Some people will go, "Well how do you know God doesn't have a wonderful plan for her life?" He does, it's listed in the Bible. His plan for her is that she should be dead."

This is the guy who's helping to coordinate the Schindlers' activism and lobbying efforts and who's speaking on their behalf on talk radio and such.

Shall I go on?

Get a living will
 

[quote] Hopefully, this is the one good thing that will come out of all of this. I know it has made me realize just how very important it is to have a living will. Surely most everyone in the country is aware of this case, and hopefully most everyone will get their living wills taken care of!

Who is the guy that said that? We need to shoot his ass before he can hurt people.

I'm not suggesting there aren't religious extremists in this country. I'm saying that I'm tired of every single issue that is on this board being turned into one of either (1) religious extremism or (2) MBA stupidity.

Yes, MBAs have issues. WE ALL KNOW THIS. Yes, there are kooks out there. WE ALL KNOW THIS. However, not all religious people are extremists, as TW would imply. Not all MBAs are stupid, either.

I understand Tee's frustration. Why can't he just say "Insert religious extremist speech here" or "Insert MBA speech here"? If I wanted to read the economist, I'd get a subscription.

While true, that isn't particularly relevant. The problems are being caused by the religious people who are extremists, and the MBAs who, while not necessarily stupid, are singleminded and shortsighted to the point of criminality. The existence of moderate religious people and thoughtful MBAs doesn't help anything unless they lend some support in reining in the others.

That would be Randall Terry, former head of Operation Rescue, currently <a href="http://www.earnedmedia.org/tf0214.htm">invited by the Schindler family</a> to <a href="http://www.earnedmedia.org/tf0318.htm">coordinate their efforts</a>. (Many better links to Terry's involvement than these two, they were just the first Google produced.)

There are millions and millions and millions of religious people in this country who have no compelling interest in how others lead their lives, as long as they themselves have their rights to worship their god(s) in their private lives in the way that they choose to do so. THOSE are not religious extremists.

There are large numbers of religious people in this country who _do_ feel it is in their compelling interest to push for legislation based specifically on their religious and moral beliefs, to enforce those beliefs as the standard for behavior in our society, and to place their beliefs in a "preferred class" over those of "lesser" religions or belief systems.

THOSE are extremists. Tom "Clinton needed to be impeached because he didn't hold the right Biblical worldview" DeLay is one of them. The fact that people like DeLay are not only listened to but hold positions of high power in our government scares the bleeding ratshit out of me.

How do you know they aren't reigning in the others?

No one knows what is going on behind closed doors, as much as we'd all like to know. It just doesn't work that way. Never has, probably never will.

And I do have to admit that Tee isn't necessarily wrong in his views. I don't want the freedom of choice of ANY kind to be taken away from anyone. I don't think we should be a "Christian Nation", I think we should be a nation of people with compassion and spirituality, freedom, and morals. Whatever flavor that comes in.

There was a period recently, where it seemed every thread had religious stuff in it, and I think it's because this whole religious "thing" with the government is coming to a head. We need to make sure the people like the guy who said all that crazy shit don't do more damage than they have.

I want to know that they ARE. I want the closed doors to be opened. I want prominent religous people to publically denounce attempts to shove religion into government. Instead, people like Randall Terry are supported by political and religious leaders because he has faith and therefore is a godly man.

Who are the moderate religious leaders who can oppose Falwell, Dobson, Terry, Robertson, etc?

http://www.societyfortruthandjustice.com/new_page_4.htm

I'd like Radar's opinion on this brief.

They would be people like TD Jakes, Joyce Meyer, Zachary Tims, etc. People who really are God-Fearing people, but don't get involved in politics.

I think it would be very difficult to be a Christian and be in politics. Firstly, you're not supposed to lie....

This is the problem. If by "moderate religious leaders" you mean "people who have this nice little 'god' hobby, but keep it well under wraps where the rest of us never have to hear about its existence", they don't exist.

it's almost trite to say it now, but the separation of church and state is NOT about removing all vestiges of religion from anyone in public office. It's about preventing the state from telling people how to worship e.g., the Church of England. If someone in public office has moral and/or spiritual beliefs, they are an integral part of that person's decisions, their worldview, their interaction with the rest of humanity. They can't turn it off.

The political power of Falwell, Dobson, Terry, and Robertson combined amounts to zilch. I know fundamentalists, evangelical Christians, Baptists, and other boils on the ass of humanity, but none of us get our marching orders from any of those guys. Dobson has some good parenting tips occasionally, but no one listens to Falwell, I don't know who Terry is, and Pat Robertson is a 3 minute interview on Fox News. You are threatened by these people? Ever think that maybe we're voting our conscience as much as you are?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" does NOT mean "there can be no affirmation of religion, mention of religion, or public practice of religion by anyone in any civil service role whatsoever, nor can religion enter the marketplace of ideas where politics or governance is concerned."

I don't doubt that there are plenty of religious people who don't support Dobson, Falwell et al. I want to know who will oppose them. If a nonreligious person, or even a person who doesn't mention their religion in public, opposes one of the religious demagogues, they get written off as an evil secularist who hates religion. We need a coalition of religious leaders willing to do the hard work of getting the attention of the fickle media, and explaining to everyone that religion and government poison each other. Right now, the demagogues are the public face of religion's role in government, and they have little opposition from other religious leaders.

Is that a sarcastic way of describing someone who doesn't think that the tenets of their religion should be codified into law? Because that's what I mean by "moderate religious leaders". And I do hold out hope that such people exist.

The tenets of Christianity/Judaism are already codified into law.

Only for Christians/Jews. Unless you think they invented the prohibitions on murder and theft.

And I want to mention here that the Schindlers are being hypocrits right in everyone's face but no one has mentioned this particular aspect:

They are seeking divorce on Terri's behalf while claiming she wouldn't go against the Pope's decree about withholding food and hydration.

*insert speech about the 10 commandments being about 4000 years old, and therefore predating just about every civilization that we still have records for*

Jews were the first to have the codified Law prohibiting it. Christians obviously came later, but still follow those laws, if nothing else.

The anti-christian zealots aren't worried about religious tenets being codified into US law. They throw a fit anytime God is mentioned, whether it be a schoolkid praying at lunch or a cross on a roadside memorial on a federal highway.

Jews were the first to have the codified Law prohibiting it.

I thought it was The Code of Hammurabi...? (just curious)

They throw a fit anytime God is mentioned, whether it be a schoolkid praying at lunch or a cross on a roadside memorial on a federal highway.

I've not seen anyone protest a child praying at lunch or a roadside cross. What I have seen, however, are people protesting prayers endorsed by public schools and crosses on erected using taxpayer money on government property. But, ah, if you prefer the twisted version of it that is heard on talk radio and Toby Keith songs, go right ahead...

Horseshit. When I was in school, I could sit in the lunchroom and pray if I wanted to pray. Who could stop me even if they wanted to do so? Who could get into my head, figure out what I was thinking about and somehow prevent me from having a little private chat with God?

What _couldn't_ and _shouldn't_ have happened was for my day to begin with the loudspeaker saying "Let us now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by our daily prayer."

Religion practiced on an individual basis is one thing. Religion specifically endorsed in public forums, such as public schools and courthouses, is a _very_ different concern.

All the estimates I've seen on the dating lead me to believe it's after the 10 commandments event. But I don't have a timeline on that, it's not something I've researched at all.

But this brings up a question I have:

Why is it that no one questions the legitimacy of the Hammurabi Code, even tho only a few copies survive and were rewritten over and over, but we have more fragments and copies of the books of the bible, but it's authenticy is questioned?

Lee Strobel brought this up in the Case for Christ, and I find it terribly interesting.

Most non-Catholics don't get this ... divorce is not technically "illegal" under catholic canon law. You're allowed to get divorced.

What you're NOT allowed to do is receive communion if you remarry or marry someone who is divorced without first obtaining an annullment (church divorce). Excommunication doesn't throw you out of the church in it's entirety, it does restrict your access to the sacrements, which, I suppose is pretty much the same thing. You can still confess your sins, receive absolution, and so on, but you're out on marriage and taking holy orders, I believe.

There is a similar process, called a get in Jewish Law. You have to go through the civil and the religious ceremonies.

They had a "moment of silence" in my schools every morning. If you wanted to pray you could, but most kids just stood there and were bored.

The code of Hammurabi was published around 1750 BC.

The code had one author and the original printing still exists. There is nothing to question.

As usual, when I have theological questions, I turn to the scientists and theologians at AiG. This is what they say about hammurabi (keep in mind this is a literal creationist website, so that's why the reference it biased that way):

The Bible has been translated and retranslated and retranslated and retranslated and retranslated and interpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted over and over and over and over and over for centuries.

It passed through time periods where the only ones trained to read and write Latin (and, thus, the only ones capable of reproducing the Latin Vulgate and telling everyone else what it said and what that meant) were the churches themselves.

There are hundreds, probably thousands of variations of the Bible out there today.

Which one is the most correct, and how literally should we interpret the contents of the version in which we choose to believe?

Time for links!

I was trying to find the story from my hometown where one of our local atheists defaced a memorial to a kid lost in the mountains because it was on state forest land. I can't find it at the moment. But it's silly for me to have do to that. You know good and well that the anti-god people aren't concerned about state-run religion. They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.

And don't forget that entire sections of the bible were completely deleted by a few pea-brained popes who decided that "we don't need to know that."

I _am_ one of those "anti-god" people, one of those dirty heathen atheists you read about in the news. Don't tell me what I want to do and what I don't.

Let's see...

Link one: a case that ended up being decided correctly, where the kindergarten girl _was subsequently allowed_ to say Grace on an individual basis. This was personal religious expression, not school endorsement, and thus the court came down on the individual's side.

Link two: a case of abused and vandalized crosses that even the article assumes wasn't due to disgruntled atheists (who probably wouldn't have jumped to use Satanic or KKK imagery), a cross removed by a self-identifying Christian, and the ACLU spokesman saying "If you allow roadside crosses, you'll have allow atheist roadside memorials as well" -- as if _that_ would be such a horrible fate.

Link three: a controversy over whether a church pastor (accused of "indoctrination" and evangelism, true or not) could lead a school-endorsed discussion group about Bible study on school grounds and on school time. Those last two clauses are important.

I don't see anything in any of those links worth getting upset about.

They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.

Wow, you must be referring to extremists groups (every side has 'em!) because I know most people who are for the seperation of church and state do not operate under those principles.

And before that, theft and murder were A.O.K.!

Come on. Theft and murder are as close to universal crimes as you can get. Different civilizations and different religions differ over where the line is between killing and murder or taking and theft, but just about every (or maybe every? not sure) human society has rules against killing without justification and taking what you aren't entitled to.

Agreed. That's exactly my point.

In this country, there are laws that say you can't do those things, and oh! just so happens that that happens to be Christian Law and Judiasm Law too! Whodathunkit??

So we agree then! Good! Yay!

Perhaps you shouldn't. Explaining rape doesn't excuse it.

Ah. You were saying that a few rules happen to match up between the Bible and the law. I assumed you were implying that those laws were there because of the Bible. Sorry.

Undertoad,

Where did you get that pic of Terri's brain?

Hey radar did you read that brief I posted?

Explaining Rape?

You're saying evolution explains rape?


You've gotta be fucking kidding me, HM.

Via this blog, who got it from a copy of the full image via here

just so happens that that happens to be Christian Law and Judiasm Law too! Whodathunkit??

Yeah, my buddy got arrested for boiling the calf of a goat in its mother's milk.

...oh, wait, you were talking about one of the other two verisons of the ten commandments...

But, hey, with the current set, at least disobeying your parents is punishable by stoning!

I know nothing of the sort. In fact, I know the opposite. Though I do know that that is the boogieman that is dangled in front of the faithful to get them to vote for government entanglement with religion.

Lets run down some of the poular issues:

Having "In god we trust" on money is not practicing the faith. Even if you are a Christian: the one time Jesus got angry was when religion and commerce were mixed. So removing the phrase from money does not hinder the practicing of anyone's faith.

Likewise the pledge of alleigance - You can pray any time you like. Not mentioning God in the pledge doesn't stop you from mentioning Him before or afterwards. Nobody's faith would be hindered by its removal.

Removing organized prayer in schools doesn't stop anyone from practicing their faith. It is not an article of anyones faith that the principal of your school must dictate the time and/or form of your prayers.

Likewise prayers in legislative sessions.

The availability of gay marriage doesn't affect those who don't believe in gay marriage in any way whatsoever, except giving them something to cluck over.


So even if every single one of those hot button issues occurred, not one Christian would be hindered in any way from practicing their faith.

I'm sorry, are you now attempting to associate explanation and excuse? When the very sentence you quoted says I don't? Any number of heinous crimes can be explained. Does that excuse them? No.

She was saying that evoltuionists use evolution and genetics as a way to excuse rape.

The fact that the case made it all the way TO court proves my point.

I linked to an atheist's site deliberately. It wasn't meant to prove that atheists are successful at getting roadside crosses removed, just that it's a common atheist whine. Two-click Google researching doesn't always yield the best results, but examples of what I'm talking about abound.

The wider controversy in this case (read the whole thing) was whether or not students could have faith-based clubs during their lunch hour. The school district had a policy that such clubs could exist only outside of the "instructional program" time. They ruled that lunch was instructional time, which of course is ludicrous.


HM - are you saying that because those things (money/pledge/etc) exist now, we are currently living under a system of government-mandated religion? Because that's what the constitution addresses, not the removal of all religious imagery or speech from anything to do with government. Like I said once already. I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome, here.

And I have just said twice that they don't.

I'm saying that even if the entire wish list was granted, nobody's faith would be impeded, so any claims that Christianity is under attack are ridiculous.

What, that religion in public school is a sufficiently potentially serious matter that litigation is possible, something with which I agree, but when there isn't actually an offense, the courts will rule correctly, something with which I also agree?

Interesting point.

News to me. Roadside crosses are put up and maintained by _individuals_, not the state. I can't remember ever seeing an "ADOPT A HIGHWAY" sign assigned to "The Rotting Corpse Of Joe Schmoe."

(There are plenty of "Memorial" highways, but that's clearly different, and official signs aren't covered with religious symbols.)

At lunch, you are on school time, on school grounds and under school jurisdiction. There's no getting around that, and that's not a place or time for active religious instruction at a public school.

Easy sport, I do evolution. And I agree with you.

I quoted:
Some evolutionists have excused even rape on the grounds that males’ genes and ‘less civilized’ evolutionary past predispose them to such actions.

You said:
Explaining rape doesn't excuse it.

This indicates that you believe that "male's genes and less civilized evolutionary past predisopose them to such actions" as rape.

So let me ask you this way:
Do you believe that evolution explains, or is a reason for rape?

I'm worried that you will attempt to twist this into some sort of implied justification, since this is a subject that can be difficult to discuss without emotional tension. But yes, just about any behavior that occurs in the animal kingdom has an evolutionary basis, either directly or as a side effect of another strategy. However, humans have developed a more important (IMHO) strategy of empathy and cooperation, that gives us the ability to override any baser animal instincts, and those who don't do so should be considered defective and removed from society.