Terri Schiavo's Parents Seek Divorce on Her Behalf

[Radar]

Undertoad,

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

[OnyxCougar]

Hey radar did you read that brief I posted?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

Explaining Rape?

You're saying evolution explains rape?


You've gotta be fucking kidding me, HM.

[Undertoad]

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

[Kitsune]

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!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

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.

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Explaining Rape?

You're saying evolution explains rape?


You've gotta be fucking kidding me, HM.

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.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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.

[mrnoodle]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

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

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

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

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.

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.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

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

[OnyxCougar]

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?

[Happy Monkey]

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.