This sad, isolating, depressing situation is due largely to P-L rhetoric that defines them as cruel, awful, terrible, lazy, people who surrendered and murdered their defenseless babies.

Agreed, DoF, but not entirely.  I know several women who have gone through abortions, some of them militantly P-C, and although I can’t know myself what that’s like, they all had a hard time of it, one way or another.  I can’t imagine that it’s ever an easy decision for a woman to make, no matter what the circumstances.

Pro-choice means precisely that:  PRO-CHOICE, not PRO-ABORTION.  It doesn’t mean P-C people are more likely to have them themselves; they simply want everyone to have the option.  Having that option can be a terrible burden, but I would NEVER want to take it away from anyone.

Having said that, I just gave away our youngest’s newborn clothes yesterday to a family whose 13-year-old daughter is six months pregnant.

Pro-choice means precisely that:  PRO-CHOICE, not PRO-ABORTION.  It doesn’t mean P-C people are more likely to have them themselves; they simply want everyone to have the option.

GeekMom- this goes back to a basic difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals say: we do it our way, you do it your way.  Conservatives say: we do it our way, you do it our way.

Having said that, I just gave away our youngest’s newborn clothes yesterday to a family whose 13-year-old daughter is six months pregnant.

Now that’s got to be rough- poor kid.  My daughter is 14 and no way is she ready to have a kid.  I’m not worried in the least that she’ll get pregnant, though- she knows what is needful to know.  Thank the Impersonal Powers That Be, they teach that stuff in the schools here, in detail.  Not that she wouldn’t have learned it from Mama and Papa if necessary.

Originally posted by deadscot:
Miracles are subjective to interpretation by Christian followers and are not subjected to any sort of authentication, true?

So, the real miracle could be cutting off the power so they could save more patients and give cause to more miracles.

The following is the definition of miracle according to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

Miracle: n. An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed.

Miracle is open to interpretation and my interpretation would be any event that creates a sadness in any party involved is not a miracle, so killing any patient is out of the question, IMO.

Also sprach elwedriddsche: Then again, if the amended scenario admits the possibility of miracles, anything can happen and there’s nothing left to discuss.

As elwed said, if God is pulling the strings, there is no logical net for the moral tennis ball, and there’s nothing left to discuss.  Theo, if you want a serious discussion of hard moral choices, you will have to leave the possibility of miracles out of it.

Theocrat - So there we have it.  By definition No ‘miracles’ have ever taken place. Unless you count the Red Sox winning the world series.  That’s what I was driving at.

So seeing as no miracles have ever occurred the doctors would appropriately cut the power.

By definition No ‘miracles’ have ever taken place. Unless you count the Red Sox winning the world series.

deadscot, I think that was the work of the Devil…

Originally posted by deadscot:
By definition No ‘miracles’ have ever taken place.

Patients coming out of there comas before the power is cut is an event contrary to the course of things.  By my interpretation this is a miracle.

Originally posted by deadscot:
Unless you count the Red Sox winning the world series.

I don’t follow baseball, but if its anything like University of Wisconsin getting beat by Michigan State and University of Iowa then sure.

Originally pasted by deadscot:
So seeing as no miracles have ever occurred…

This is YOUR interpretation of the events.

That’s one of the advantages of an imaginary god-friend, you can presuppose and imagine anything you want without regard to factual information.  I suppose that’s one way to go through life.

To take things back full-circle to the topic of this thread about the religious beliefs of founding fathers:

1. It is perfectly acceptable for a person to believe whatever he wants.

2.  It is not acceptable to impose your beliefs upon others without factual information.

Maybe this can close this thread out…:doubtful:

I know several women who have gone through abortions, some of them militantly P-C, and although I can’t know myself what that’s like, they all had a hard time of it, one way or another. (Zilch)

You’re absolutely right - there are probably many factors. Alas, being P-C confers no immunity to the stressful effects of all the cruel rhetoric.  Many women who have had abortions feel it is something they must hide from everyone or be very careful who knows.  No doubt hormonal changes and the shift in stresses that originally drove the abortion decision are also factors. 
This is why I get so annoyed by the P-L characterization of women who have abortions as making an easy decision.  What an awful decision to have to face, and then be vilified for it by self-righteous meddlers… 

GM… oh, that poor girl.

I just wonder what it would mean for abortion to be obsolete.  They all thought the industrial revolution would make slavery obsolete, but we still had to make it illegal…

That was kind of you GM, being so busy with your own.  I would hope they could give it in open adoption & get the bastard who did that…even if he was the same age.

I don’t think that slavery is obsolete, the practice still is very much alive in numerous places in the world.  As for something becoming obsolete without becoming illegal consider that Apple IIGS.  I remember when they were the hot thing (circa 1985) but they pretty much went the way of the Dodo, yet no one banned them.  Also, in the realm of social practices once people fought off (or at least tried to fight off) disease with scented handkerchiefs, no one does that anymore and no one had to make it illegal.

I was just about to say that same thing, DoF.
If women lived in an environment where they could be comforted and respected to make a decision, then maybe the emotional aftereffects would be easier to deal with.
Here in Japan, the environment is much less hostile to abortion and most people think it is a viable option for many women.  Part of the reasoning behind this is that they don’t like the way the hormones in the pill affect your body.  So they use condoms or whatever other method they see fit, and sometimes abortion is needed.  But instead of being made to feel like criminals, the women can have small statues made to remember and honor the baby they aborted, and deal with it in a respectful way.  The statues are placed in a special cemetery and the women have time to sort out their feelings.  Japan is by no means a perfect society, but I like this aspect of it.

I would hope they could give it in open adoption & get the bastard who did that…even if he was the same age.

Get the bastard…it takes 2 to tango, you know.
I don’t like the assumption that it’s all the man’s doing.  The egg is just as important as the sperm, ditto for everything else that goes with it.

Still, what an awful mess to have on your hands at 13.  Her body is barely formed, she’s just beginning to become an adult and already she’s asking so much of herself.  I really hope that everything works out in the best way possible—be it adoption, help from the parents, foster care, whatever.

(zilch) Theo, if you want a serious discussion of hard moral choices, you will have to leave the possibility of miracles out of it.

I’ve always disliked these hypothetical moral what-ifs. It’s worthwhile to reflect on moral questions, but unless you have actually lived these scenarios, the only honest answer you can give is something like “I would hope that I’d do ...” - anything else is another type of net-less tennis match.

Likewise, I’m not sure that having reflected on hypothetical questions from the comfort of your armchair is any help if you are faced with the real thing. In that case, you agonize until you run out of time, then flip a coin and hope for the best…

Please accept my apologies for arriving late to this thread! I’ve spent two nights reading through it before preparing a post.

The topic was something akin to rightful objections to a teacher proselytzing in the classroom, and the monitoring/censorship that resulted from his apparent failure to desist. I agree he had no right to do so. 

I have found the discussions on the FF and their religion or beliefs enlightening.

As for Shana’s (et al) attitude of liberal live-and-let-live: “Gay men and women do not come to your house and stick their nose into your life bearing pamphlets on the salvation of fisting and santorum.  When they do, give me a call.  I will probably laugh and dance with glee.”

I could wholeheartedly agree - if only it were true.  However, just as this thread began with a Christian (presumed) fundy in the classroom influencing children, others have taken to similar, equally distasteful tactics to influence students to embrace a different agenda.
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=605&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport

As for the Pledge of Allegiance, I like it myself, as it’s currently written, under God, and I think teaching it to kids is a good thing.  I recognize that not all kids come from homes where the parents (or even the kids) would agree with me.  I don’t believe kids from families who object to the pledge should be forced to recite it.  Since kids will get exposed to all sorts of ideas (by the very fact of mixing them in schools with lots of other kids), it’s a great teachable moment for diversity.  If Suzie doesn’t stand while the class recites the pledge, and is comfortable explaining why, then she has freedom of conscience while demonstrating leadership and self-esteem.  If Suzie doesn’t stand while the class recites the pledge, and doesn’t want to explain why, the teacher can assign Suzie to turn in the attendance sheet to the office while the class says the pledge, or teacher can take the opportunity to say, “America is a melting pot where we are fortunate to have the freedom to believe different things.”

Please accept my apologies for arriving late to this thread! I’ve spent two nights reading through it before preparing a post. (Kelly)

Kelly, you just provided a positive example. 

Don’t say that out loud!  I’m sure it could ruin my reputation somewhere if it got around too far, I’m sure.  My mother always told me if nothing else, I could always serve as a bad example.  Sounds like now I’m good for nuttin’.

Kelly:If Suzie doesn’t stand while the class recites the pledge, and is comfortable explaining why, then she has freedom of conscience while demonstrating leadership and self-esteem.  If Suzie doesn’t stand while the class recites the pledge, and doesn’t want to explain why, the teacher can assign Suzie to turn in the attendance sheet to the office while the class says the pledge, or teacher can take the opportunity to say, “America is a melting pot where we are fortunate to have the freedom to believe different things.â€?

If Suzie is a first-grader, it is very unlikely that she will feel comfortable explaining why she isn’t doing something all the other kids are doing, and no matter what the teacher says, she will be singled out as being “different”, which is pretty hard for a first grader- or weren’t you ever in first grade?

Why should Suzie be forced into this position in the first place?  Leave out “under God”, and the kids who want to believe that can believe it.

Speaking as an outsider, I’d prefer “one nation indivisible” to “one nation under god” whether I was atheist or not. The original wording speaks about unity and makes no mention of religion, which is interesting considering the author of the pledge was a Baptist minister.

As for something becoming obsolete without becoming illegal consider that Apple IIGS.  I remember when they were the hot thing (circa 1985) but they pretty much went the way of the Dodo, yet no one banned them.

I know this is stretching this thread to the snapping point, but Pig, I still have an Apple IISE, built in 1984, which I used in my workshop until about three years ago, long after the last dodo kicked the bucket.

Mick- those were the days, when the Baptists were still liberal…

Kelly said: I could wholeheartedly agree - if only it were true. However, just as this thread began with a Christian (presumed) fundy in the classroom influencing children, others have taken to similar, equally distasteful tactics to influence students to embrace a different agenda.
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=605&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport

It’s sad that Kelly chose to use material from Concerned Women for America (CWA) to argue that the homosexual lifestyle is being forced on school children.

After reading a few of their web articles, see if you would consider their information to be unbiased and would trust that the article she linked to contains factual points of contention?

Their mission statement says “We are the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich 25-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.”

Just as an example of CWA’s incredible dedication to truth and fact, here are some of the reasons the organization gives to “Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment” to deny same-sex marriage.

* Christians, Jews and Muslims would be forced to endorse behavior that they recognize as contrary to their beliefs.

* Same-sex marriage activists claim that homosexuals must be allowed to “marry” in order to have the benefits and protections that only marriage provides. Wrong. The mayor of San Francisco and thousands of homosexual couples have defied that state’s marriage laws and clearly exposed that it’s never been about benefits. It’s about destroying the definition of marriage.

* The results of a December 2003 Zogby poll indicate that 73% of registered Massachusetts voters understand that homosexuals can provide for one another with arrangements already permitted in the law.

* If homosexual “marriage” is permitted, there is no logical stopping point at which to deny marriage to any combinations of people who want to “marry.”

* Human experience and a vast body of social science research show that married, mother-father households are best for children. Homosexual “marriage” denies children a mother and father. Even male/female cohabitation is dangerous for children - and omosexual “marriage” does not offer even this basic necessity for children.

* Children of divorced or unwed parents have lower grades… are more likely to be held back, and are more likely to drop out of high school. Divorce and unmarried childbearing appear to have negative effects on children’s physical health and life expectancy. The health disadvantages associated with being raised outside of intact marriages persist long into adulthood. (What the fuck does this have to do with the gay narriage issue?)

* Adultery, pre-marital sex, no-fault divorce, co-habitation, and absentee fathers and mothers have already weakened marriage. Adding homosexuality to the mix will only further destabilize marriage.

* A University of California study shows that human papillomavirus (HPV) is epidemic among homosexual men - 93% of HIV-positive men, 61% of non-HIV-positive men.

* Homosexual households are more prone to domestic violence. “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).

* Counterfeit money hurts us all - everyone’s money is devalued. Counterfeit doctors hurt us all - patients die. Counterfeit marriage hurts us all - everyone suffers when motherless/fatherless children are kept from thriving in ways only married mother-father homes can provide. Redefining marriage inevitably leads to the end of marriage. The best example is what’s happened in Scandinavia since same-sex marriage has been legalized: marriage has disappeared.

Certainly the critical thinker will see from just these excerpts that CWA has little regard for facts and instead plays on the readers emotions and biases. These are the same old baseless arguments that we’ve dealt with here time and again.

For a laugh, here’s a Windows Media file dealing with the rights of Christians to keep religious displays in government institutions and churches.  It says next to nothing about real instances of disenfranchisement, but uses emotional hot buttons to give the appearance of content.

The introduction explains: “Our friends at Liberty Counsel have announced their “Friend or Foe� Christmas campaign. The effort is to defend religious liberty at this pivotal time of year.�

http://gideon.cwfa.org/radio/broadcasts/cw20041201a.m3u

This too is an interesting link. See if you see notice issues similar to the subject of ellie’s entry.

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/6944/LEGAL/freedom/index.htm

As if it matters, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, did he?

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5618&department=CFI&categoryid=family

Also:

Philadelphia Chooses ‘Gays’ Over God

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20
Consider these Philadelphia news stories in chronological order.
1. July: The Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corp. launches a multimillion-dollar ad campaign on cable TV to attract homosexual tourists to the city. The ads depict Betsy Ross sewing a “rainbow flag” (the emblem of organized homosexuality), two men in colonial costume enjoying a romantic interlude, and rave reviews of Philadelphia’s “gay night life.”
2. August: “Gay Day” at the ol’ ballpark, in this case Citizens Bank Park, home of the Philadelphia Phillies. When Christians protest peacefully by displaying banners, they’re ejected from the park. And the crowd cheers when two men hop onto the field and smooch.

3. October 10: Philadelphia police arrest 11 Christians for committing the “hate crime” and “riot” of singing hymns near a homosexual “Outfest.â€? The Christians have been charged with a laundry list of felonies, some of which carry prison penalties. Described by Philadelphia authorities as members of a “criminal conspiracy,” the Christians sang the hymns to protest – peacefully, nonviolently – a city-sanctioned “Coming Out Day” for homosexuals.
Is the city of Philadelphia trying to tell us that homosexuality is good and Christianity is evil?
Something’s going on here.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. It seems Philadelphia has chosen sides: big-money and organized sodomy over the Word of God. Well, at least we know where Philadelphia stands.
Someday, sooner than you think, the whole country will have to choose. Biblical Christianity and Gay-topia cannot live under the same roof. If the one is right, the other must be wrong. Each of these worldviews excludes the other.
These events in Philadelphia give us a foretaste of what that choice will look like – Christians carted off in paddy wagons, punished for expressing their faith in public – if America chooses to support the homosexual movement.

CWA is also supporting (but not joining) a boycott of Proctor and Gamble which ran an ad in a gay magazine to market Downy Wrinkle Release. Much ado about nothing in my opinion,
though I have little affection for Proctor and Gamble’s general practices.

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=6455&department=CFI&categoryid=family

Over and over and over again outright lies are offered as facts by this organization. But don’t take my word for it; check out more of the articles on their site:

http://www.cwfa.org/library.asp?category=family

Kelly has her values as does CWA. It’s my suspicion though that both hers and theirs are, for the most part, inexactly and unfairly chosen.

Brock- I too went to that CWA site and was mulling over how best to express the bad taste it left in my mouth, but you’ve done a better job of it than I would have.

Rock on, Brock!  Just wanted to add:
That site does not give a concrete example of a teacher put under review for teaching kids that they should become homosexual.  It listed many things the kids created themselves, and example lessons, but nothing that outright said the teacher was forcing a viewpoint onto children.

Still waiting to hear about fisting and santorum in the classroom…:)

I would be interested to see if there are any unbiased accounts of such incidents…

Originally posted by deadscot:
That’s one of the advantages of an imaginary god-friend, you can presuppose and imagine anything you want without regard to factual information.

I’m not sure this statement has relevance to the discussion.  I came up with (what I thought was) a clearly defined hypothetical situation that everyone had a clear understanding of that included possibility of a miracle or very unlikely ending because in reality few events seem truly impossible.  I included the definition of the miracle and backed up my provision of a miracle as a miracle using apropriately the conditions provided in the definition.  Unless of course you disagree with that definition of miracle it would help if you state so.  I thought we were all playing on the same field.  What factual information were you looking for in this hypothetical situation?  I can’t understand your thought process unless you write it for me.  With so few words I can only assume which does nothing for a debate.

Theocrat - It was just to say that one can make numerous leaps of faith if one believes in the omnipotent powers of an imaginary being.  This is precisely what you are doing when you being things such as ‘miracles’ into play.

Hypothetically, I could say that despite medical evidence to the contrary, any time someone takes aspirin it just serves as a medium for the god of pain to perform a miracle.

Nothing is out of the realm of possibility in regard to imagination.