Where do you live...?

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.amipatriotic.com/images/jesusland.jpg

[YNKYH8R]

Rove Was Right
One of the worst aspects of Bush's win on Tuesday is the reality that Rove was right. Karl Rove, Bush's senior campaign advisor (aka Bush's Brain) apparently always felt that if the "evangelicals" had voted in 2000, the election wouldn't have even been close. So he designed Bush's presidency to appeal to those people to ensure a second term. Witness the limitations on federal funding for stem cell research, the passage of the partial birth abortion ban, the removal of federal funds for international family planning organizations and the endorsement of a federal amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage. This radical right wing social agenda that has so incensed us on the left is exactly what got him elected, for this time the evangelicals did turn out and they voted for Bush. And according to Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times, they constitute one-third of Americans, which would explain the statistic that 36% of all Bush voters counted "moral values" as the number one issue they voted on. Greater than terrorism, greater than Iraq, greater than the economy. This utter contempt for and assault on our values is what has made us so passionate and feel like this was more than a mere election. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times agrees.


What troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at another level, without warning, it actually became about everything. Partly that happened because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake, and partly because Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president.

[YNKYH8R]

Voter Priorities
Thanks to Guru who is experiencing the election in a hotel room in Hong Kong, who reported this interesting tidbit on voter priorities from CNN International:

Kerry Voters:

Economy/Jobs 33%
Iraq War 28%
Terrorism 3%

Bush Voters:

Moral Values 36%
Terrorism 32%

Pretty much says it all , doesn't it?

[YNKYH8R]

In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash

By Ralph C. Reynolds

Before the days of credit and debit cards, one used to see signs similar to the one above in diners, service stations, food stores, and many other establishments, obviously playing on the use of the motto "In God We Trust" that is on our coins and paper currency. It may come as a surprise to many younger and even not so young persons that this was not always so, that the regular use of "In God We Trust" on US coins did not begin until 1908, "In God We Trust" was not made an official motto of the United States until 1956, and the motto did not appear on paper money until 1957. The history of the choice of "In God We Trust" as an official motto of the United States and the practice of placing "In God We Trust" on coins and bills is a tale of historical revisionism, perfidy by our elected representatives and appointed officials, and ecclesiastical opportunism whose results have tended to eat away at the foundations of our liberties and threaten the very idea of the separation of church and state.

In contrast to the Declaration of Independence, and quite deliberately, the Constitution of the United States contains not a single reference to a deity or to divine inspiration. This was, of course, due to the genius of the founding fathers who saw in Europe and elsewhere the strife that had been engendered by the adoption of official religions in nearly all Old World countries. Yet we frequently see in letters to the editor and elsewhere the claim that the US was created and remains a Christian nation. I have had several e-mail notes from evangelicals and fundamentalists who have maintained the same thing. When pressed as to where this idea comes from, they point to the words "In God We Trust" on all our money and the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Well, how did this come about? How did the clearly unconstitutional words "In God We Trust" and "under God" come to appear on our money and in our Pledge of Allegiance?

In the early years of our country, around 1800, when church affiliation was perhaps 10% (some authorities say up to 17-20%) of the population, the motto on our coins, then the major medium of exchange, was often just "LIBERTY." In 1776, Congress appointed John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to design a Great Seal for the fledgling country. The motto they adopted for the Great Seal was E Pluribus Unum, meaning, "from many, one" or "one unity composed of many parts." Although the design was rejected, the motto was adopted by the designers of the Great Seal approved by Congress in 1782. The motto was first used on coins of the United States mint in 1795, and both legends, that is, LIBERTY and E Pluribus Unum, were used somewhat regularly on coins throughout the nineteenth century.

By 1860 the proportion of church-related persons in the United States had slowly doubled or tripled to about 40% of the population, and during and following the Civil War, there was a burgeoning of religious fanaticism in America that built on a general feeling fed by the clergy that the Civil War was God's punishment for omitting His name from the Constitution. In 1863, eleven Protestant denominations banded together to petition the Congress to correct the oversight by the founders and "reform" the Constitution to indicate that the United States was created as and remained a Christian nation. Thus, the so-called National Reform Association submitted the following additions to the preamble:

We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler among nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the inalienable rights and the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves, our posterity, and all the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [Proposed additions italicized.]

The Christian amendment never gained the approval of the Congress or of any of the states. When introduced again in 1874 it never got out of committee. In its heyday, however, in the early 1860s, the NRA (not the gun people) had as members many prominent men including a Supreme Court Justice, William Strong, and two ex-governors of Pennsylvania, J.W. Geary and James Pollock. The stated and well-known goal of the NRA was the creation of a Christian theocracy in the United States. Although they were singularly unsuccessful in their primary goal of amending the preamble, the organization lasted through the first half of the twentieth century and apparently still had registered lobbyists in the late 1950s.

[cleaningla]

Think Karl Rove took these pictures?

http://minutillo.com/steve/weblog/images/bush-lord.jpg

http://minutillo.com/steve/weblog/images/bush-god.jpg

Looks like they played the God card and won, but what did they win?

[Jolie Rouge]

How much stem cell research was federally funded under Clinton ?

ZERO.

Bush has not "banned" stem cell research as the Liberal Media would like to play it - he has limited funding to the existing embryonic stem cell lines where the research can be more fully developed. There is no ban or limites on private funding for research in other lines.


Do you understand the process of a partial birth abortion - delivering an infant past the shoulders but holding the hips and legs in the birth canal ( because if the child is fully delivered it would be murder ) while you puncture the skull and evacuate the brainpan. The idea that the "health of the mother" is involved is a fallacy - because the most difficult part of the delivery is passing the head and shoulder thru the birth canal - which is already accomplished prior to the final action of the procedure - the evacuation of the brainpan.

Do you know they can not procede with a partial birth abortion on a child that is presenting breech ? They must reach in and turn the baby ( risking the mother ) so that the head is presented first so that they can complete the procedure that is supposed to be protecting the "health of the mother".

[YNKYH8R]

How much stem cell research was federally funded under Clinton ?

ZERO.

Bush has not "banned" stem cell research as the Liberal Media would like to play it - he has limited funding to the existing embryonic stem cell lines where the research can be more fully developed. There is no ban or limites on private funding for research in other lines.


Do you understand the process of a partial birth abortion - delivering an infant past the shoulders but holding the hips and legs in the birth canal ( because if the child is fully delivered it would be murder ) while you puncture the skull and evacuate the brainpan. The idea that the "health of the mother" is involved is a fallacy - because the most difficult part of the delivery is passing the head and shoulder thru the birth canal - which is already accomplished prior to the final action of the procedure - the evacuation of the brainpan.

Do you know they can not procede with a partial birth abortion on a child that is presenting breech ? They must reach in and turn the baby ( risking the mother ) so that the head is presented first so that they can complete the procedure that is supposed to be protecting the "health of the mother".
These articles do not mention "banning stem cell research" nor does it mention Clinton. With that being said...
I do not approve of partial birth abortion. I also do not approve of the government telling a woman what to do with her body. I do not approve of state sponsered religon. And I do not approve of limited funding of stem cell research.

[YNKYH8R]

Saudi religious scholars back ‘holy war’
Clerics appeal to Iraqis to support anti-U.S. militants

The Associated Press
Updated: 4:43 a.m. ET Nov. 7, 2004


BEIRUT, Lebanon - Prominent Saudi religious scholars urged Iraqis to support militants waging holy war against the U.S.-led coalition forces as American troops prepared Saturday for a major assault on the insurgent hotbed of Fallujah.

The 26 Saudi scholars and preachers said in an open letter to the Iraqi people that their appeal was prompted by “the extraordinary situation through which the Iraqis are passing which calls for unity and exchange of views.” The letter was posted on the Internet.

“At no time in history has a whole people been violated ... by propaganda that’s been proved false,” Sheik Awad al-Qarni, one of the scholars, told Al-Arabiya TV.

“The U.S. forces are still destroying towns on the heads of their people and killing women and children. What’s going on in Iraq is a result of the big crime of America’s occupation of Iraq.”

In their letter, the scholars stressed that armed attacks by militant Iraqi groups on U.S. troops and their allies in Iraq represent “legitimate” resistance.


Appeal aimed at Iraqis
The scholars were careful to direct their appeal to Iraqis only and stayed away from issuing a general, Muslim-wide call for holy war. They also identified the military as the target, one that is considered legitimate by many Arabs who view U.S. troops and their allies as occupiers.

The independent scholars — some of whom have been criticized in the past for their extremist views — apparently did not want to antagonize the Saudi government, a U.S. ally, or appear to be flouting its efforts to fight terrorism.

Saudi Arabia has sealed off its long border with Iraq and bars people from crossing into that country. Its most senior clerics issued a statement last year saying the call for jihad — or holy war — should only come from the ruler and should not be based on edicts issued by individual clergymen.

Saudi officials did not comment on the latest statement.

The clerics’ appeal came as U.S. troops, backed by air and artillery power and Iraqi security forces, were gearing up for a major assault on Fallujah.


The clerics issued a fatwa, or religious edict, prohibiting Iraqis from offering any support for military operations carried out by U.S. forces against insurgent strongholds.

“Fighting the occupiers is a duty for all those who are able,” the letter said. “It is a jihad to push back the assailants. Resistance is a legitimate right. A Muslim must not inflict harm on any resistance man or inform on them. Instead, they should be supported and protected.”

Besides al-Qarni, the prominent scholars signing the letter included Sheik Safar al-Hawali, Sheik Nasser al-Omar, Sheik Salman al-Awdah and Sheik Sharif Hatem al-Aouni.

Al-Hawali, who was jailed in the 1990s for five years without trial because he criticized U.S. involvement in the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, once was close to Saudi-born al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. He opposed the presence of U.S. troops in the kingdom.

His name appeared this month on a list issued by a group of Arab intellectuals seeking to prosecute prominent clerics for encouraging terrorism.

The scholars said inter-Iraqi fighting would cause “great damage to the Iraqis and give a free service to the Jews who are infiltrating into Iraq and to the coalition forces which exploit differences to consolidate their domination.”

Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and home to its two holiest cities, has launched a campaign against militants. The crackdown began after al-Qaida-affiliated operatives attacked three residential compounds in Riyadh in May 2003 and killed dozens of people, bringing terrorism to the kingdom for the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks.

[Jolie Rouge]

These articles do not mention "banning stem cell research" nor does it mention Clinton.

:confused:

kinda hard to discuss Clinton's funding of stem cell research ie: it did not exist. How does funding the most promising line of research ( existing lines ) equate with banning all research ?? See the thread I started months ago on the issue of Stem Cell research....



Rove Was Right
Witness the limitations on federal funding for stem cell research, the passage of the partial birth abortion ban ....

What troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science?[/u] And, most important, [u]is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?


I was quoting you - not 'an article' ...

But nice way to jump into the Iraq arguement .....

... while ignoring the realities of abortion....

[YNKYH8R]

:confused:

kinda hard to discuss Clinton's funding of stem cell research ie: it did not exist. How does funding the most promising line of research ( existing lines ) equate with banning all research ?? See the thread I started months ago on the issue of Stem Cell research....




I was quoting you - not 'an article' ...

But nice way to jump into the Iraq arguement .....

... while ignoring the realities of abortion....
Although I hate to bring it up...the realities of abortion are Roe v. Wade.

[YNKYH8R]

Man commits suicide at ground zero
25-year-old reportedly distraught over President Bush’s reelection

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:43 a.m. ET Nov. 7, 2004


NEW YORK - A 25-year-old from Georgia who was apparently distraught over President Bush’s re-election shot and killed himself at ground zero.

Andrew Veal’s body was found Saturday morning inside the off-limits site, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. A shotgun was found nearby, but no suicide note was found, Coleman said.

Newsday, citing a police source it did not identify, reported Sunday that Veal opposed the war in Iraq and was apparently distraught after the election.

Friends said Veal worked in a computer lab at the University of Georgia and was planning to marry.

“I’m absolutely sure it’s a protest,” Mary Anne Mauney, Veal’s supervisor at the lab, told The Daily News. “I don’t know what made him commit suicide, but where he did it was symbolic.”

Police were investigating how Veal entered the former World Trade Center site, which is protected by high fences and owned by the Port Authority.

[Jolie Rouge]

Man commits suicide at ground zero
25-year-old reportedly distraught over President Bush’s reelection
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:43 a.m. ET Nov. 7, 2004


NEW YORK - A 25-year-old from Georgia who was apparently distraught over President Bush’s re-election shot and killed himself at ground zero.

Andrew Veal’s body was found Saturday morning inside the off-limits site, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. A shotgun was found nearby, but no suicide note was found, Coleman said.

Newsday, citing a police source it did not identify, reported Sunday that Veal opposed the war in Iraq and was apparently distraught after the election.

Friends said Veal worked in a computer lab at the University of Georgia and was planning to marry.

“I’m absolutely sure it’s a protest,” Mary Anne Mauney, Veal’s supervisor at the lab, told The Daily News. “I don’t know what made him commit suicide, but where he did it was symbolic.”

Police were investigating how Veal entered the former World Trade Center site, which is protected by high fences and owned by the Port Authority.


He left no note, no one seemed to be aware he was suicidal ... but it is somehow Bush's fault ?? How is choosing Ground Zero a protest of Bush' re-election ?? Why not at the place where he ( preumably ) voted ? Why not in front of a GOP Campain Headquarters ?

What does this have to do with anything -- in particular the issues you originally brought up ?

[Jolie Rouge]

Although I hate to bring it up...the realities of abortion are Roe v. Wade.

no - that deals with the legalities of abortion.

[Jolie Rouge]

In case you were having problems finding the thread I mentioned earlier ...
"Setting the Record Straight: Stem Cell Research" : http://forums.bigbigsavings.com/showthread.php3?t=423137

[cavemtmomma]

Jeez YNKYH8R, you must not want the healing to begin.

[YNKYH8R]

Well I thought I'd add the suicide article because NY is now part of the United States of Canada, and it is always sad to see one of Jsesus Lands citizens take his/her life.
No one said it was Bush's fault, but was opposed to the war. And considering the time after the election and the GOP national convention was in NY. It says quite a bit killing yourself where so many people were murdered.

About the Roe v. Wade...When they wrote the law they probably were thinking about partial birth. Just like the founding fathers weren't thinking about fully and semi-automatic weapons when drafting the Bill of Rights.

[Jolie Rouge]

Service Industry Laments End of Election
By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Relieved that the presidential campaign is finally over? Not if you have a business that made an all-American buck on the advertising and crowds on the campaign trail. ``We could have a few more visits,'' said Bill Reynolds, president of Rent-a-John, which supplied portable toilets for several Kerry-Edwards and Bush-Cheney events the past six months. ``If somebody calls for a restroom, we respond to whoever you are.''

Even the candidate-generated gridlock may be missed - at least by Parr Peterson, whose company provided plastic ``pedestrian barriers'' for appearances by President Bush and Sen. John Kerry. ``That's a little bit of whipped cream on top of a pie we work on constantly,'' Peterson said. ``It's nice to have a few things like that.''


Ohio was the center of the election storm, with a combined 46 visits to the state by both candidates, often including multiple stops on a single day.


The frenzy continued right down to the wire as network news teams ringed the Ohio Statehouse in downtown Columbus on the day after the election, waiting to see which candidate would get the state's pivotal 20 electoral votes.


It all made for a good election year overall for Ohio and a banner October, especially in the Akron, Cleveland, Columbus and Youngstown areas. ``Let's just say if the hotel community in Ohio could band together and change the constitution for an election next year, they would,'' said Keith Stephenson, executive vice president of the Ohio Hotel and Lodging Association.


But the real winners were television stations.


Spending by campaigns and independent groups topped $570 million, mainly in about 20 battleground states, according to PQ Media, a Connecticut custom-media research company. That's up from about $160 million four years ago. ``If you owned a TV station in Florida, Pennsylvania or Ohio - especially Florida or Ohio - you made out gangbusters this year,'' said PQ Media vice president Leo Kivijarv.


In Roseland, N.J., Internet campaign button businessman Chris Daniels filled more than 400 orders this campaign season, three times more than a non-election year. After Nov. 2, he said, about the only potential customers contacting him were collectors and people looking for ``Hillary 2008'' buttons.


The Spalding Group in Louisville, Ky., took advantage of Internet marketing and the fierce competitiveness of the campaign to sell everything from Bush-Cheney signs that could be delivered by mail to ``W 2004 Cufflinks.'' The company is a designated vendor for the Bush-Cheney campaign. ``Obviously it would be great to have a business that continued at the pace that this did,'' said Spalding founder and owner Ted Jackson. ``Nothing equals a presidential election - nothing, not the Super Bowl, not the World Series.''


Even marriage counselors kept busy. Some couples fought over politics while others took advantage of an ear they were paying to fill. Four years ago, ``I don't recall even hardly discussing the election with my clients,'' said Columbus marriage counselor Laura Meers. ``This has been unique in my experience having people who want to come in and actually spend a therapy session discussing their political choices.''



http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041107%2F1428014038.htm&sc=1110


On the Net:

Spalding Group: www.spalding-group.com

Campaign Buttons: www.campaignbuttons-etc.com



11/07/04 14:28

[Jolie Rouge]

Voter Priorities
Thanks to Guru who is experiencing the election in a hotel room in Hong Kong, who reported this interesting tidbit on voter priorities from CNN International:

Kerry Voters:

Economy/Jobs 33%
Iraq War 28%
Terrorism 3%

Bush Voters:

Moral Values 36%
Terrorism 32%

Pretty much says it all , doesn't it?


Summary: Iraq Top, Taxes Bottom for Voters



FIRST THINGS FIRST - Twenty-seven percent of voters said resolving the situation in Iraq should be President Bush's top priority.

TAXES - A top priority for only 2 percent. Two-to-one, voters said they would rather balance the budget than cut taxes.

WHAT ELSE? - Others chose terrorism (23 percent), the economy (18 percent), health care (14 percent), unemployment (7 percent) and education (7 percent) as top priorities for the president.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041107%2F1434015329.htm&sc=1131


11/07/04 14:33


AP Poll: Voters Most Want Stable Iraq
By WILL LESTER

WASHINGTON (AP) - As President Bush mulls what to do after winning re-election, voters say his first priority should be resolving the situation in Iraq, where the fighting is growing more intense.

They also want Bush to cut the deficit, which ballooned under his watch, rather than pushing for more tax cuts, according to an Associated Press poll taken right after the election.

The voters' concerns stood in contrast to the priorities Bush cited after he defeated Democrat John Kerry. Bush pledged to aggressively pursue major changes in Social Security, tax laws and medical malpractice awards. Terrorism was a chief concern both for Bush and many voters in the poll. ``I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it,'' Bush said a day after becoming the first president in 68 years to win re-election and gain seats in both the House and Senate.

Some 27 percent of respondents named Iraq as the top priority for the president's second term, ahead of issues such as terrorism, the economy and health care. Only 2 percent named taxes as a priority. By more than a 2-1 margin, voters said they preferred that the president balance the budget rather than reduce taxes further.

After a campaign dominated by discussion of Iraq and terrorism, national security issues are at the top of voters' concerns along with the economy. Voters were asked to pick from a list of issues in the AP poll that included Iraq, terrorism, the economy, unemployment, health care, education and taxes.

Many voters on Election Day indicated they were also concerned about ``moral values'' - a broader concern than specific issues such as health care and education.

Republicans ranked terrorism first on the list, followed by Iraq and the economy as priorities for Bush. Democrats were most likely to name Iraq, followed by the economy and health care while independents picked Iraq and then terrorism, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

``He has to go 500 percent in Iraq,'' said Ruth Shoemaker, an independent and a retiree from Chula Vista, Calif. ``That's why I voted for the president.''

Seven in 10 voters, including a majority of Democrats, would prefer that U.S. troops to stay in Iraq until the country is stable, instead of having them leave immediately. U.S. troops are preparing for assaults on insurgent strongholds used as havens for those mounting increased attacks against coalition forces.

``There has got to be some kind of resolution in Iraq,'' said Erwin Neighbors, a Republican and a community college teacher from Moberly, Mo. ``We can't fold our tent without accomplishing our goals.''

On the domestic front, Bush says his plans to overhaul the tax laws would be ``revenue-neutral'' and would not cut taxes. Throughout the past year, however, he has urged Congress to make earlier tax cuts permanent.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now sees $2.3 trillion in accumulated deficits over the next 10 years. That does not include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the choice between balancing the budget and cutting taxes, voters chose balancing the budget by 66 percent to 31 percent. Just over half of Republicans as well as most Democrats and independents felt that way.

When the choice is between balancing the budget and spending more on education, health care and economic development, voters were divided. Slightly more wanted the additional domestic spending, 55 percent, than chose balancing the budget, 44 percent.

During his second term, Bush is likely to have an opening on the Supreme Court; Chief Justice William Rehnquist is seriously ill with cancer. Six in 10 voters say they are comfortable that the president will nominate the right kind of person to serve on the court. Bush has sidestepped questions about who he would name if there were an opening.

But three-fourths of Democrats are uncomfortable with a potential Bush nomination to the high court. ``I'm very worried,'' said Carla Matlin, a Democrat and a marketing manager from the San Francisco area. ``I'm afraid that, rather than mainstream judges, Bush will appoint judges that are way over on the right.''

Asked whether Bush should appoint a justice who will uphold or overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that protected a woman's right to abortions, six in 10 said they want a justice who will uphold the landmark ruling.

Voters seem generally accepting of the election.

A majority, 54 percent, said the election results improved their confidence in the electoral system. Six in 10, including one-third of Democrats, said they felt ``hopeful'' after the election.

But more than eight in 10 Democrats, 84 percent, acknowledged their disappointment about the election results.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 844 registered voters was taken Nov. 3-5 and has a margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041107%2F1229993212.htm&sc=1131

11/07/04 12:29

[cavemtmomma]

I just wish Bush would stop causing all those hurricanes in Florida, and Mt. St. Helens when is he going to stop that?? After everyone knows if it's bad it's Bush's fault. (but I must say it is rather fulfilling to have voted for SUCH a powerful man!LOL!)

[Jolie Rouge]

About the Roe v. Wade...When they wrote the law they probably were thinking about partial birth.

The Bill of Rights nor the Constitution address the issue of abortion. It is an example of legistlation by litigation.



Just like the founding fathers weren't thinking about fully and semi-automatic weapons when drafting the Bill of Rights.

:confused: -- that makes no sense as it is writen ...

[Jolie Rouge]

I just wish Bush would stop causing all those hurricanes in Florida, and Mt. St. Helens when is he going to stop that?? After everyone knows if it's bad it's Bush's fault. (but I must say it is rather fulfilling to have voted for SUCH a powerful man!LOL!)

Don't forget the earthquake they had in Utah this morning .... :rolleyes:

[adorkablex]

Man commits suicide at ground zero
25-year-old reportedly distraught over President Bush’s reelection

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:43 a.m. ET Nov. 7, 2004


NEW YORK - A 25-year-old from Georgia who was apparently distraught over President Bush’s re-election shot and killed himself at ground zero.

Andrew Veal’s body was found Saturday morning inside the off-limits site, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. A shotgun was found nearby, but no suicide note was found, Coleman said.

Newsday, citing a police source it did not identify, reported Sunday that Veal opposed the war in Iraq and was apparently distraught after the election.

Friends said Veal worked in a computer lab at the University of Georgia and was planning to marry.

“I’m absolutely sure it’s a protest,” Mary Anne Mauney, Veal’s supervisor at the lab, told The Daily News. “I don’t know what made him commit suicide, but where he did it was symbolic.”

Police were investigating how Veal entered the former World Trade Center site, which is protected by high fences and owned by the Port Authority.



That's really sad.

[Jolie Rouge]

I always liked this little bit of wisdom.... it sort of brings things into proper perspective................



Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed.
Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and all of their hopes and dreams.
If I didn't drink this beer, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered.
Then I say to myself, 'It is better that I drink this beer and let their dreams come true than to be selfish and worry about my liver.'
--Jack Handey


It is just not right to take things too seriously.

[Jolie Rouge]

A CHANCE TO LIVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE
The Free State Project has over 6,000 liberty-loving activists who are committed to moving into one small state for the purpose of creating "Liberty in Our Lifetime." Read all about it, and then join us.

The migration is already beginning.
http://freestateproject.org

[YNKYH8R]

The Bill of Rights nor the Constitution address the issue of abortion. It is an example of legistlation by litigation.




:confused: -- that makes no sense as it is writen ...
I never mentioned the constitution or the bill of rights when I mentioned roe v. wade. (You always do this, drawing one thing out of another which I never wrote.)

When I mentioned the weapons I was making an analogy about when a law is written certain principals are not taken into consideration.
ie. when roe v. wade was drafted (which I know came from a court case, duh!) the lawyers were probably not thinking about partial birth abortions. Just as when the 2nd amendment was written (right to bare arms) they weren't thinking about semi and fully automatic weapons. In either incedent if both extremes were presented (partial birth abortion, and semi and fully automatic weapons) then the original laws may have been drafted differently. But they weren't, and we have to put up with both.

[YNKYH8R]

I just wish Bush would stop causing all those hurricanes in Florida, and Mt. St. Helens when is he going to stop that?? After everyone knows if it's bad it's Bush's fault. (but I must say it is rather fulfilling to have voted for SUCH a powerful man!LOL!)
What are you taking about now?!? Democrats do not blame everything on Bush. (At least I don't) Bush is just the extension of a problem that has existed within the system for a long time.

[janelle]

Is this thread saying a vote for Bush was a vote for Jesus? Alright, I'll go along with that!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is great IMO.

When people want to get rid of God in our country you have to expect a backlash. It's been coming for a long time.

[Jolie Rouge]

I never mentioned the constitution or the bill of rights when I mentioned roe v. wade. (You always do this, drawing one thing out of another which I never wrote.)

Perhaps you could be clearer about what you post ...

example :
About the Roe v. Wade...When they wrote the law they probably were thinking about partial birth. Just like the founding fathers weren't thinking about fully and semi-automatic weapons when drafting the Bill of Rights.

You bring the Founding Fathers and Bill of Rights into the discussion and then complain that I "misunderstand" you .... :rolleyes:

[Damnifiknw]

What are you taking about now?!? Democrats do not blame everything on Bush. (At least I don't) Bush is just the extension of a problem that has existed within the system for a long time.


You're joking, right? Let's get for real here. Democrats placed blame on Bush cause they have/had hemorrhoids, constipation, diarrhea, hurricanes, earthquake in Cali, Mt. Saint Helen, they farted in the wrong direction, you name it, Bush was blamed for it.

I'm still waiting for one to take the cake - even though the lil pity post about the 25 yrs old is darn close.

[YNKYH8R]

You're joking, right? Let's get for real here. Democrats placed blame on Bush cause they have/had hemorrhoids, constipation, diarrhea, hurricanes, earthquake in Cali, Mt. Saint Helen, they farted in the wrong direction, you name it, Bush was blamed for it.

I'm still waiting for one to take the cake - even though the lil pity post about the 25 yrs old is darn close.
Like I said, at least I don't.
And Jolie, I will try to write a little clearer in the future. :)
And Janelle, although I do believe Jesus is a posative influence on soceity from the moral and ethical stand point, I do not believe he should be used as a campaign gimmick, nor do I believe in state sponsored church.

[YNKYH8R]

Jolie, I thought of a solution that might fit the bill. :)

We need to change Roe v. Wade. We'll make it so that a woman's right to choose is granted in only the following circumstances, rape and incest. Making it illegal to perform partial birth abortions, yet keeping it open so that it is not a form of birth control. :cool:

As a trade off we'll rewrite the 2nd Amendment to reflect the change in the times. As the COnstitution is a living document it needs to fit witht the times. "The right to bare arms will be limited to rifles (muzzel loading, and bolt action) and revolvers. Eliminating fully automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles and hand guns. Shotgun require special permit and are to be used only during hunting seasons. :)

[ladybugbhb]

Jolie, I thought of a solution that might fit the bill. :)



As a trade off we'll rewrite the 2nd Amendment to reflect the change in the times. As the COnstitution is a living document it needs to fit witht the times. "The right to bare arms will be limited to rifles (muzzel loading, and bolt action) and revolvers. Eliminating fully automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles and hand guns. Shotgun require special permit and are to be used only during hunting seasons. :)

well, when a burglar comes into your home, with the intent to harm you and yours, make sure that it is hunting season so you can use that shotgun to protect yourself. if it is not, then i guess you just have to let him do as he pleases.

[YNKYH8R]

Unless you own a revolver or a rifle. And you don't have to worry about those burglers having superior fire arms because everything else would be illegal for distrabution. :)

The rational? Do you really need that much fire power? Unless you are the cops or the military?

[janelle]

And Janelle, although I do believe Jesus is a posative influence on soceity from the moral and ethical stand point, I do not believe he should be used as a campaign gimmick, nor do I believe in state sponsored church.

Living your beliefs is not a gimmick. This nation is a Christian nation. Most people who live here are Christians of one denonmination or another. People are tired of all the political movements in the past who want to deny it. Now they have voted.

The only thing different in this election is Christians have finally woken up to how their rights were being eroded. In the past we took it for granted that most people accepted the fact that America is a Christian nation. Now Christians have wised up and know even here our way of living can be taken away from us if we get complacent.

There is a separation of church and state but the state cannot take away religion. I think that is the main reason our founding fathers put that in the constitution. They did not want a state religion like England but they wanted religion. Otherwise, they would have put in the constitution a clause having a country without any religion. From what I have read most if not all the founding fathers cherished their religion and many people have immigrated here so they can follow their religious beliefs.

We are getting back to our roots now with this election. The middle of the country is tired of being told how to live from both coasts. They do not understand us. Now they need to see us for who we are or they will be voted out.----oh, that just happened didn't it. :rolleyes:

[mesue]

I'm always confused by the President's views on some matters. I always was taught in my religion anyway that if you believe something, you believe it, you can't tear it apart and pick and choose what you want it to mean. Like the right to life, a lot of people quote the ten commandments, one of the most memorable is, thou shalt not kill! Well now if it applies to the abortion issue it also applies to the death penalty issue just as much. And we are not talking about the innocense or guilt between a so called murderer or the innocense of a fetus, we are talking about the commandment thou shalt not kill, it does not say that you can apply it here but disregard it in another situation, it says very clearly, thou shalt not kill! But yet this President who says he is a born again christian and against abortion has the record for the most executions ever as governor of Texas.
The other thing I really do not like or appreciate is the President's use of his religion to get re-elected. That to me is very unchristian like to use God to further his political agenda. It reminds me of a preacher begging for money on tv to further his ministry to the poor in his representation of God as a prophet while he himself is wearing a thousand dollar suit and wearing a rolex.

[YNKYH8R]

Living your beliefs is not a gimmick. This nation is a Christian nation. Most people who live here are Christians of one denonmination or another. People are tired of all the political movements in the past who want to deny it. Now they have voted.

The only thing different in this election is Christians have finally woken up to how their rights were being eroded. In the past we took it for granted that most people accepted the fact that America is a Christian nation. Now Christians have wised up and know even here our way of living can be taken away from us if we get complacent.

There is a separation of church and state but the state cannot take away religion. I think that is the main reason our founding fathers put that in the constitution. They did not want a state religion like England but they wanted religion. Otherwise, they would have put in the constitution a clause having a country without any religion. From what I have read most if not all the founding fathers cherished their religion and many people have immigrated here so they can follow their religious beliefs.

We are getting back to our roots now with this election. The middle of the country is tired of being told how to live from both coasts. They do not understand us. Now they need to see us for who we are or they will be voted out.----oh, that just happened didn't it. :rolleyes:
I'm curious, how do you feel your rights are being eroded as a Christian? Your are free to attend whichever church you choose. You may speak of your faith openly. It is unfortunate that you feel that the coast are trying to tell you haow to live. In what way do you see this being applied? As I have said a good moral center is never a bad thing. And obviously you see the timeing as being right. What do you propose now? Now that you have our attention what is it you want? I know what I want, the end of the criminal organization that our government, over time, has become.

[cleaningla]

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy nieghbor-Saddam has WMD's.

Thou shalt not steal or covet thy nieghbors goods-Iraqi oil.

[YNKYH8R]

I'm always confused by the President's views on some matters. I always was taught in my religion anyway that if you believe something, you believe it, you can't tear it apart and pick and choose what you want it to mean. Like the right to life, a lot of people quote the ten commandments, one of the most memorable is, thou shalt not kill! Well now if it applies to the abortion issue it also applies to the death penalty issue just as much. And we are not talking about the innocense or guilt between a so called murderer or the innocense of a fetus, we are talking about the commandment thou shalt not kill, it does not say that you can apply it here but disregard it in another situation, it says very clearly, thou shalt not kill! But yet this President who says he is a born again christian and against abortion has the record for the most executions ever as governor of Texas.
The other thing I really do not like or appreciate is the President's use of his religion to get re-elected. That to me is very unchristian like to use God to further his political agenda. It reminds me of a preacher begging for money on tv to further his ministry to the poor in his representation of God as a prophet while he himself is wearing a thousand dollar suit and wearing a rolex.
WOW! You made my comment look like crap! LOL! :D

[janelle]

I see you still believe Michael Moore's propaganda. Most didn't.

My church says the death penalty is evil as well but it can be used for self defense as well as war. Some people will never change so if they are ever released they will kill again. Society needs to be protected from them.

Life in prison doesn't mean life in prison anymore.

[cleaningla]

Forgot one.

Thou shalt keep holy the sabbath day.

Does Bush go to church?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/152/story_15208_1.html

Guess as long as he doesn't break the one Clinton broke, it is okay. :rolleyes:

[Njean31]

My church says the death penalty is evil as well but it can be used for self defense as well as war. Some people will never change so if they are ever released they will kill again. Society needs to be protected from them.



yes, that is what i believe as well. killing a person who tortures, rapes, mutilates your grandma, daughter, and so and so forth is self defense........they are a threat to mankind and need to be exterminated. it follows along the same lines as MOST OF THE TIME a citizen of the us can kill an intruder or someone trying to physically cause them harm and not be arrested for murder.

[janelle]

I'm curious, how do you feel your rights are being eroded as a Christian? Your are free to attend whichever church you choose. You may speak of your faith openly. It is unfortunate that you feel that the coast are trying to tell you haow to live. In what way do you see this being applied? As I have said a good moral center is never a bad thing. And obviously you see the timeing as being right. What do you propose now? Now that you have our attention what is it you want? I know what I want, the end of the criminal organization that our government, over time, has become.

I don't understand why you say our government has become a criminal organization. The Dems were in charge then when it became one. You should be glad the party has changed and maybe the Republicans with both houses being Republican can retify all that.

You say a good moral center is never a bad thing? Are you saying the coasts are not moral? Now I'm confused. :confused: Maybe we agree more than we know.

[Njean31]

Forgot one.

Thou shalt keep holy the sabbath day.

Does Bush go to church?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/152/story_15208_1.html

Guess as long as he doesn't break the one Clinton broke, it is okay. :rolleyes:

I bet he has some sort of spiritual advisor in his cabinet or personal staff.

[BigLyd1]

Is this thread saying a vote for Bush was a vote for Jesus? Alright, I'll go along with that!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is great IMO.

When people want to get rid of God in our country you have to expect a backlash. It's been coming for a long time.

I say AMEN to that. As a matter of fact, I'm insulted (not for the obvious reasons) that my state is not in Jesus Land.

That's a good point about getting rid of God in our country. I think the liberal Dems are starting to get that reputation and it's not nice to not like God. :eek:

I'm sure hoping that's not what YNKYHTR is saying.

[YNKYH8R]

I don't understand why you say our government has become a criminal organization. The Dems were in charge then when it became one. You should be glad the party has changed and maybe the Republicans with both houses being Republican can retify all that.

You say a good moral center is never a bad thing? Are you saying the coasts are not moral? Now I'm confused. :confused: Maybe we agree more than we know.
When I say the Government is a criminal organization, I mean since the wall fell in '89. Plus some dealings during the Reagan administration.

The middle of the country is tired of being told how to live from both coasts. They do not understand us.

The only thing different in this election is Christians have finally woken up to how their rights were being eroded.

Explain the italicized.

[YNKYH8R]

I say AMEN to that. As a matter of fact, I'm insulted (not for the obvious reasons) that my state is not in Jesus Land.

That's a good point about getting rid of God in our country. I think the liberal Dems are starting to get that reputation and it's not nice to not like God. :eek:

I'm sure hoping that's not what YNKYHTR is saying.
No that is not what I am saying. Unfortunately Christians get a bad name in this country. Mainly because of intolerance. And because for every good Christian there seems to be some radical nut that makes them look bad. Like that guy who wanted to save the Lions. LOL!
I blieve in a moral center with ethics, and tolerance.

[Njean31]

The only thing different in this election is Christians have finally woken up to how their rights were being eroded.

Explain the italicized.


i can't speak for janelle but i can think of a couple of examples of Christians rights becoming eroded, NO PRAYER IN SCHOOL, TREND TOWARD MUTING GOD'S NAME IN GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC MEETINGS AND BUILDINGS, NO MORE PLAYS AT CHRISTMAS TIME IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS REFLECTING THE REAL MEAINING OF CHRISTMAS...removing the TEN COMMANDMENTS in courthouses/public buildings. it's just a matter of time before the motto "IN GOD WE TRUST" is off the currency. i'm sure i can think of more examples, but that's a snipet ;)

[YNKYH8R]

i can't speak for janelle but i can think of a couple of examples of Christians rights becoming eroded, NO PRAYER IN SCHOOL, TREND TOWARD MUTING GOD'S NAME IN GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC MEETINGS AND BUILDINGS, NO MORE PLAYS AT CHRISTMAS TIME IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS REFLECTING THE REAL MEAINING OF CHRISTMAS...removing the TEN COMMANDMENTS in courthouses/public buildings. it's just a matter of time before the motto "IN GOD WE TRUST" is off the currency. i'm sure i can think of more examples, but that's a snipet ;)
These are rights? We have a right to prayer in school? And christmas plays in public schools? The school administrations are the ones who set standard for dress, and conduct in the public school system. Otherwise, there are Christian academies, and Catholics schools. Muting God's name at Government meetings? Removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouse should be left to the Government, they are government buildings. If you want to place the ten commandments on your front lawn then there should be no issue. The prayer in school, I believe, is posibley an idea that will eventually fade. Why? Not because people want to, but because as time goes on, the people who remember a time when there was prayer in school won't be around anymore. Let me put it to you this way, I never prayed in school, there fore my fighting for something I have never experienced is pretty remote. Plus, I don't understand the big push for prayer in schools? The poeple who talk about it talk about it with fierce conviction, which is not a problem, but I don't see what it is going to add to the school experience?
And what about children who have not the same belief, we allow them to get singled out. It is bad enough some kids get teased because they can't afford to wear J Crew or Gap.

[suzski]

I live in Jesusland. Amen! :)

[Jolie Rouge]

We need to change Roe v. Wade. We'll make it so that a woman's right to choose is granted in only the following circumstances, rape and incest. Making it illegal to perform partial birth abortions, yet keeping it open so that it is not a form of birth control.

"health of the mother" is still an issue that needs to be included.



As a trade off we'll rewrite the 2nd Amendment to reflect the change in the times. As the COnstitution is a living document it needs to fit witht the times. "The right to bare arms will be limited to rifles (muzzel loading, and bolt action) and revolvers. Eliminating fully automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles and hand guns. Shotgun require special permit and are to be used only during hunting seasons.


As Ladybug points out - not all the citezens of the United States are law abiding people.
well, when a burglar comes into your home, with the intent to harm you and yours, make sure that it is hunting season so you can use that shotgun to protect yourself. if it is not, then i guess you just have to let him do as he pleases.


When you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.

[janelle]

Look at all the school shootings---and killings. How has our country come to this? Doesn't it horrify you? Our kids think killing is the answer to problems. That is NOTwhat Jesus taught but teachers cannot tell the kids what Jesus taught cause they're not allowed to speak Jesus's name on school property or at least in the classroom. :eek:

Some people still do not understand how Christians think. When you tell us we can't talk about Jesus you might as well be telling us to shut up about our family. Sit down and stop talking about your father and your brother. God is our Father, heavenly. Jesus if our Brother, heavenly.

We have been told for years to shut up with the talk about what your family believes. We don't want to hear about your family. In fact, we think your family is stupid. Don't bring your family to school, don't show any pictures of your family in here. We live our religion. We would have a split personality if we didn't.

[YNKYH8R]

"health of the mother" is still an issue that needs to be included.





As Ladybug points out - not all the citezens of the United States are law abiding people.


When you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.
Health of the Mother? Fine. One thing you are missing is that I'm not saying that guns would be illegal. I'm not saying outlaw guns. I'm say stop manufacturing them. If there were only but rifles and revolvers and shotguns I would be happy. Why? Because these are instuments for hunting.
Why do we need fully or semi-automatic weapons?
What purpose do they serve?
Why do we need weapons that can shoot 30+ rounds in less than a minute?
A simple revolver (cock the hammer, pull the trigger, repeat six times, reload) is sufficent enough to defend yourself.
When you leave laws and regulations vague and open, like Roe v. Wade, you open the door to all kinds of trouble....like partial birth abortion. :cool:

[janelle]

Our founding fathers had no clue about semi-automatic rifles but the people who passed the abortion bill are still around and they do know about the latest findings in science. They can see the baby and in 3D if they want but they won't budge on their position. Now that is sad. Most people think partial-birth abortion is barbaric but the ban wouldn't get passed in Congress. I think now it will be.

[YNKYH8R]

Look at all the school shootings---and killings. How has our country come to this? Doesn't it horrify you? Our kids think killing is the answer to problems. That is NOTwhat Jesus taught but teachers cannot tell the kids what Jesus taught cause they're not allowed to speak Jesus's name on school property or at least in the classroom. :eek:

Some people still do not understand how Christians think. When you tell us we can't talk about Jesus you might as well be telling us to shut up about our family. Sit down and stop talking about your father and your brother. God is our Father, heavenly. Jesus if our Brother, heavenly.

We have been told for years to shut up with the talk about what your family believes. We don't want to hear about your family. In fact, we think your family is stupid. Don't bring your family to school, don't show any pictures of your family in here. We live our religion. We would have a split personality if we didn't.
Well, that is a good arguement, certainly interesting, but how does a school shooting compare to school prayer? Like I said there are Christian academies and Catholics schools. If there is to be prayer, why not do it in church or home? How will we know if the teachers are teaching the right religous cariculum?
What about different interperations of the Bible? I know my co-workers interperet it differently than I do.
What about other religons, how well versed must the teachers be? How many people are going to want to go to college to get a degree in early childhood education knowing they have toi teach religon, I know my wife wouldn't. What about, like I said, those who don't believe what then? What about Wicken? What about paganism?
When you open pandora's religous box, there is alot ot be accounted for.
PS I hate school shootings too. That's why I propse a change to the 2nd Amendment.

[YNKYH8R]

Our founding fathers had no clue about semi-automatic rifles but the people who passed the abortion bill are still around and they do know about the latest findings in science. They can see the baby and in 3D if they want but they won't budge on their position. Now that is sad. Most people think partial-birth abortion is barbaric but the ban wouldn't get passed in Congress. I think now it will be.
Good. Then let's change Amendment number two also. :)

[Jolie Rouge]

One thing you are missing is that I'm not saying that guns would be illegal. I'm not saying outlaw guns. I'm say stop manufacturing them. If there were only but rifles and revolvers and shotguns I would be happy. Why? Because these are instuments for hunting.
Why do we need fully or semi-automatic weapons?
What purpose do they serve?
Why do we need weapons that can shoot 30+ rounds in less than a minute?
A simple revolver (cock the hammer, pull the trigger, repeat six times, reload) is sufficent enough to defend yourself.

Fully or semi-automatic weapons have been illegal for years -- that did not stop them from being out on the street.

What do you propose we do with all the guns already manufactured ?

What about the people who collect guns -- do you think they will simply turn them over on your say-so ?

DO you think the criminals are simply going to turn theirs in ?

What are the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement supposed to do ?

Do you think we are going to get all the countries all around the world to stop manufacturing guns and to melt down the ones they have ?


It is a nice idea -- but not based on realities.

[janelle]

I'm not talking about teaching a specific religion but the Golden Rule is very important anywhere. Who first talked about the Golden Rule? Hope I don't have to answer that.

The schools are becoming so secular it's hard to know what to say to the kids and this can't be good. Some teachers will speak up but at the danger of losing their job. And some people will put their kids in religious schools even if they are not of the same religion. They want their child in a moral based school, at least it's safer.

[YNKYH8R]

Fully or semi-automatic weapons have been illegal for years -- that did not stop them from being out on the street.

What do you propose we do with all the guns already manufactured ?

What about the people who collect guns -- do you think they will simply turn them over on your say-so ?

DO you think the criminals are simply going to turn theirs in ?

What are the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement supposed to do ?

Do you think we are going to get all the countries all around the world to stop manufacturing guns and to melt down the ones they have ?


It is a nice idea -- but not based on realities.
Destroy all manufactured illegal firearms.

Too bad so sad for collectors. They have registry of gun permits, easy to track down who has what. Fines and jail for those who don't comply.

Eventually all illegal fire arms will be eliminated there fore criminals won;t have them either. Especially if they are not being manufactured.

The law enforcement and the military shold be allowed certain fire arms. Although S.W.A.T. would have a hard time. Their job is to help when the regular police are out gunned. If you change Amendment 2 then they won't need to over power anyone after awhile.

Other countries can do whatever other countries want, we set the example. Besides the amount of death inflicted by firearms is much less in other countries. Illegal weapons will no longer be imported in.

[YNKYH8R]

I'm not talking about teaching a specific religion but the Golden Rule is very important anywhere. Who first talked about the Golden Rule? Hope I don't have to answer that.

The schools are becoming so secular it's hard to know what to say to the kids and this can't be good. Some teachers will speak up but at the danger of losing their job. And some people will put their kids in religious schools even if they are not of the same religion. They want their child in a moral based school, at least it's safer.
The "Golden Rule" being "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you"? Is this it? Is this all. Children should be learning this at home and at school anyway. So why are we dragging in religon?

[Jolie Rouge]

One thing you are missing is that I'm not saying that guns would be illegal. I'm not saying outlaw guns ...

Now you are contridicting yourself ...



Destroy all manufactured illegal firearms.

Too bad so sad for collectors. They have registry of gun permits, easy to track down who has what. Fines and jail for those who don't comply.

Eventually all illegal fire arms will be eliminated there fore criminals won;t have them either. Especially if they are not being manufactured.

The law enforcement and the military shold be allowed certain fire arms. Although S.W.A.T. would have a hard time. Their job is to help when the regular police are out gunned. If you change Amendment 2 then they won't need to over power anyone after awhile.

Other countries can do whatever other countries want, we set the example. Besides the amount of death inflicted by firearms is much less in other countries. Illegal weapons will no longer be imported in.


This last is so unrealistic I have to single it out.


Illegal weapons will no longer be imported in.

OK - cocaine and pot have been illegal for years. It is illegal to import them.
Why do we still have a drug problem.

Oh - yeah - the drug dealers have lots of semi and fully automatic illegal guns already.

[ladybugbhb]

first off let me say AS long as there are tests, THERE WILL BE PRAYER IN SCHOOL, lol. ( i saw that on a bumper sticker)
i am a lucky one. my dd attends a public school, but her teacher lets each child take a day and say the blessing right before lunch. now, it is a different kid every day, so you may get a different blessing everyday, but that is fine by me.

and second,
do you not think that even if the US stopped manufacturing those guns that the "bad guys" would not just go buy them on the black market from another country? and the ones who are collectors and hunters, i assure you are not going to just hand over there collections. my dh hunts and he has different guns for different seasons, bet that creeps you out huh?

[adorkablex]

Look at all the school shootings---and killings. How has our country come to this? Doesn't it horrify you? Our kids think killing is the answer to problems. That is NOTwhat Jesus taught but teachers cannot tell the kids what Jesus taught cause they're not allowed to speak Jesus's name on school property or at least in the classroom. :eek:

Some people still do not understand how Christians think. When you tell us we can't talk about Jesus you might as well be telling us to shut up about our family. Sit down and stop talking about your father and your brother. God is our Father, heavenly. Jesus if our Brother, heavenly.

We have been told for years to shut up with the talk about what your family believes. We don't want to hear about your family. In fact, we think your family is stupid. Don't bring your family to school, don't show any pictures of your family in here. We live our religion. We would have a split personality if we didn't.

School shootings have nothing to do with religion. It has to do with those kids being picked on and beat up their entire school lives. It has to do with a big group of kids picking on a smaller group because they don't "fit in".

[YNKYH8R]

Now you are contridicting yourself ...





This last is so unrealistic I have to single it out.



OK - cocaine and pot have been illegal for years. It is illegal to import them.
Why do we still have a drug problem.

Oh - yeah - the drug dealers have lots of semi and fully automatic illegal guns already.
How am I contradicting myself? I'm not saying out law all guns, just the semi-and fully automatic ones.
We have a drub problem because there is still a demand. People want ot get high. (Don't ask me why I don't know :) ) Plus it is a lot hard to smuggle weapons in than cocaine. I'm not expecting this to go over night, it will take time. If you ask law enforcement offical they will tell you drug trafficing has gone down. It would take time, but the benefits would be great.

[mesue]

Fully or semi-automatic weapons have been illegal for years -- that did not stop them from being out on the street.

What do you propose we do with all the guns already manufactured ?

What about the people who collect guns -- do you think they will simply turn them over on your say-so ?

DO you think the criminals are simply going to turn theirs in ?

What are the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement supposed to do ?

Do you think we are going to get all the countries all around the world to stop manufacturing guns and to melt down the ones they have ?


It is a nice idea -- but not based on realities.

Well drugs have been around for years too and they are also illegal should we make that legal also. Other countries make a living off of drugs and many of these drugs are legal in their counties and their not going to quit growing or making them so based on your argument we will all soon be singing, "One toke over the line sweet Jesus one toke over the line." :D By the way I don't smoke pot but I might try it if it was legal.

[Jolie Rouge]

I went to public school - we had a student that was Muslim. He was allowed to go outside at certain times of the day ( notably - math class :eek: ) and do his prayers. He had a right to Freedom of Religion. We were not allowed to conduct a Bible Study Group - at lunch, in the library - because of the seperation of Church and State. We had three meeting before we were shut down. We tried to meet afterschool; they would not allow it.

Why does Freedom of Religion apply to any and all faiths except Christian ?

[YNKYH8R]

first off let me say AS long as there are tests, THERE WILL BE PRAYER IN SCHOOL, lol. ( i saw that on a bumper sticker)
i am a lucky one. my dd attends a public school, but her teacher lets each child take a day and say the blessing right before lunch. now, it is a different kid every day, so you may get a different blessing everyday, but that is fine by me.

and second,
do you not think that even if the US stopped manufacturing those guns that the "bad guys" would not just go buy them on the black market from another country? and the ones who are collectors and hunters, i assure you are not going to just hand over there collections. my dh hunts and he has different guns for different seasons, bet that creeps you out huh?
No. Hunting is fine. My best friend's father sells guns as a part of his trade. but, does your husband go hunting with an Uzi? How about and AK-47? Didn't think so. An incentive to handing over weapons from collectors is maybe a tax break. They could recieve a one time tax break for turning in an illegal firearm. Well my hope is that other countries will no longer have the demand for fire arms, there for going out of business. Like I said we could set an example. The problem is no one wants to try it. I mean look, people here are gunnig (excuse the pun) for excuses to hold onto their firearms. And remember, rifles and shotguns would be fine. Plus you can always go bow hunting.

[YNKYH8R]

Well drugs have been around for years too and they are also illegal should we make that legal also. Other countries make a living off of drugs and many of these drugs are legal in their counties and their not going to quit growing or making them so based on your argument we will all soon be singing, "One toke over the line sweet Jesus one toke over the line." :D By the way I don't smoke pot but I might try it if it was legal.
True Afghanistans biggest export is drugs. (I think it's opiates or herion I don't know)

[Jolie Rouge]

How am I contradicting myself?

I'm not saying out law all guns, just the semi-and fully automatic ones.

We have a drub problem because there is still a demand. People want ot get high. (Don't ask me why I don't know :) ) Plus it is a lot hard to smuggle weapons in than cocaine. I'm not expecting this to go over night, it will take time. If you ask law enforcement offical they will tell you drug trafficing has gone down. It would take time, but the benefits would be great.


Who do you know in LE ?? Or maybe the questin is - Where do you live ?
I have a brother, two nephews and several friends in LE - by the conversations we have had; you are WAY off the mark.


I hope you are not going by statistics BTW - they are notorious for reflecting whatever the statistian wants.

[adorkablex]

I went to public school - we had a student that was Muslim. He was allowed to go outside at certain times of the day ( notably - math class :eek: ) and do his prayers. He had a right to Freedom of Religion. We were not allowed to conduct a Bible Study Group - at lunch, in the library - because of the seperation of Church and State. We had three meeting before we were shut down. We tried to meet afterschool; they would not allow it.

Why does Freedom of Religion apply to any and all faiths except Christian ?


We actually had a club for Christians in our school. Could you imagine a bunch of non believers trying to start an Agnostic or Atheist club? That would have been a hoot to see. I guess different schools handle things in different manners. I don't have a problem with prayer in school. But I think it should be silent prayer or kids of the same religion should meet in a class room to prayer. I don't honestly think children who don't believe in God should have to listen to prayer. No matter who it comes from. We always had silent prayer before lunch. That's acceptable to me. That every child can use that 2 minutes to pray/not pray in whatever way they're comfortable in.

[mesue]

As for teachers leading prayer and teaching prayer in school my daughter follows the teachings of buddhism. And I am sure she would be glad to share her religion with the students if the law changes. Another teacher I know is wicken and would gladly share her religion with her students if the laws changes.

[Jolie Rouge]

True Afghanistans biggest export is drugs. (I think it's opiates or herion I don't know)

Opium Poppies

[YNKYH8R]

I went to public school - we had a student that was Muslim. He was allowed to go outside at certain times of the day ( notably - math class :eek: ) and do his prayers. He had a right to Freedom of Religion. We were not allowed to conduct a Bible Study Group - at lunch, in the library - because of the seperation of Church and State. We had three meeting before we were shut down. We tried to meet afterschool; they would not allow it.

Why does Freedom of Religion apply to any and all faiths except Christian ?
That is a very good question. I don't have an answer. :( Not too many Muslims in Maine. :)

[Jolie Rouge]

The problem is no one wants to try it. I mean look, people here are gunnig (excuse the pun) for excuses to hold onto their firearms.

You are drawing assumptions again. :D I do not hunt ( I think it is stupid ) I no longer own a gun. I used to as I needed it in my former line of work ( personal security ) but with the loss of my vision, it was no longer feasiable.

I am simply pointing out the holes in your logic....

Making guns illegal isn't going to take them out of the hands of the criminal element. Certain drugs are illegal - the average citezen doesn't use them - but we are still affected by the crimes committed to get them by people who are not constrained by the law. Same would apply to guns.

[Jolie Rouge]

Rove Was Right
One of the worst aspects of Bush's win on Tuesday is the reality that Rove was right. Karl Rove, Bush's senior campaign advisor (aka Bush's Brain) apparently always felt that if the "evangelicals" had voted in 2000, the election wouldn't have even been close. So he designed Bush's presidency to appeal to those people to ensure a second term. Witness the limitations on federal funding for stem cell research, the passage of the partial birth abortion ban, the removal of federal funds for international family planning organizations and the endorsement of a federal amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage. This radical right wing social agenda that has so incensed us on the left is exactly what got him elected, for this time the evangelicals did turn out and they voted for Bush. And according to Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times, they constitute one-third of Americans, which would explain the statistic that 36% of all Bush voters counted "moral values" as the number one issue they voted on. Greater than terrorism, greater than Iraq, greater than the economy. This utter contempt for and assault on our values is what has made us so passionate and feel like this was more than a mere election. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times agrees.


What troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at another level, without warning, it actually became about everything. Partly that happened because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake, and partly because Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president.


Liberals Dismayed by 'Moral Values' Claims
By DAVID CRARY

NEW YORK (AP) - Family values, traditional values and now, ``moral values.''

Most American adults would say they have them, and yet that two-word phrase is the focus of an ideological tug-of-war heightened by President Bush's re-election, with conservatives declaring principal ownership and liberals scrambling to challenge them.

``We need to work really hard at reclaiming some language,'' said the Rev. Robert Edgar, general secretary of the liberal-leaning National Council of Churches. ``The religious right has successfully gotten out there shaping personal piety issues - civil unions, abortion - as almost the total content of 'moral values,''' Edgar said. ``And yet you can't read the Old Testament without knowing God was concerned about the environment, war and peace, poverty. God doesn't want 45 million Americans without health care.''

Many of the advocacy groups that helped mobilize conservative voters for Bush concentrate on a narrow range of issues - notably opposing abortion and gay rights. Conservative leaders say these were the main issues on voters' minds when many, in exit polls, designated unspecified ``moral values'' as their foremost Election Day priority.


``Those who view the appeal to 'moral values' as mere political manipulation and ideological posturing have a basic misunderstanding of people of faith,'' said Janice Shaw Crouse of the conservative Concerned Women for America. `The 'moral values' that were a top priority in this election - abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex unions - are rooted in deep religious beliefs.''


Such statements of moral grounding have frustrated Democratic-leaning activists - in past campaigns and particularly this year. They question the vagueness of the ``moral values'' exit poll question and contend that their own political priorities, such as fighting poverty and discrimination, have moral weight and popular support.


Proponents of same-sex unions, for example, believe it is moral to afford partnership rights to two men or two women who have committed themselves to each other and, in many cases, are raising children. ``We have a thing or two to say about the 'moral values' involved with permitting a couple who wish to build a life together to enjoy full legal standing as a family,'' said Ron Schlittler, director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.


Similarly, abortion-rights advocates believe it is moral to allow the option of abortion to a poor, newly pregnant woman, rather than compel her to bear a child she didn't plan for and cannot afford to raise. ``When the religious right co-opted the term 'pro-life,' that was a coup,'' said the Rev. Carlton Veazey of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. ``Sometimes 'choice' sounds too casual.'' ``We have to go back and examine what we are we saying, why is it not resonating,'' Veazey added. ``We don't just cave in and say they've got a monopoly on morality.''


Asked if their rivals on the left indeed held viable moral values, several conservatives replied with a qualified ``yes,'' suggesting the liberals' social concerns were valid but not as important as opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage. ``We believe in biblical principles; I'm sure they believe in biblical principles,'' said Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America. ``But I don't understand how they can defend abortion and homosexuality. That's wrong.''


The Rev. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said poverty was far less urgent a problem then abortion, which he considers genocide. ``The other side has not been deprived of the opportunity to make their case,'' he said. ``Voters can think for themselves.''


Some put the issue even more starkly. ``There is no reconciliation between good and evil,'' wrote Mary Ann Kreitzer of Les Femmes, an organization of conservative Roman Catholic women. ``Voters rejected the party of gay activists, radical feminists, the Hollywood elite, pornographers, death-peddlers, anti-Christian bigots and apostate Catholics.''


For some moderates, the values debate is less simple - they may oppose abortion and gay marriage yet share liberals' view on other issues.


Mike Allen of Catholic Charities of Trenton, which serves the needy in southern New Jersey, said his organization's mission entails seeking ``a more just and compassionate society'' on for the disadvantaged. Regarding partisan promotion of ``moral values,'' Allen said, ``Oversimplifying is a technique that seems to win elections.''


The Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit weekly America, said John Kerry could have been more effective at portraying his goals - fairer wages, better health care - as ``moral values.'' ``The Democratic Party seems almost embarrassed talking about family issues or religion,'' he said.


A future battleground in the values tug-of-war will be for black and Hispanic support. Some conservatives believe wariness of gay marriage will enable Republicans to steadily win more of their votes. ``You're seeing a bridge being built between African-Americans and evangelicals who tend to be Republican,'' said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. ``Right now that dialogue is focused on marriage, but as we share and learn, you'll see it broadening.''


However, the Rev. Stephen Bouman, a New York-based bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, worries that conservative Christians' definition of ``moral values'' may be too narrow to accommodate those of different faiths and backgrounds, including new immigrants. ``One thing Jesus was absolutely clear about was helping the poor, and the welcoming of strangers,'' Bouman said. ``Maybe this election was a wake-up call to have a serious conversation about what morality means, to look at what sort of country we're becoming.''



11/08/04 14:15


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041108%2F1415159935.htm&sc=1110

[YNKYH8R]

You are drawing assumptions again. :D I do not hunt ( I think it is stupid ) I no longer own a gun. I used to as I needed it in my former line of work ( personal security ) but with the loss of my vision, it was no longer feasiable.

I am simply pointing out the holes in your logic....

Making guns illegal isn't going to take them out of the hands of the criminal element. Certain drugs are illegal - the average citezen doesn't use them - but we are still affected by the crimes committed to get them by people who are not constrained by the law. Same would apply to guns.
I see your logic and it makes sense, but that's like saying "well it isn't going to work so let's not try". And I didn't mean to put you in the category of a 'gun nut'. I see no logical reason for continueing to manufacture the weapons we have now. Everyone complains about school shootings and no one wants to do anything about it. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot...they want to reinstitute prayer in school. :cool:

[Jolie Rouge]

Oh, wait a minute, I forgot...they want to reinstitute prayer in school.

You laugh -- but how many school shootings have occured in public schools and how many in private/religious schools ?

[YNKYH8R]

You laugh -- but how many school shootings have occured in public schools and how many in private/religious schools ?
Wait a minute, think about what you just said. Private/religous schools. They teach a heck of a lot more than prayer. :cool:

[YNKYH8R]

So then why are there school shootings if children are free to go to Church. Why is it that prayer in school is so important and is the solution? I know not every kid goes to church, but then again not every kid goes to school either. :cool:

[YNKYH8R]

Oh, and would, if there was school prayer, would it be optional by school or manditory. After a while wouldn't you have only children who's parents who don't want school prayer taking their kids elsewhere? And would the state provide a public school for those children?

[janelle]

We have a drub problem because there is still a demand. People want ot get high. (Don't ask me why I don't know :) )

Lots of people know exactly why. People are lacking a moral base in their lives. They only live for the moment. They need to feel good but they feel empty cause our society is so vapid. Everyone for themselves. And the kids doing the picking on other kids in school feel this the most.

When our society could fill up this empty feelings with belief in doing good to others they felt needed and had high self-esteem. So I think prayer in school has lots to do with the shootings.

I don't care what kind of religion we have just so we have some religion. Schools are so secular now. That is what is wrong with the Democratic party, they want to be secular. Well teaching nothing is still teaching. It's telling the kids to be for number one, everyone else is.

One man told me recently---I'm sure he was a product of public school---that he had no morals, he was ethical though. HUH? How can one have ethics without a moral base? :confused:

Morals, religion, Christian, prayer---all those have become dirty words to Democrats. And people wonder why they lost. They are so lost it's not funny.

[suziebee20]

I went to public school - we had a student that was Muslim. He was allowed to go outside at certain times of the day ( notably - math class :eek: ) and do his prayers. He had a right to Freedom of Religion. We were not allowed to conduct a Bible Study Group - at lunch, in the library - because of the seperation of Church and State. We had three meeting before we were shut down. We tried to meet afterschool; they would not allow it.

Why does Freedom of Religion apply to any and all faiths except Christian ?


That is totaly unfair! While I don't agree with organized prayer in schools, I cannot beleive they wouldn't let you do that on your own time if you chose to do it. At Santana we had Christian club. I wasn't a member but my friend was and she said they did Bible studies, prayer, worship songs, stuff like that. I think if students choose to do it at an appropriate time and location (not during regular class hours when the teachers trying to lecture) that should be allowed. We read parts of the Bible in my junior AP english class and I remember a bunch of kids tried to get out of it saying it was against their beliefs, but it didn't slide because we were reading it from a literature stand point and analyzing some of the stuff from it, I think it was when we were reading East of Eden :confused: .

As for prayer in schools, I don't think that it should be a mandatory school wide thing. It would be nice to have maybe a 1 minute moment of silence after the pledge to reflect on life and the students who want to pray can.

[mesue]

So family and moral values are only related to religion and if we had religion in our lives and government its all going to get better. Well I don't buy it, while some of you who are republican talk about family values and moral values is only owned by you and your party. I am not particularly religious as far as going to church and following any certain religion but I have morals and family values. To me moral and family values are a code of ethics one has that they live by, I developed mine based on my raising and I never set foot inside a church until I was at least ten years old. But I will tell you one thing I would not do and that is to use God for my own purposes, I would not use him to get elected to any office and I would also tend to think that anyone who does is probably the biggest hypocrite and liar to ever walk the face of God's green earth.

[JKATHERINE]

I'm always confused by the President's views on some matters. I always was taught in my religion anyway that if you believe something, you believe it, you can't tear it apart and pick and choose what you want it to mean. Like the right to life, a lot of people quote the ten commandments, one of the most memorable is, thou shalt not kill! Well now if it applies to the abortion issue it also applies to the death penalty issue just as much. And we are not talking about the innocense or guilt between a so called murderer or the innocense of a fetus, we are talking about the commandment thou shalt not kill, it does not say that you can apply it here but disregard it in another situation, it says very clearly, thou shalt not kill! But yet this President who says he is a born again christian and against abortion has the record for the most executions ever as governor of Texas.
The other thing I really do not like or appreciate is the President's use of his religion to get re-elected. That to me is very unchristian like to use God to further his political agenda. It reminds me of a preacher begging for money on tv to further his ministry to the poor in his representation of God as a prophet while he himself is wearing a thousand dollar suit and wearing a rolex.

Great points, Mesue!

[JKATHERINE]

I don't understand why you say our government has become a criminal organization. The Dems were in charge then when it became one. You should be glad the party has changed and maybe the Republicans with both houses being Republican can retify all that.

You say a good moral center is never a bad thing? Are you saying the coasts are not moral? Now I'm confused. :confused: Maybe we agree more than we know.

You can't be serious. Having Republicans take over the free world, aka America cannot be a good thing. The same can be said for Democrats. I would not want either to be the sole party governing our nation. There is a reason there is more than one. If Republicans were to completely take over, they'd be making us all go to church and basing every single law passed on their 'godly' views. Ick! Don't shove that crap down my throat. I happen to be one of the many people who despise organized religion. I also despise the fact that Bush has used religion to try and fool himself into the good graces of people who call themselves Christian. Religion has no place in how our government is run. It is fine if Bush is religious, but it should not be a campaign tactic to get more votes and it should have no bearing on the laws made. Who is he to take the 'morally superior' role and tell the rest of us what is right and wrong based on his own skewed religious beliefs?

[JKATHERINE]

I say AMEN to that. As a matter of fact, I'm insulted (not for the obvious reasons) that my state is not in Jesus Land.

That's a good point about getting rid of God in our country. I think the liberal Dems are starting to get that reputation and it's not nice to not like God. :eek:

I'm sure hoping that's not what YNKYHTR is saying.

That's definately not what he's saying. It's fine to like God. It's fine to be religious, but it's not fine to run the government based on religion and it's not fine to shove it down others' throats. :)

[JKATHERINE]

i can't speak for janelle but i can think of a couple of examples of Christians rights becoming eroded, NO PRAYER IN SCHOOL, TREND TOWARD MUTING GOD'S NAME IN GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC MEETINGS AND BUILDINGS, NO MORE PLAYS AT CHRISTMAS TIME IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS REFLECTING THE REAL MEAINING OF CHRISTMAS...removing the TEN COMMANDMENTS in courthouses/public buildings. it's just a matter of time before the motto "IN GOD WE TRUST" is off the currency. i'm sure i can think of more examples, but that's a snipet ;)

A lot of what you have mentioned above are sad examples of a few bad apples who want to spoil the bunch. Although I do not like organized religion and am a person who cannot be called 'religious,' I have no problem whatsoever with children who want to pray in school (as long as it is not a school-wide, required thing). I also have no problem with the Pledge of Allegiance the way it is, the 10 Commandments at that courthouse in the South, 'In God We Trust' on our currency or plays about Mary and Jesus. I especially despise the fact that some schools are not allowed to celebrate Christmas anymore. As long as other celebrations are integrated (ie. Hannukah, Kwanza, etc.), there shouldn't be a problem. Some people are just too stuffy and just out there to make trouble I guess.

[Bick'sMom]

So this United States of Canada thing...........what exactly does that mean? If it means that you think that Canadians believe in getting rid of guns, getting rid of prayer in school, and not fighting this war....then you need to take a trip to Canada. If it doesn't I apologize, just ask for an explanation.

[JKATHERINE]

Look at all the school shootings---and killings. How has our country come to this? Doesn't it horrify you? Our kids think killing is the answer to problems. That is NOTwhat Jesus taught but teachers cannot tell the kids what Jesus taught cause they're not allowed to speak Jesus's name on school property or at least in the classroom. :eek:

Some people still do not understand how Christians think. When you tell us we can't talk about Jesus you might as well be telling us to shut up about our family. Sit down and stop talking about your father and your brother. God is our Father, heavenly. Jesus if our Brother, heavenly.

We have been told for years to shut up with the talk about what your family believes. We don't want to hear about your family. In fact, we think your family is stupid. Don't bring your family to school, don't show any pictures of your family in here. We live our religion. We would have a split personality if we didn't.

No, teachers cannot tell kids what Jesus taught because it's wrong. Not everyone is religious. Not everyone believes in Jesus. Religion should not be forced on anyone. That is why we have religious schools. :)

As far as family. I've never heard anyone tell a child not to bring their 'family' into the school. In fact, I've taught in schools and I've seen that it's encouraged to talk about their families, to bring in photos, and write stories and reports on family. I'm really sorry that you live in an area that is so messed up that family isnt' allowed in school. :(

[JKATHERINE]

I went to public school - we had a student that was Muslim. He was allowed to go outside at certain times of the day ( notably - math class :eek: ) and do his prayers. He had a right to Freedom of Religion. We were not allowed to conduct a Bible Study Group - at lunch, in the library - because of the seperation of Church and State. We had three meeting before we were shut down. We tried to meet afterschool; they would not allow it.

Why does Freedom of Religion apply to any and all faiths except Christian ?

Well that's just silly! No one can stop you or children from meeting afterschool unless it's your/their own parents. I'm sorry that your school was so intolerant of your religion and accomodating of another's. I'm not sure where you grew up, but I'm so glad that I grew up in the North. These are just not big issues here. Pray if you want, don't if you don't. No one cares. :)

[JKATHERINE]

Lots of people know exactly why. People are lacking a moral base in their lives. They only live for the moment. They need to feel good but they feel empty cause our society is so vapid. Everyone for themselves. And the kids doing the picking on other kids in school feel this the most.

When our society could fill up this empty feelings with belief in doing good to others they felt needed and had high self-esteem. So I think prayer in school has lots to do with the shootings.

I don't care what kind of religion we have just so we have some religion. Schools are so secular now. That is what is wrong with the Democratic party, they want to be secular. Well teaching nothing is still teaching. It's telling the kids to be for number one, everyone else is.

One man told me recently---I'm sure he was a product of public school---that he had no morals, he was ethical though. HUH? How can one have ethics without a moral base? :confused:

Morals, religion, Christian, prayer---all those have become dirty words to Democrats. And people wonder why they lost. They are so lost it's not funny.

The only problem is, school is NOT for teaching morals and values. That is why children have PARENTS. It is the lack of parenting that is eroding the goodness in our youths. Not the lack of religion in school. If people would either keep their legs crossed or do their JOB as parents, then a lot of the problems in this world, with angry children (who often turn into criminal adults) could be AVOIDED altogether. But, no one wants to do their job as a parent. They're just too darn lazy. :rolleyes: Religion does not make a good child. Good parenting makes a good child.

[janelle]

No, teachers cannot tell kids what Jesus taught because it's wrong. Not everyone is religious. Not everyone believes in Jesus. Religion should not be forced on anyone. That is why we have religious schools. :)

As far as family. I've never heard anyone tell a child not to bring their 'family' into the school. In fact, I've taught in schools and I've seen that it's encouraged to talk about their families, to bring in photos, and write stories and reports on family. I'm really sorry that you live in an area that is so messed up that family isnt' allowed in school. :(

You just proved my point. Secular people do not understand Christians. We live our religion and to us religion is not a dirty word. I understand you hate organized religion but we love our religion. We love Jesus and God but the schools cannot say the name Jesus. Why would we want to send our kids to public schools with such an unfriendly enviorment towards us?

Reading the book, "East of Eden" and having the kids make a big stink about it just cause it has Eden in it is absolutely silly but this is what it has come to. Even the kids see hypocracy. Christians are accused of the hypocracy card but the schools are the ones who start it. Bush talks about God and right away he is using God in the eyes of secular people. That is a slap in the face of Christians. No, secular people do not understand Christians and it may be a very long time before they have the presidency back.

[mesue]

All of you seem to be missing the point about religion no one is saying they want to take your religion and rights away, in fact the founding fathers were trying to protect them when they called for the separation of church and state. When they become one and the same then one religion usually comes through as the only one to be recognized and when that happens it might not be your religion that is chosen. If you want to see what happens when church and state become one in the same look to the miiddle east and see what a mess that is as far as their laws and beliefs go. I have no problem with a moment of silence in the schools but there is a real problem when you have teachers leading prayer in the schools. As I said before I know a teacher who is wicken who will be glad to share her religion with your children as soon as the laws change, my daughter is following the teaching of buddhism and will be glad to share her religion with your children as soon as the laws change. What is wrong with keeping your religion within your own household and church and those members of society that share it. Why do you feel that the family living next door and child going to your childs school has to share your religion in school, of course it might not work out that way the family next door might be the ones expecting your child to share in their religion in school. As someone else has already pointed out morals and family values do not have anything to do with religion, those things are taught at home by children watching and learning from their parents.

[YNKYH8R]

So this United States of Canada thing...........what exactly does that mean? If it means that you think that Canadians believe in getting rid of guns, getting rid of prayer in school, and not fighting this war....then you need to take a trip to Canada. If it doesn't I apologize, just ask for an explanation.
No, the USOC (United States of Canada) is tongue in cheek. I was trying to show that Bush was elected because of want for return to a moral and ethical balance. Which I can agree with, except that there are some inconsistencies, and IMO, the war and it's success should be at the fore front and it wasn't.
The conversations that ensued, evolved naturally. We began by discussing partial birth abortion and Roe v. Wade. Then I stated a though that if we wanted to change ROe v. Wade then we should also change the second amendment, because abortion rights are a concerne to most gun legis;ation is important to me. Which led to school prayer...

[YNKYH8R]

All of you seem to be missing the point about religion no one is saying they want to take your religion and rights away, in fact the founding fathers were trying to protect them when they called for the separation of church and state. When they become one and the same then one religion usually comes through as the only one to be recognized and when that happens it might not be your religion that is chosen. If you want to see what happens when church and state become one in the same look to the miiddle east and see what a mess that is as far as their laws and beliefs go. I have no problem with a moment of silence in the schools but there is a real problem when you have teachers leading prayer in the schools. As I said before I know a teacher who is wicken who will be glad to share her religion with your children as soon as the laws change, my daughter is following the teaching of buddhism and will be glad to share her religion with your children as soon as the laws change. What is wrong with keeping your religion within your own household and church and those members of society that share it. Why do you feel that the family living next door and child going to your childs school has to share your religion in school, of course it might not work out that way the family next door might be the ones expecting your child to share in their religion in school. As someone else has already pointed out morals and family values do not have anything to do with religion, those things are taught at home by children watching and learning from their parents.
Very good point. What if the 'values' that your religon teach don't jive with my values, do I want to confuse my child? Public school are tax run, and the school board is made up of people who live in the community the school is in, not by people from DC and not from priests or ministers. If you want religous teachings or prayer or values in school, then send your children to schools that actively practice it, or home school them.

[janelle]

How can people live without vlaues? That is so naive but that is what we see in schools now and in government. Think our society has profited from it? Just look around and see how society has gone down hill from that kind of thinking.

Most people do not want to live in a valueless society but our schools say we must not have values if we want to attend. At least leave them at the door and don't talk about them in here. All values are mostly the same so I don't have a problem with other's values. Having no values is what bothers me and that is where we are in schools cause it can't be brought to school. Just naive all around. Geesh.

[YNKYH8R]

You just proved my point. Secular people do not understand Christians. We live our religion and to us religion is not a dirty word. I understand you hate organized religion but we love our religion. We love Jesus and God but the schools cannot say the name Jesus. Why would we want to send our kids to public schools with such an unfriendly enviorment towards us?

Reading the book, "East of Eden" and having the kids make a big stink about it just cause it has Eden in it is absolutely silly but this is what it has come to. Even the kids see hypocracy. Christians are accused of the hypocracy card but the schools are the ones who start it. Bush talks about God and right away he is using God in the eyes of secular people. That is a slap in the face of Christians. No, secular people do not understand Christians and it may be a very long time before they have the presidency back.
It is not that Democrats or liberals are offended by the word God or Jesus; we don't have a problem with the Christian religon. It is the people who practice it that some people have aproblem with. A lot of Chirstians, not necessarily anyone in this forum, come across as intolerant and judgemental. So quick to point out what is wrong with everyone, and in turn having the attitude that "if you aren't with God than you have no ethics." God is good for some people. Others become fanatical, in the end God is not the answer to every question. IMO. :)

[Bick'sMom]

All of you seem to be missing the point about religion no one is saying they want to take your religion and rights away, in fact the founding fathers were trying to protect them when they called for the separation of church and state. When they become one and the same then one religion usually comes through as the only one to be recognized and when that happens it might not be your religion that is chosen. If you want to see what happens when church and state become one in the same look to the miiddle east and see what a mess that is as far as their laws and beliefs go. I have no problem with a moment of silence in the schools but there is a real problem when you have teachers leading prayer in the schools. As I said before I know a teacher who is wicken who will be glad to share her religion with your children as soon as the laws change, my daughter is following the teaching of buddhism and will be glad to share her religion with your children as soon as the laws change. What is wrong with keeping your religion within your own household and church and those members of society that share it. Why do you feel that the family living next door and child going to your childs school has to share your religion in school, of course it might not work out that way the family next door might be the ones expecting your child to share in their religion in school. As someone else has already pointed out morals and family values do not have anything to do with religion, those things are taught at home by children watching and learning from their parents.


AMEN!! ;)

This is very well said. I agree that morals and good family values have nothing to do with religion. I think what should be taught in schools is TOLERANCE.

[YNKYH8R]

How can people live without vlaues? That is so naive but that is what we see in schools now and in government. Think our society has profited from it? Just look around and see how society has gone down hill from that kind of thinking.

Most people do not want to live in a valueless society but our schools say we must not have values if we want to attend. At least leave them at the door and don't talk about them in here. All values are mostly the same so I don't have a problem with other's values. Having no values is what bothers me and that is where we are in schools cause it can't be brought to school. Just naive all around. Geesh.
Who says we need to live without values? You make it sound like someone got up on a soap box and declared values as umimportant. I have an open minded look at life, so I have no values?

[janelle]

What if the 'values' that your religon teach don't jive with my values, do I want to confuse my child? This is a quote by you YNKYH8R.
================================================== ========
I said I have no problem with others values just so they have values. Which statement is intolerant?

Why do you pick out the extreme religious nuts and say all Christians may be that way so we will get rid of all mention of Christianity in our schools? Does that make sense? Who is being exclusive?

[YNKYH8R]

What if the 'values' that your religon teach don't jive with my values, do I want to confuse my child? This is a quote by you YNKYH8R.
================================================== ========
I said I have no problem with others values just so they have values. Which statement is intolerant?

Why do you pick out the extreme religious nuts and say all Christians may be that way so we will get rid of all mention of Christianity in our schools? Does that make sense? Who is being exclusive?
Wait a minute are you saying that wanting my child to share my values is intolerant? :confused: I didn't think so. We all live here, we all have to share the same space and share the same air, pay the same taxes (kinda :rolleyes: ) and worry about world problems the same. So why do we need a religon to be the end all be all of values? (regardless of the religon)
Since when does religon (not just christianity) become the moral monitor? In my opinion, Christians always seem to be the out spoken ones, except maybe Jahov's witnesses.
And I didn't say all Christians, I said...
A lot of Chirstians, not necessarily anyone in this forum, come across as intolerant and judgemental.

[janelle]

Wanting your child to share your values is smart but it seems you don't want your child to learn about other's values. If you are strong in your values your child will not be harmed being exposed to other values.

This is what Christians are accused of. That we are intolerant of other's values when it's not true. I think values were taken out of school so as not to have ones children exposed to Christian values. Now we have secular schools and they are failing miserable with proof of all the problems schools have in disipline to the point of kids bringing guns to schools and blowing people away.

[YNKYH8R]

Wanting your child to share your values is smart but it seems you don't want your child to learn about other's values. If you are strong in your values your child will not be harmed being exposed to other values.

This is what Christians are accused of. That we are intolerant of other's values when it's not true. I think values were taken out of school so as not to have ones children exposed to Christian values. Now we have secular schools and they are failing miserable with proof of all the problems schools have in disipline to the point of kids bringing guns to schools and blowing people away.
Other values? Other than everyone has a right to live? No one has the right to tell you how to live your life? I would first have to be exposed to the other values that you are talking about. And how do you know we don't share the same values?
No you are not, as a Christian accused of being intolerant of other people values, you are accused of being intolerant of how other people live thier lives. The phrase, you are not living right with God comes to mind.
I don't mean to badger, and i'm not trying to belittle. And I suspect that we do share a lot of the same values, there just maybe some slight differences. :) It is those diffeneces that concern me. I don't want my daughter feeling bad about how she lives her life or pursues her dreams.

[Bick'sMom]

Wanting your child to share your values is smart but it seems you don't want your child to learn about other's values. If you are strong in your values your child will not be harmed being exposed to other values.

This is what Christians are accused of. That we are intolerant of other's values when it's not true. I think values were taken out of school so as not to have ones children exposed to Christian values. Now we have secular schools and they are failing miserable with proof of all the problems schools have in disipline to the point of kids bringing guns to schools and blowing people away.

Christians are accused of this because for the most part it is true. At least here it is. Most people here are up in arms about the ten comm. monument, not being allowed to pray in school, alot of things that are related to the Christian religion. Yet I can see the uproar that would be caused if someone wanted the local school play to be wiccan based, or Jehovah based....for learning purposes only of course. Case in point: when my DD came home last year mentioning something about evolution, my next door neighbor started fuming that this crap was taught in schools. She felt that if they got the bible out and started teaching good bible stories and the way the bible tells it that the kids would be better off.

You prove this very well too by saying that you think values are taken out of schools so as not to expose children to Christian values, puleeeeeze. Once again religion and good family values have nothing to do with each other. Do you have any idea how hard it is to teach a group of children from diverse backgrounds and have parents calling you daily to complain that you taught something that wasn't part of their belief system? All religion is taken out of schools so that things like that don't happen. It is, however, Ok to teach that stealing or hitting is not OK. Those are some good values.

[janelle]

If you are a strong in the parenting department then your daughter will follow your values and you have nothing to worry about. LOL

"No one has the right to tell you how to live your life?" Then don't tell your daughter how to live hers. Of course, I don't go along with that statement. People tell us all the time how to live our lives. Our society still has it's rules or we would have anarchy.

[JKATHERINE]

You just proved my point. Secular people do not understand Christians. We live our religion and to us religion is not a dirty word. I understand you hate organized religion but we love our religion. We love Jesus and God but the schools cannot say the name Jesus. Why would we want to send our kids to public schools with such an unfriendly enviorment towards us?

Reading the book, "East of Eden" and having the kids make a big stink about it just cause it has Eden in it is absolutely silly but this is what it has come to. Even the kids see hypocracy. Christians are accused of the hypocracy card but the schools are the ones who start it. Bush talks about God and right away he is using God in the eyes of secular people. That is a slap in the face of Christians. No, secular people do not understand Christians and it may be a very long time before they have the presidency back.

I'm not saying religion is a 'dirty word.' I'm saying that teaching religion in public schools is wrong. They have schools specifically for that. My taxpayer dollars do not belong going towards a public school that teaches/preaches/shoves religion down my children's throats. If you want religion, pay for it. :)

[JKATHERINE]

How can people live without vlaues? That is so naive but that is what we see in schools now and in government. Think our society has profited from it? Just look around and see how society has gone down hill from that kind of thinking.

Most people do not want to live in a valueless society but our schools say we must not have values if we want to attend. At least leave them at the door and don't talk about them in here. All values are mostly the same so I don't have a problem with other's values. Having no values is what bothers me and that is where we are in schools cause it can't be brought to school. Just naive all around. Geesh.

People shouldnt' live without values, morals or ethics. But people can have all of these WITHOUT religion. And as I said before, these things should be taught at HOME by PARENTS not left to our teachers.

[YNKYH8R]

If you are a strong in the parenting department then your daughter will follow your values and you have nothing to worry about. LOL

"No one has the right to tell you how to live your life?" Then don't tell your daughter how to live hers. Of course, I don't go along with that statement. People tell us all the time how to live our lives. Our society still has it's rules or we would have anarchy.
I can't really tell jmy daughter how to live her life, she's only 4 mos. old. But when she gets old enough her life is hers to do as she pleases. People do not tell us all the time how to live oour lives. What rules are you taking about? Laws? Laws don't tell you how to live your life, laws protect us from ourselves.

[fatesfaery]

If the problem with today's youth is a lack of religious values and morals, then let's put religion back in public school. But, let's put all religions (or lack of religion) in the schools. If my child or grandchild is going to be taught these things, I want them exposed to as many beliefs and views as possible.
They can learn about the beliefs and values of:
agnosticism
atheism
catholicism
protestantism
bah'i
eastern orthodox
islam
buddhism
hinduism
judaism
taoism
mormonism
unitarian
scientology
quaker
philosophies
satanism
universalist
janism
wiccan
druidry
native american religions
Somewhere in there we need to work in the Roman and Greek gods and goddesses, and the 100s of religions not listed. Of course, that won't leave much time for math and science......but our children will have morals and values that we as parents don't seem cabable of teaching our children.

[janelle]

I can't really tell jmy daughter how to live her life, she's only 4 mos. old. But when she gets old enough her life is hers to do as she pleases. People do not tell us all the time how to live oour lives. What rules are you taking about? Laws? Laws don't tell you how to live your life, laws protect us from ourselves.

This is just the problem with secular schools. Parents won't tell their kids how to live a good life---go out and find it for yourself. Then the teachers take the blunt of that thinking in the class room with the kids mouthing off if they are disiplined--you can't tell me what to do my parents said so.

Doesn't your wife come home dead tired and telling you about all the lost kids she sees everyday who try to run the school? I would believe parents should tell thier kids about values but it's not happening. Parents with a strong religious base are, but you don't like them.

Our laws tell us how to live, they aren't there just to protect us from ourselves. If we still need to be protected from ourselves by the time we are an adult then our neighbors have something to worry about. If we don't follow them we will be the ones in jail. Don't believe it? Then break one and find out.

And the Ten Commandants are our first laws.

[YNKYH8R]

This is just the problem with secular schools. Parents won't tell their kids how to live a good life---go out and find it for yourself. Then the teachers take the blunt of that thinking in the class room with the kids mouthing off if they are disiplined--you can't tell me what to do my parents said so.

Doesn't your wife come home dead tired and telling you about all the lost kids she sees everyday who try to run the school? I would believe parents should tell thier kids about values but it's not happening. Parents with a strong religious base are, but you don't like them.

Our laws tell us how to live, they aren't there just to protect us from ourselves. If we still need to be protected from ourselves by the time we are an adult then our neighbors have something to worry about. If we don't follow them we will be the ones in jail. Don't believe it? Then break one and find out.

And the Ten Commandants are our first laws.

Well, my wife doesn't teach school. I believe that parents should teach their children values and moral too, if they are not that is there choice. I know it is sad but that is the way it is. It isn't that I don't like religous people, I don't like being preached to. I have morals and I know how to act in public, and my kids will too. But not because I shove religon (of any kind) down thier throats. It sounds like you are suggesting that we take parental resposibilty away from the parents.
I won't argue that the ten commandments are our first laws. But do I need to tell my children that is where they come from?

[YNKYH8R]

So, let me ask you this. In your opinion, how should the average school curriculum go?

[Njean31]

So, let me ask you this. In your opinion, how should the average school curriculum go?

here is what some folks may think religous folks would like:

morning greet
pledge of allegence
morning song of star spangled banner
morning song of God Bless America
Say 3 Hail Mary's
Pray to God
Pray to Bush :eek: :eek:
Reading of the 10 commandants over intercom
MATH
2 minute confession
Shop class: today's lesson Noah's Ark :eek: :eek:
RELIGION 101 :eek:
MIRACLES 101 :eek:
HISTORY

HOMECOMING WEEk


just wanted add a little humor...this thread is going round and round, back and forth...nobody's views are going to change :)

really though, all i'd ask for is a little time for silence for students to pray or do whatever it is they want silently, if your going to have a Christmas play you include atleast JESUS since he's what it is all about ...hence CHRISTmas, and this might be pushing it but the Ten Commandments posted in the school :)

[JKATHERINE]

Well, my wife doesn't teach school. I believe that parents should teach their children values and moral too, if they are not that is there choice. I know it is sad but that is the way it is. It isn't that I don't like religous people, I don't like being preached to. I have morals and I know how to act in public, and my kids will too. But not because I shove religon (of any kind) down thier throats. It sounds like you are suggesting that we take parental resposibilty away from the parents.
I won't argue that the ten commandments are our first laws. But do I need to tell my children that is where they come from?

I used to teach preschool and did Kindergarten for a while too. Yes,
I saw a lot of lost children, but that was lack of parenting and teachers just don't have the time to parent children on top of teaching them--especially since demands on teachers are constantly being increased.

[janelle]

YNKYH8R---My hubby said to ask you, since you don't want to be told what to do, why are you telling people what to do on the gun issue?

Also on the Ten Commandments question. If you are going to tell your children the truth you will tell them that is where our laws come from.

And Njean31---that is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Thanks for the humor. LOL :D

[janelle]

I used to teach preschool and did Kindergarten for a while too. Yes,
I saw a lot of lost children, but that was lack of parenting and teachers just don't have the time to parent children on top of teaching them--especially since demands on teachers are constantly being increased.

You are an angel in disguise. For the little pay you got and what you have to put up with teaching now, you deserve a gold star.

[janelle]

If the problem with today's youth is a lack of religious values and morals, then let's put religion back in public school. But, let's put all religions (or lack of religion) in the schools. If my child or grandchild is going to be taught these things, I want them exposed to as many beliefs and views as possible.
They can learn about the beliefs and values of:
agnosticism
atheism
catholicism
protestantism
bah'i
eastern orthodox
islam
buddhism
hinduism
judaism
taoism
mormonism
unitarian
scientology
quaker
philosophies
satanism
universalist
janism
wiccan
druidry
native american religions
Somewhere in there we need to work in the Roman and Greek gods and goddesses, and the 100s of religions not listed. Of course, that won't leave much time for math and science......but our children will have morals and values that we as parents don't seem cabable of teaching our children.

Then there would be no time for the three Rs. But you can combine all those and teach core values which I think most religions teach as well. The Golden Rule and respect for others.

[adorkablex]

Then there would be no time for the three Rs. But you can combine all those and teach core values which I think most religions teach as well. The Golden Rule and respect for others.


Teachers try to do that as well as they can. Parenting isn't their job. Education is. They don't get paid enough as it is... I don't honestly think Mommy/Daddy should be added to the roster of things they have to do.

The Golden Rule and respecting others have nothing to do with religion. It has to do with manners. Which don't always come along with a bible.

[janelle]

But living for a higher purpose does come with the bible. Sometimes we don't feel like being mannerly. It's those times we need a higher purpose to treat others with respect. Just because it's nice doesn't always explain why we need to be a good person. And no quilt doesn't have to be part of it. Just knowing we are all a part of a higher calling than earthly things makes us reach for heaven.

[YNKYH8R]

I can, like anyone else, teach ethics, morals, and values without pulling open a bible. Besides, how would I be able to teach anyone any ethics or values lessons with the Bible if I don't agree, or believe anything is says? Doesn't it make sense to actually have some kind of concept of the Bible to be able to speak of it with some authority? Like I said when I was younger, I know enough to treat other people with the same amount of respect I would like to be treated myself without having to open a Bible becuase it is only common sense. Obviously we don't want to be running around inflicting the pain and the negative emotions we feel for time to time on other people on purpose. :)

And, I'm telling people what to do about the gun issue because of Columbine, the 6 year old boy who shot and killed the 6 year old black girl in Michigan, the Christian high school student that shot students in his Bible studies class. These are the reasons why. Changing the 2nd Amendment is a suggestion. Obviously it will not go through, because people don't want it to. For some people gun ownership is more important than the life of children. Now, stopping the fanufacture of certain types of weapons does not guarantee that there will be no more school shootings. Just like school prayer does not guarantee it will stop anything either.
I am not directly opposed to school prayer or a moment of silence, this can be done on the bus, in home room, before you enter the doors in the morning. Certain children will not participate, that will be their choice. Just like, when I was in high school, it was our choice not to say the pledge. After a couple of year more and more children decided they did not want to say it. After a while only one or two kids per homeroom would rise. Then, finally, they stopped doing it all together. The prayer in school may go down the same road. But I wouldn't expect there to be actual open curriculum of the Bible.

[Njean31]

Just like, when I was in high school, it was our choice not to say the pledge. After a couple of year more and more children decided they did not want to say it. After a while only one or two kids per homeroom would rise. Then, finally, they stopped doing it all together.

why would you not want to say the pledge? did they have a flag at your school? should they quit singing the star spangled banner at sporting events in your opinion? and if so, please explain.

[YNKYH8R]

why would you not want to say the pledge? did they have a flag at your school? should they quit singing the star spangled banner at sporting events in your opinion? and if so, please explain.
I had the choice to not say it, I exercised that right. Yes there was/is a flag in every room. No they should not discontinue the National Anthem at sporting events.
LOL!
You have to understand, saying the the pledge, or singing the national anthem are optional. People have the right to not say them. It is simply a matter of choice. Just like I don't say grace before I eat, and I don't say my prayers before I go to bed.

[Njean31]

I had the choice to not say it, I exercised that right. Yes there was/is a flag in every room. No they should not discontinue the National Anthem at sporting events.
LOL!
You have to understand, saying the the pledge, or singing the national anthem are optional. People have the right to not say them. It is simply a matter of choice. Just like I don't say grace before I eat, and I don't say my prayers before I go to bed.


evil? no.......evil to me is hitler, dahmer, and the like :)

[YNKYH8R]

evil? no.......evil to me is hitler, dahmer, and the like :)
I took out the last part because I was being facetious. :)

[janelle]

You still did not answer my hubby's question on the gun issue. If you don't want to be told what to do, why are you telling others what to do? Just doesn't make sense no matter how strong you feel about things. :confused:

As far as why did the Republicans win. Listen to my post on Rush Limbaugh explaining it. He will explain it from the Republican point of view. If you do not want to know the Republican point of view do not listen. How's that for letting you chose. LOL

[Jolie Rouge]

... and you left the Stem Cell issue cold as well. Did you ever go read the thread I had started on Stem Cell Reserch ?? hhhhhmmmmmmmm ...... ;)

[YNKYH8R]

You still did not answer my hubby's question on the gun issue. If you don't want to be told what to do, why are you telling others what to do? Just doesn't make sense no matter how strong you feel about things. :confused:

As far as why did the Republicans win. Listen to my post on Rush Limbaugh explaining it. He will explain it from the Republican point of view. If you do not want to know the Republican point of view do not listen. How's that for letting you chose. LOL
Look at post #119
Besides I would like it to be a law, kinda like how half the population wants smae sex mariages banned. Prayer in school would never be a law. I can see it now...little Jimmy gets detention because he won't pray before math. ;)

[YNKYH8R]

... and you left the Stem Cell issue cold as well. Did you ever go read the thread I had started on Stem Cell Reserch ?? hhhhhmmmmmmmm ...... ;)
Wait a minute, I'm going to have to go backa nd look at where we left off on that conversation.... :p

Okay, I'm back. You mentioned on post #6 about how much Clinton alotted for stem cell research which was ZERO as you put it. I mentioned that the article that I posted doesn't mention Clinton, or the banning of stem cell research. Bush has only put limited funding on it. BRB!

Okay, I was right! My article about Karl Rove never mentioned Clinton's name once. So, you mentoined wanting me to read an article about SCR. I'll print it off and read it. Or.....you could tell me what you are driving on about. :rolleyes:

[Jolie Rouge]

Okay, I'm back. You mentioned on post #6 about how much Clinton alotted for stem cell research which was ZERO as you put it. I mentioned that the article that I posted doesn't mention Clinton, or the banning of stem cell research. Bush has only put limited funding on it. BRB!

Okay, I was right! My article about Karl Rove never mentioned Clinton's name once. So, you mentoined wanting me to read an article about SCR. I'll print it off and read it. Or.....you could tell me what you are driving on about.


Correct they never mentioned Clintons' name because there was no ( hence the ZERO ) budget allotted for Stem Cell Research.

How can you say Bush "limited" funding -- it implies that there was funding in place to have limits set on it. There was none. No research. None to receive federal funds. None funds to set limits on. Bush simply set a limit on the research - the most promising - which was to receive federal funds. -- rather than throw federal ( tax payers ) funds at any but the most promising research in progress. It then get twisted by his opponents as a "ban on stem cell research" and "cuts or limits" on funding - with teary commercials featuring Chris Reeves, Michael J. Fox and Ali begging for a cure to a multitude of illnesses. Why not three cheers for Bush for being the first to issue *any* federal funds to the projects ??

There is no ban on the research -- any privately funded research can continue on as before. But the private sector isn't pouring money into this -- WHY ?

[janelle]

Look at post #119
Besides I would like it to be a law, kinda like how half the population wants smae sex mariages banned. Prayer in school would never be a law. I can see it now...little Jimmy gets detention because he won't pray before math. ;)

LOL, I'm sure even in religious schools where prayer was an everyday thing lots of kids zoned out, but at least they were exposed to it. Why are people afraid of prayer? No, don't answer that. :eek:

Anyway, I can tell you how the moment of silence goes. Little Jimmy is thinking. MMMM a moment of silence, what am I suppose to do now. Blank, blank, blank. I wonder what's on TV tonight? Blank, blank, blank. What's that on the floor? More blank. Hey look at that girl over there. Never noticed she had boobs. Censor, consor, censor. Geesh this is so lame. Adults are so stupid. Come on, when do we get out of here? Gonna to try to find more boobs. :D :D :confused:

We have teachers to guide our kids, not expect to take it for granted they know what to do. You have to fill up silence for kids under a certain age. Teachers know this who work with them. A moment of silence is lame as Jimmy would tell you.

[janelle]

I had the choice to not say it, I exercised that right. Yes there was/is a flag in every room. No they should not discontinue the National Anthem at sporting events.
LOL!
You have to understand, saying the the pledge, or singing the national anthem are optional. People have the right to not say them. It is simply a matter of choice. Just like I don't say grace before I eat, and I don't say my prayers before I go to bed.

And the majority of kids will exercise not to do something if given a choice. Maybe that is why the last generation is called the drop out generation.

[YNKYH8R]

Correct they never mentioned Clintons' name because there was no ( hence the ZERO ) budget allotted for Stem Cell Research.

How can you say Bush "limited" funding -- it implies that there was funding in place to have limits set on it. There was none. No research. None to receive federal funds. None funds to set limits on. Bush simply set a limit on the research - the most promising - which was to receive federal funds. -- rather than throw federal ( tax payers ) funds at any but the most promising research in progress. It then get twisted by his opponents as a "ban on stem cell research" and "cuts or limits" on funding - with teary commercials featuring Chris Reeves, Michael J. Fox and Ali begging for a cure to a multitude of illnesses. Why not three cheers for Bush for being the first to issue *any* federal funds to the projects ??

There is no ban on the research -- any privately funded research can continue on as before. But the private sector isn't pouring money into this -- WHY ?
Ummmmm. I don't disagree with anything you just said. I don't disagree with anything from your "stem cell" thread either. You just started ranting on and on about stem cell research and who said what and who did or did not ban this or that and on and on and on...
This thread has almost nothing to do with the funding of stem cell reasearch.


Sooooooooooo. Now what? :)

[janelle]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/da...eech.guest.html

Since this thread has turned into every subject under the sun, I'm gonna put Rush here. Listen if you dare. He will explain why we are called Jesusland, though he won't use that terminology and why Bush won.

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/da...eech.guest.html

Since this thread has turned into every subject under the sun, I'm gonna put Rush here. Listen if you dare. He will explain why we are called Jesusland, though he won't use that terminology and why Bush won.
I wouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh if it would save my life.
I wouldn't pee on him to put him out if he was on fire.
He is so far to the right, he drives in the breakdown lane.
Heck I don't even listen to people who are veeeeeeeeeeeeery liberal.
I don't hug a trees, and I don't collect guns.

[Jolie Rouge]

You brought up stem cell reserch in #2 post in this thread ...



Rove Was Right .... Witness the limitations on federal funding for stem cell research, the passage of the partial birth abortion ban ....

and your response to the article youo posted :
[i]What troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

Is it my "fault" that you have changed the subject ? :eek:

So far this thread covers prayer in schools, the Pledge, Roe VS Wade, partial birth abortion, stem cell research, seperation of church and state and the second amendment/gun control.

[YNKYH8R]

You brought up stem cell reserch in #2 post in this thread ...



and your response to the article youo posted :

Is it my "fault" that you have changed the subject ? :eek:

So far this thread covers prayer in schools, the Pledge, Roe VS Wade, partial birth abortion, stem cell research, seperation of church and state and the second amendment/gun control.
OMG! The article is not about stem cell research only, it is about how Bush won the election by securing the moral majority. And the italicized part is not my response it is a direct quote from Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. Man oh man. :rolleyes:
You thought that I wrote what was italicized in post #2? LMAO!!! :D

[Jolie Rouge]

OMG! The article is not about stem cell research only, it is about how Bush won the election by securing the moral majority. And the italicized part is not my response it is a direct quote from Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. Man oh man. :rolleyes:
You thought that I wrote what was italicized in post #2? LMAO!!! :D

Hence we see the importance of properly crediting others writings. :p

I apoligize for mistaking the eloquence of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times for yours. :rolleyes:


I never said it was about stem cell research only -- but it seems to be covering a broad array of topics whatever your intent may have been.

Glad to be such a source of amusement for you :D hopefully have provided some food for thought as well....

[YNKYH8R]

No problem a simple error. I copied it directly from the article I was reading.
As soon as I have time I'll try to jog down more articles pertaining to the moral majority, or any decision made by the curent administration concerning anything moral. :)

[adorkablex]

And the majority of kids will exercise not to do something if given a choice. Maybe that is why the last generation is called the drop out generation.


Generation Drop Out. :mad: Good generation yours must be then. To show such GREAT parenting skills. I swear I'm so sick of generation botox cutting my generation down.

Children when exposed to positive elements respond accordingly. Shoving religous crap down someones throat who doesn't want to hear it, will NOT help anything.

I don't like the way some people parent but you don't go up to someone in Wal-Mart with a child who's misbehaving and spank them do you? No, nevermind.. don't answer that. :rolleyes:

A moment of silence.. sure.
Having a prayer meeting for those who want it (excluding those who don't) before/after school... sure.

MAKING a child be involved with prayer or any sort of religous junk.. heck no.

As I've said before, Teachers are there to educate a child. Befriend them and guide them into becoming smart young adults. Not to be their preacher.

And I'll take a 3 day ban if the botox thing if need be. But I don't take it back.

[krisharry]

wow, interesting thread, ok, just wanted to add my 2 cents. The school that my son goes to-public, elementary does teach values. It does this through character education where children learn how to be good citizens-obeying rules/laws, respect for others and their property, helping others in need.
Now we all know many laws are based on religion- many of which share core values-no killing, stealing, etc. but the school does not bring any discussion of religion into it, No mention of the Bible or any other religious text for that matter. so it is possible for schools to do this. I do agree w/the other poster that this is something for parents to teach at home, but the schools here do a good job as well. Prayer and religious education is something that should be done at home or at church or a religious school but public schools are for all our children- all religions included or those who practice no religion at all.

JMHO

Peace.

[janelle]

No school could eliminate religion if they wanted to. They couldn't teach the classics or great music. My SS was in drama and choir. The music instructor agreed lots of the music she had the kids sing were written and sung for church services. They're in Latin so most could not understand they were singing Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth. LOL

Schools in America were founded by the religious. They were the ones who taught in most communities. Church schools. The kids came from miles around to get an education so if it wasn't for the religious we would have been an illiterate culture.

Some of you have shown how you hate religion, calling it crap and showing distain for it, not wanting it shoved down your children's throat. But you then turn around and agree the silent majority of religious voted Bush in. Then I guess you need to face it. We are a country of Christians who go to church making most of us religious. I think you are right. The religious got tired of having their rights slowly eroded away and this year they came out in droves.

[YNKYH8R]

No school could eliminate religion if they wanted to. They couldn't teach the classics or great music. My SS was in drama and choir. The music instructor agreed lots of the music she had the kids sing were written and sung for church services. They're in Latin so most could not understand they were singing Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth. LOL
This is moot considering at Christmas pageants holiday songs are sung and are generally Christian oriented

Schools in America were founded by the religious. They were the ones who taught in most communities. Church schools. The kids came from miles around to get an education so if it wasn't for the religious we would have been an illiterate culture.
This comment is a little extreme. That is like saying the only educated people were followers of some higher power or another. Guess what, that is true. Most people are followers of some higher power. The amounts of people who are not followers of some higher power are miniscule. If your comment is directed toward the idea that only ‘Christians’ were educated a long time ago then that statement is a lie, because the Egyptians were extremely well educated and were not followers of Christ. You have to be careful what you label yourself as Christian or religious.

Some of you have shown how you hate religion, calling it crap and showing distain for it, not wanting it shoved down your children's throat. But you then turn around and agree the silent majority of religious voted Bush in. Then I guess you need to face it. We are a country of Christians who go to church making most of us religious. I think you are right. The religious got tired of having their rights slowly eroded away and this year they came out in droves.
Yes, organized religion is frowned upon. Remember that Christianity is God’s attempt to reach man. Religion is man’s attempt to reach God. So you can’t have it both ways. And as we’ve stated, at least some of us, prayer in school or a moment of silence probably would not be too harshly criticized. Since these acts can be done anywhere, on a bus, in the toilet, before homeroom, etc. Actually teaching a class on religion or the religions of the world would be acceptable in my eyes also. The Old Testament is rich with history of the period. Actually teaching students the belief structure to the point of having religious ceremonies, or trying to sway the beliefs of others would not be tolerated. If my daughter was in high school I would allow her the choice of participating in prayer in school. Younger children who are more impressionable I would be leery on. Because of the nature of some religions I would be concerned for the mental well being of a child so young. Would I rather have my child learn math and English, or worry if she’s going to hell all day? I don’t want my child having to live with that kind of pressure at such young age. The choices my child makes in her teenage years regarding her beliefs are hers to decide. If she decides to be Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, or Atheist that will be her choice, I am not going to push her one way or the other.
In the long run it will end up causing problems for some people. The entire school system will not collapse, but there will be an angry few, and of course they will pull their kids from school. It is just going to cause more problems than we need. And all over 54 million peoples beliefs.

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/img/sorryworld1.jpg

Some of us — hopefully most of us — are trying to understand and appreciate the effect our recent election will have on you, the citizens of the rest of the world. As our so-called leaders redouble their efforts to screw you over, please remember that some of us — hopefully most of us — are truly, truly sorry. And we'll say we're sorry, even on the behalf of the ones who aren't.

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/upload_files/se18.gif
I love Topato!!!!! :)
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/upload_files/se5.jpg

[Jaidness]

with all due respect...
And the Ten Commandants are our first laws.

The Ten Commandments and American Law:
Why Some Christians' Claims to Legal Hegemony Are Not Consistent with the Historical Record
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilton02@aol.com

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030911.html

[Jaidness]

as far as prayer in schools/government is concerned:

"And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you. (Matthew 6:5-6)


"Do not judge lest you be judged. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. "And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/tmate041103.gif

[janelle]

Generation Drop Out. :mad: Good generation yours must be then. To show such GREAT parenting skills. I swear I'm so sick of generation botox cutting my generation down.

Children when exposed to positive elements respond accordingly. Shoving religous crap down someones throat who doesn't want to hear it, will NOT help anything.

I don't like the way some people parent but you don't go up to someone in Wal-Mart with a child who's misbehaving and spank them do you? No, nevermind.. don't answer that. :rolleyes:

A moment of silence.. sure.
Having a prayer meeting for those who want it (excluding those who don't) before/after school... sure.

MAKING a child be involved with prayer or any sort of religous junk.. heck no.

As I've said before, Teachers are there to educate a child. Befriend them and guide them into becoming smart young adults. Not to be their preacher.

And I'll take a 3 day ban if the botox thing if need be. But I don't take it back.

I agree with you, my generation started it. Drugs got into society and free sex. I never said my generation was better, if they were we wouldn't have a generation of drop outs now. This is all generalities anyway. For the greater part most have turned out ok, it's the small percentage who are making all the stink, but our society has for some reason put those above everyone else and we have a secular society. So what if those who hate religion take their kids out of public school? Right now the ones who don't hate religion who are takiing their kids out in droves,

Teachers should educate kids in all matters. Teaching about religions doesn't mean you will preach to anyone. Unless people think of teaching as preaching.

[ladybugbhb]

janelle, i agree why is it that we have to take our kids out if we do not agree, but if others do not agree with what we are doing, it is banned?

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/upload_files/se37.jpg

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/upload_files/se58.jpg

[janelle]

This is moot considering at Christmas pageants holiday songs are sung and are generally Christian oriented

This comment is a little extreme. That is like saying the only educated people were followers of some higher power or another. Guess what, that is true. Most people are followers of some higher power. The amounts of people who are not followers of some higher power are miniscule. If your comment is directed toward the idea that only ‘Christians’ were educated a long time ago then that statement is a lie, because the Egyptians were extremely well educated and were not followers of Christ. You have to be careful what you label yourself as Christian or religious.

Yes, organized religion is frowned upon. Remember that Christianity is God’s attempt to reach man. Religion is man’s attempt to reach God. So you can’t have it both ways. And as we’ve stated, at least some of us, prayer in school or a moment of silence probably would not be too harshly criticized. Since these acts can be done anywhere, on a bus, in the toilet, before homeroom, etc. Actually teaching a class on religion or the religions of the world would be acceptable in my eyes also. The Old Testament is rich with history of the period. Actually teaching students the belief structure to the point of having religious ceremonies, or trying to sway the beliefs of others would not be tolerated. If my daughter was in high school I would allow her the choice of participating in prayer in school. Younger children who are more impressionable I would be leery on. Because of the nature of some religions I would be concerned for the mental well being of a child so young. Would I rather have my child learn math and English, or worry if she’s going to hell all day? I don’t want my child having to live with that kind of pressure at such young age. The choices my child makes in her teenage years regarding her beliefs are hers to decide. If she decides to be Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, or Atheist that will be her choice, I am not going to push her one way or the other.
In the long run it will end up causing problems for some people. The entire school system will not collapse, but there will be an angry few, and of course they will pull their kids from school. It is just going to cause more problems than we need. And all over 54 million peoples beliefs.

Lots of school programs only have secular songs at Christmas or a few parents will raise a stink. So what, but they are catered to.

As far as the first schools in America being started by the religious, it's just true. The Egyptians, although they had the knowledge first, didn't come to America to educate. I just got back from Santa Fe. Why do you think all those cities on the West coast have religious names? They were settled by the religious or religious people.

1610---Santa Fe was founded by the Spanish 10 years before the Pilgrams landed in New York.

1622---Church of St. Francis in Santa Fe was built.

1852---Sisters of Loretto responded to the appeal of the Bishop to teach in Santa Fe.

Coronado came to America to find gold and you can be sure he would have plundered the natives to steal all he could from them. The religious came to save souls and to teach. They came back to help the people. I know saving souls is looked on as a dirty thing now but millions of people still think it's very important to this very day. In the mean time they taught the people, they educated them. The helped them come out of slavery to others. They were taught to read and write when the sisters came.

Many religious died coming here to help and missionaries are dying still today to go into the wilderness to bring the Lord and EDUCATION to primitive peoples.

It has always been the educated nations who have brought help for a better life the the third world nations. We still have it today in the Peace Corp. Guess what, the Peace Corp was working centuries ago it just wasn't called the Peach Corp.

Quote---Remember that Christianity is God’s attempt to reach man. Religion is man’s attempt to reach God. So you can’t have it both ways. End of Quote

????? We have to have it both ways or it won't work. How can God reach us if we aren't willing to reach back. God isn't going to do it all. We need to do our part. Reminds me of so many people sitting on their hands today waiting for God to send them a sign. Well He sends many everyday put we won't get off our hands and do anything. The Loretto Sisters got up and traveled from Kentucky to New Mexico to help those people and in those days it wasn't by car.

We owe so much to the religious for settling our country but we are ignorant of it. It can't be taught or else people are not getting it.

[YNKYH8R]

Remember that Christianity is God’s attempt to reach man. Religion is man’s attempt to reach God. So you can’t have it both ways.
This comment refers to the belief that the only way to God is through Christ Jesus. His attempt to reach us. We cannot see the kingdom of Heaven through our own means such as good works; which is man's attempt through religion to reach God.

I thought you knew this. :confused: Yikes! :eek:

[janelle]

So you sit around not going to do good works? I thought good works was to help people. If you believe in God you have no choice but to do good to others. You follow the example set out by Jesus. And Christianity is following Christ. If you are a Christian you follow Christ. That is what the word means.
I thought you knew this, Yikes.

[YNKYH8R]

So you sit around not going to do good works? I thought good works was to help people. If you believe in God you have no choice but to do good to others. You follow the example set out by Jesus. And Christianity is following Christ. If you are a Christian you follow Christ. That is what the word means.
I thought you knew this, Yikes.
No no no. Good works alone will not allow you to see the kingdom of heaven. You also need faith and a belief in Christ.
These things are instrumental and are the corner stome for Christianity.

Not the public school system. :)

[janelle]

I understand the public school system is going less and less good works every year. That is why Bush is going to have them make an accounting of just what they are doing for our kids. Businesses have to do this, why not our schools who are supposedly truning out our future business people?

If you follow Christ you will do good works. You follow His example.

Quote---You also need faith and a belief in Christ.
These things are instrumental and are the corner stome for Christianity".

So why are they prohibited in school? Our kids are getting the message loud and clear their faith needs to be put under a rock until school is let out. That is not natural to a Christian. And Christian parents have Christian kids way before school starts. "Having kids find it on their own" is like having them find food on their own.

[YNKYH8R]

First you want prayer in school, then you actually want classes on Christs teachings. What about Jewish students who don;t believe Messiah has come yet?
How do we grade the students? Besides how do we decide who does the teaching? Baptisits are different from Methodists are differnt from Jahov's Witnesses.
What if I believe in speaking in tongues and the teacher does mention it calls it false?
About different interpretations? Some say the consumtion of alcohol is a sin, some say it is limited to intoxication.
By which book do you measure JKV or NIV?
Do we need concordances?
What about classees in Greek and Hebrew?
What about being born again? Some people don't believe in that.

Christianity and religion is best left delivered to those who want it by those who know how to spread its message. The teachings of whatever your following maybe don't have to die at the school door, you make an example of your faith through your day.

[ckerr4]

No no no. Good works alone will not allow you to see the kingdom of heaven. You also need faith and a belief in Christ.
These things are instrumental and are the corner stome for Christianity.

Not the public school system. :)

:p

It's the Catholic Church in one corner, and in the other corner, we have Martin Luther...

[ckerr4]

I understand the public school system is going less and less good works every year. That is why Bush is going to have them make an accounting of just what they are doing for our kids.

Bush and his NCLB act is supposed to have "them" make an accounting of what the teachers are teaching and what the students are learning, not what good works the kids are doing at the behest of the teachers.

[janelle]

Who said we need to go from to nothing to everything? That is impossible.

The pledge of allegience with God in it would be a start. Who is against that?

Take an accounting of how many parents would be against talking about God in class, then the majority wins like any Democracy handles things. Those who disaprove can take their kids out and home school or whatever. The majority is just asking why is the minority running things when it's usually the other way around in a Democracy. Like Dr. Phil says---"we have the tail wagging the dog".

[janelle]

:p

It's the Catholic Church in one corner, and in the other corner, we have Martin Luther...

All Christian core beliefs are the same. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. In my own family we have Catholics and Baptists.

[janelle]

Bush and his NCLB act is supposed to have "them" make an accounting of what the teachers are teaching and what the students are learning, not what good works the kids are doing at the behest of the teachers.

Don't the kids already bring food to school to give to the poor? These are good works so they don't have to add to that but talking about God isn't allowed even in saying a small non-denominational prayer. :confused:

[adorkablex]

I understand the public school system is going less and less good works every year. That is why Bush is going to have them make an accounting of just what they are doing for our kids. Businesses have to do this, why not our schools who are supposedly truning out our future business people?

If you follow Christ you will do good works. You follow His example.

Quote---You also need faith and a belief in Christ.
These things are instrumental and are the corner stome for Christianity".

So why are they prohibited in school? Our kids are getting the message loud and clear their faith needs to be put under a rock until school is let out. That is not natural to a Christian. And Christian parents have Christian kids way before school starts. "Having kids find it on their own" is like having them find food on their own.


You mean like the Bakkers? Just because someone is a Christian does NOT make them a good person. It's junk. You don't have to believe in God to be a good person. That's a load of crap and you need to stop saying that. There are good people on both ends of the argument.

[ckerr4]

All Christian core beliefs are the same. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. In my own family we have Catholics and Baptists.

It's a joke, since one of the main divisions between the beliefs of the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches is the whole salvation through faith alone or faith and good works.

[Njean31]

Take an accounting of how many parents would be against talking about God in class, then the majority wins like any Democracy handles things. Those who disaprove can take their kids out and home school or whatever. The majority is just asking why is the minority running things when it's usually the other way around in a Democracy.


that is a good question. there should be a vote on it on some level....

[ckerr4]

Don't the kids already bring food to school to give to the poor? These are good works so they don't have to add to that but talking about God isn't allowed even in saying a small non-denominational prayer. :confused:

Bush's accountability system IS NOT about faith, religion, Christianity, or good works - it is about making teachers and schools accountable for what students know and for showing up to school - period. Anything else falls outside the realm of the NCLB act, which is what people are generally talking about when they mention "Bush's education plan." If there are things like food drives in schools, it does not have to be, and generally is not, faith-based, but is more likely community-based. That doesn't make it less of a good work, which is what adorkablex is saying - you can be a good person and not be religious. Schools being accountable for academics is not about religion, it's about kids being able to read, write, and do math. That's what the NCLB act is about. That's what I was talking about, because you misrepresented the entire idea of Bush's "accountability for public schools program" as being something where schools have to show how they're incorporating more good works into school - that's not what it is.

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/edpicks.jhtml?src=ln

Bush does have his faith-based initiative program, which is something different from accountability in the classroom.

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/fbci/index.html?src=qc

[Jolie Rouge]

Rove Was Right
One of the worst aspects of Bush's win on Tuesday is the reality that Rove was right. Karl Rove, Bush's senior campaign advisor (aka Bush's Brain) apparently always felt that if the "evangelicals" had voted in 2000, the election wouldn't have even been close. So he designed Bush's presidency to appeal to those people to ensure a second term. Witness the limitations on federal funding for stem cell research, the passage of the partial birth abortion ban, the removal of federal funds for international family planning organizations and the endorsement of a federal amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage. This radical right wing social agenda that has so incensed us on the left is exactly what got him elected, for this time the evangelicals did turn out and they voted for Bush. And according to Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times, they constitute one-third of Americans, which would explain the statistic that 36% of all Bush voters counted "moral values" as the number one issue they voted on. Greater than terrorism, greater than Iraq, greater than the economy. This utter contempt for and assault on our values is what has made us so passionate and feel like this was more than a mere election. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times agrees.


What troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at another level, without warning, it actually became about everything. Partly that happened because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake, and partly because Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president.


Survey: Format Influenced Voter Priorities
By WILL LESTER

WASHINGTON (AP) - This presidential election has been described by many as one in which morality mattered most to voters. But that perception may be driven at least partially by how pollsters asked voters about their priority issues.

Whether voters named ``moral values'' their key issue partly depended on whether that subject was included in a list of choices provided by pollsters, according to a Pew Research Center analysis released Thursday.

When ``moral values'' was included in poll questions, it was named more often than any other issue. But when voters were just asked to name the issue most important in their vote for president - without being given a list of answers - moral values trailed the war in Iraq and the economy, according to the Pew survey. ``The advantage of the open-ended question is it tells you what's at the top of mind for voters - what they're thinking,'' said Cliff Zukin, a veteran pollster and professor of public policy at Rutgers University. ``Much too much has been made of the moral values answer.''


Many Christian conservatives have sought to portray the election as validation for their emphasis on morality and the reason for President Bush's re-election. While it's true voters who picked Bush were more apt to cite morality as the reason, political analyst Thomas Mann said it's too simplistic to say that issue determined the winner. ``It's a big mistake to say it's all a function of religious conservatives being motivated,'' said Mann, of the Brookings Institution. But, he added, ``To say it wasn't a factor is just as foolish.''


In exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, ``moral values'' was one of seven items in a question that asked, ``Which one issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president.'' The other issues were taxes, education, Iraq, terrorism, economy/jobs, and health care.


Twenty-two percent chose ``moral values,'' followed by the economy (20 percent), terrorism (19 percent) and Iraq (15 percent), according to the polls, which surveyed more than 13,600 voters and were conducted for The Associated Press and the major television networks.


The Pew Research Center polled 1,209 voters who said they cast ballots in the 2004 presidential election. When those voters were given a list, ``moral values'' was the most popular choice at 27 percent, followed by Iraq at 22 percent and the economy at 21 percent.


But when they were asked an open-ended question about the top issue, Iraq and the economy moved past moral values. Iraq was picked by 27 percent, the economy by 14 percent and moral values tied with terrorism at 9 percent. ``Moral values was an element in the Bush formula, but probably not the driving one,'' said Lee Miringoff, president of the National Council of Public Polls.


The Pew poll found that voters' reasons for picking ``moral values'' varies. Just over four in 10 of those who picked ``moral values'' from the list mentioned social issues like gay marriage and abortion, but others talked about qualities like religion, helping the poor, and candidates' honesty and strength of leadership. ``We did not see any indication that social conservative issues like abortion, gay rights and stem cell research were anywhere near as important as the economy and Iraq,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. ``'Moral values' is a phrase that's very attractive to people.''


The Pew survey was taken Nov. 5-8 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041111%2F2032472679.htm&sc=1131


On the Net:

Pew Research Center - www.people-press.org



11/11/04 20:32

[Shann]

Who said we need to go from to nothing to everything? That is impossible.

The pledge of allegience with God in it would be a start. Who is against that?

Take an accounting of how many parents would be against talking about God in class, then the majority wins like any Democracy handles things. Those who disaprove can take their kids out and home school or whatever. The majority is just asking why is the minority running things when it's usually the other way around in a Democracy. Like Dr. Phil says---"we have the tail wagging the dog".

:eek:
public schools shouldn't be a forum for discrimination. if ppl want their kids to talk about god and pray, then they can go to private schools. why should parents be expected to home school their kids just b/c they don't believe in god? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[YNKYH8R]

Survey: Format Influenced Voter Priorities
By WILL LESTER

WASHINGTON (AP) - This presidential election has been described by many as one in which morality mattered most to voters. But that perception may be driven at least partially by how pollsters asked voters about their priority issues.

Whether voters named ``moral values'' their key issue partly depended on whether that subject was included in a list of choices provided by pollsters, according to a Pew Research Center analysis released Thursday.

When ``moral values'' was included in poll questions, it was named more often than any other issue. But when voters were just asked to name the issue most important in their vote for president - without being given a list of answers - moral values trailed the war in Iraq and the economy, according to the Pew survey. ``The advantage of the open-ended question is it tells you what's at the top of mind for voters - what they're thinking,'' said Cliff Zukin, a veteran pollster and professor of public policy at Rutgers University. ``Much too much has been made of the moral values answer.''


Many Christian conservatives have sought to portray the election as validation for their emphasis on morality and the reason for President Bush's re-election. While it's true voters who picked Bush were more apt to cite morality as the reason, political analyst Thomas Mann said it's too simplistic to say that issue determined the winner. ``It's a big mistake to say it's all a function of religious conservatives being motivated,'' said Mann, of the Brookings Institution. But, he added, ``To say it wasn't a factor is just as foolish.''


In exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, ``moral values'' was one of seven items in a question that asked, ``Which one issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president.'' The other issues were taxes, education, Iraq, terrorism, economy/jobs, and health care.


Twenty-two percent chose ``moral values,'' followed by the economy (20 percent), terrorism (19 percent) and Iraq (15 percent), according to the polls, which surveyed more than 13,600 voters and were conducted for The Associated Press and the major television networks.


The Pew Research Center polled 1,209 voters who said they cast ballots in the 2004 presidential election. When those voters were given a list, ``moral values'' was the most popular choice at 27 percent, followed by Iraq at 22 percent and the economy at 21 percent.


But when they were asked an open-ended question about the top issue, Iraq and the economy moved past moral values. Iraq was picked by 27 percent, the economy by 14 percent and moral values tied with terrorism at 9 percent. ``Moral values was an element in the Bush formula, but probably not the driving one,'' said Lee Miringoff, president of the National Council of Public Polls.


The Pew poll found that voters' reasons for picking ``moral values'' varies. Just over four in 10 of those who picked ``moral values'' from the list mentioned social issues like gay marriage and abortion, but others talked about qualities like religion, helping the poor, and candidates' honesty and strength of leadership. ``We did not see any indication that social conservative issues like abortion, gay rights and stem cell research were anywhere near as important as the economy and Iraq,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. ``'Moral values' is a phrase that's very attractive to people.''


The Pew survey was taken Nov. 5-8 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041111%2F2032472679.htm&sc=1131


On the Net:

Pew Research Center - www.people-press.org



11/11/04 20:32
Very interesting, although you have to admit that the idea that Bush was elected on more 'moral' note is more likely true than false. One poll with open ended questions only goes to prove that a majority of the population believe that a.) the country is not going in the right direction and b.) the majority of the population, at the time, were not in favor of the direction of the war.
Now if it is true that the direction of the country was in controversy for most of those who voted, the noe has to ask if it was a spirtual shift or an economic one. If the latter is true than Bush should not have won, considering his record...IMO.

[janelle]

:eek:
public schools shouldn't be a forum for discrimination. if ppl want their kids to talk about god and pray, then they can go to private schools. why should parents be expected to home school their kids just b/c they don't believe in god? :confused: :confused: :confused:

No one said thay want the public schools to teach religion. Why should people be expected to home school their kids just b/c they DO believe in God? I think they are the majority but the minority has taken over since the atheists made a big stink. When that happened the majority should have said home school your kids cause most of us still want God in schools. But the lawyers took over and the majority lost like they always do when lawyers get involved.

I know most want values taught but that is even a grey area. So kids leave all that at the door and lots of people are taking their kids out.

[YNKYH8R]

I don't believe at one point has anyone said that values are not important. And because of the way that society has turned on itself in the last fifteen to twenty years it is easy to see why have a values class in school would be pertinent, considering the fact that the average child spends more time in school than at home then comes home to no parents who both work. So the logical solution is to have an ethics course or at least a course taught on values as a part of the curriculum in the public school system; basically making the teacher the parent.
Now at some point in time only the men worked and the women who were mothers stayed home to raise their children. Ideally the values that are fundamental to normal socialization would be taught at home. Some women obviously wanted out of this little niche and ventured out into the working world. Some actually have to consider employment to keep up with the financial burden that falls upon the average family. Taking the mothers out of the home and leaving the children to the daycare providers. Of course daycare providers cannot always be counted on to teach moral and values to children. So again it falls to the teachers.
The blatant disregard for other people is so prevalent in our school system. Violence toward those who are deemed different or poor has been an on going problem for ever. I think some people fail to realize that when you spend 12 years in an institution with your peers, spending more hours with them than you do with your family, day in and day out, it eventually becomes a world of its own. With television programs that pitch the latest trends in fashion and attitude towards life and relationships the young ones are almost entirely encouraged to act out there adult behavior that they see everyday after school in the confines of the school itself. You end up having clicks, and underage sex, smoking, drinking, and partying. And somewhere in all of this we have to teach values. And again it is left to the teachers, who have their own families, and children to deal with also.
We cannot be expected to find the solution to all of this without fixing the problem. By avoiding the problem we compound it. And it has been this way for some time. School prayer, maybe a step in the right direction, from one point of view, although I feel that it may be deemed as a quick fix and not attacking the problem as its source.

[janelle]

Well YNKYH8R I totally agree with you. Very eloquent. Right on. :eek: :confused: :p :p :p :) :) :)

[Jolie Rouge]

http://www.amipatriotic.com/images/jesusland.jpg


Wednesday, November 3, 2004 [

CANADA REPORTS HUGE JUMP IN IMMIGRATION

Over 55,000,000 Requests for Citizenship Since Tuesday NightCanadian immigration officials have reported a huge increase in the number of requests for Canadian citizenship in the past twenty-four hours, with over fifty-five million such inquiries pouring in since late Tuesday night.

Of those fifty-five million requests, well over 99.99% of them came from U.S. citizens, the lion’s share residing in such states as New York, California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said that he was “flabbergasted” by the fifty-five-million-plus requests for Canadian citizenship, adding that it was difficult to pinpoint the precise reasons for the staggering increase. “My only theory is that after many years of exposure in the U.S., hockey is finally starting to catch on,” Mr. Pettigrew said.

He cautioned, however, that it is impossible to know exactly what is sparking the sudden interest in America’s frozen neighbor to the north: “People answering our immigration hotline say that it is hard to understand many of the American callers because they are sobbing uncontrollably.”


In other news, President Bush used his acceptance speech Wednesday to reach out to supporters of Sen. John Kerry, telling them, “You can run, but you can’t hide.”


Meanwhile, in his first statement since being voted out of office Tuesday night, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said, “Do you want fries with that?”


Elsewhere, experts said that exit polls may have falsely predicted a Kerry victory because Kerry voters exited while Bush voters stayed behind and voted again.

www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=999&srch=

[janelle]

Oh my I can't stop laughing. :D :D :D

[YNKYH8R]

I actually had to click on the site to check and see if it was real or fake. :)

[Damnifiknw]

The whole problem with everything is religion. Religion is the cause of wars, bickering, you name it's the core of all evil.....I'm not a religous person, never will be a religious person. I don't believe all the jive....

I'm willing to bet if it was announced without a shadow of a doubt there was no such thing as God, Jesus, Joe blow, or whatever. People would freak- There would be total chaos, people would be killing themselves left and right. To many people live their lives out of a book. To me it sounds foolish for people to live their lives this way. No one knows for a fact all the hoopla in the bible is true. I can't see why people believe in something they can not see....If you were to tell someone you seen "God." They would throw you in a padded room. No doubt about it.

Another thing that cracks me up is, when people win awards, games they all say, "First and foremost I'd like to Thank God almighty, if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have won." Now when someone losses you don't see them saying, "First and foremost i'd like to thank God almighty himself, if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have lost this game." Why is God (or any joe blow) only mentioned when something good happens? G W Bush is the only one I have seen in a long time who did not thank God when he was reelected, He said, "First I'd like to thank my wife Laura, and went on to say his family..never did he mention God. Except when he said, "God Bless America.".He never once thanked "god"...It was a relief to see someone actually Thank those worth thanking instead of some make believe character....This is just my opinion...I doesn't matter what you say, I will still have the same opinion.

[Njean31]

The whole problem with everything is religion. Religion is the cause of wars, bickering, you name it's the core of all evil.....I'm not a religous person, never will be a religious person. I don't believe all the jive....

I'm willing to bet if it was announced without a shadow of a doubt there was no such thing as God, Jesus, Joe blow, or whatever. People would freak- There would be total chaos, people would be killing themselves left and right. To many people live their lives out of a book. To me it sounds foolish for people to live their lives this way. No one knows for a fact all the hoopla in the bible is true. I can't see why people believe in something they can not see....If you were to tell someone you seen "God." They would throw you in a padded room. No doubt about it.

Another thing that cracks me up is, when people win awards, games they all say, "First and foremost I'd like to Thank God almighty, if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have won." Now when someone losses you don't see them saying, "First and foremost i'd like to thank God almighty himself, if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have lost this game." Why is God (or any joe blow) only mentioned when something good happens? G W Bush is the only one I have seen in a long time who did not thank God when he was reelected, He said, "First I'd like to thank my wife Laura, and went on to say his family..never did he mention God. Except when he said, "God Bless America.".He never once thanked "god"...It was a relief to see someone actually Thank those worth thanking instead of some make believe character....This is just my opinion...I doesn't matter what you say, I will still have the same opinion.

my husband's father is an atheist too. i find it extremely depressing to not have any hope. i've been doing this Hospice nursing now for a couple of months, and when you see someone lying there dying (i mean within minutes) it's going to be very hard when i encounter an atheist....it has bothered me. what do you say to someone like that who has no hope, "well, he had a good life" i suppose is one thing to offer. luckily so far, all the deaths i've been to have been people who believe in God. that has made it much easier, their pastors/preacher/minister/reverend whatever you want to call it.. usually come and pray. and so far ALL of the deaths i've been to.....the one's that are immenent (within minutes or hours) the dying have made reference to "seeing,talking to" past dead relatives ......some tell them it's ok, it's time to go home or something like it. now, i know what non-believers will say to that.......they are hallucinating or are confused. I DON'T BUY THAT, THIS WHOLE EXPERIENCE IS JUST REAFFIRMING MY FAITH. i've also heard..could just be a myth....but i've heard that when a person dies, they weigh 3 pounds less which is supposedly the soul departing the body. you say that to you it seems foolish and i have to say to that i'd rather be foolish than wrong on this matter in the end.

also you say that you can't believe that people believe in something they can't see......it's called faith. i can't see my brain but i know it's there, my heart, the planets, the solar system, other galaxies and so on and so forth. i just don't understand how folks can live with themselves without hope.......my father in law says "yep, when you die, you rot in the ground and that's the end of that," so depressing.

[YNKYH8R]

The whole problem with everything is religion. Religion is the cause of wars, bickering, you name it's the core of all evil.....I'm not a religous person, never will be a religious person. I don't believe all the jive....

I'm willing to bet if it was announced without a shadow of a doubt there was no such thing as God, Jesus, Joe blow, or whatever. People would freak- There would be total chaos, people would be killing themselves left and right. To many people live their lives out of a book. To me it sounds foolish for people to live their lives this way. No one knows for a fact all the hoopla in the bible is true. I can't see why people believe in something they can not see....If you were to tell someone you seen "God." They would throw you in a padded room. No doubt about it.

Another thing that cracks me up is, when people win awards, games they all say, "First and foremost I'd like to Thank God almighty, if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have won." Now when someone losses you don't see them saying, "First and foremost i'd like to thank God almighty himself, if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have lost this game." Why is God (or any joe blow) only mentioned when something good happens? G W Bush is the only one I have seen in a long time who did not thank God when he was reelected, He said, "First I'd like to thank my wife Laura, and went on to say his family..never did he mention God. Except when he said, "God Bless America.".He never once thanked "god"...It was a relief to see someone actually Thank those worth thanking instead of some make believe character....This is just my opinion...I doesn't matter what you say, I will still have the same opinion.

That is an extremely remarkable statement. And I can agree with quite a number of things you pointed out. I’m not sure about Bush acceptance speech, because I didn’t see it, but if anyone would care to refute then by all means. I’ve heard, I think, just about every reason why we have religion in society. From the prevention of certain acts that we against public health and decency codes, to the first beginnings of explanations for events in nature that could not be explained scientifically. Either way religion is not something that is going to go away any time too soon. I also believe that if someone was to come up with some irrefutable evidence showing a non existence of a deity, it come under fire, be disregarded, and some people would even go so far as to worship something else.

Mankind, for the most part, has an extreme fear of being alone, and dying. Most religious figures give, for the most part hope. Have you ever seen someone worshiping a God they did not want to? No, people worship higher powers to gain something, whether it be wisdom, eternal life, a trip to heaven, or power. And the wonderful thing is that you never have to prove it. Some people say that life around us is proof of a God, or the Bible or other holy writings are proof; although in the end you never have to prove it. Because most of the population will tell you one believes out of faith. Faith is acceptance of things unseen. It works both ways, I had faith that the sun would rise this morning, and it did, because nothing disturbed my faith in nature, or the sun, or repletion of events, or whatever.

The one point I find the most fascinating is, if you profess a belief in a God that bestows upon someone the ability to perform miracles, or be involved in events, that benefit a person or people no one will argue. If you profess the same belief in court, you may be found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Even if the benefiting miracle or act results in the death of someone society looks down upon or could do without, such as a rapist, murderer or a drug dealer.

[YNKYH8R]

my husband's father is an atheist too. i find it extremely depressing to not have any hope. i've been doing this Hospice nursing now for a couple of months, and when you see someone lying there dying (i mean within minutes) it's going to be very hard when i encounter an atheist....it has bothered me. what do you say to someone like that who has no hope, "well, he had a good life" i suppose is one thing to offer. luckily so far, all the deaths i've been to have been people who believe in God. that has made it much easier, their pastors/preacher/minister/reverend whatever you want to call it.. usually come and pray. and so far ALL of the deaths i've been to.....the one's that are immenent (within minutes or hours) the dying have made reference to "seeing,talking to" past dead relatives ......some tell them it's ok, it's time to go home or something like it. now, i know what non-believers will say to that.......they are hallucinating or are confused. I DON'T BUY THAT, THIS WHOLE EXPERIENCE IS JUST REAFFIRMING MY FAITH. i've also heard..could just be a myth....but i've heard that when a person dies, they weigh 3 pounds less which is supposedly the soul departing the body. you say that to you it seems foolish and i have to say to that i'd rather be foolish than wrong on this matter in the end.

also you say that you can't believe that people believe in something they can't see......it's called faith. i can't see my brain but i know it's there, my heart, the planets, the solar system, other galaxies and so on and so forth. i just don't understand how folks can live with themselves without hope.......my father in law says "yep, when you die, you rot in the ground and that's the end of that," so depressing.
Actually the amount is 21 grams; it is said to be the amount of weight that is lost when the soul leaves the body. Three pounds could be the bowels releasing, which is known to happen after death.

[Njean31]

Actually the amount is 21 grams; it is said to be the amount of weight that is lost when the soul leaves the body. Three pounds could be the bowels releasing, which is known to happen after death.

21 grams-3 pounds, whatever the amount.....if it's true, (and i say this with my best saturday night live church lady voice)..." where is it going?????" and not everyone loses their bowel/bladder. none of the deaths i've gone to have yet, although they all have been very sick and elderly and haven't been eating :(

[YNKYH8R]

21 grams-3 pounds, whatever the amount.....if it's true, (and i say this with my best saturday night live church lady voice)..." where is it going?????" and not everyone loses their bowel/bladder. none of the deaths i've gone to have yet, although they all have been very sick and elderly and haven't been eating :(
That may very well be the case. If being religious or believe in Christ works for you, good. Then you have a sense of peace that others get doiong something else, there is nothing wrong with that, you have every right to. In fact I would probably go so far as to say that you, or anyone else for that matter, has a leg up on the situation. I'm a visual person, I like intanst replay :) I generally need some type of assurance. Then again I don't think about dedath too much, or all too often, except when I have a 'moment of clarity'.
I can understand why you feel that having no faith or belief in a higher power before death can seem pretty depressing. Consider though how death for some people occurs. If you were, or anyone else was, in a car accident, that you could see coming, some people aren’t as likely to believe that this was the instant in which they would loose their life. Therefore there is no depression to set in. Now consider a person lying a bed for long periods of time, dying slowly, knowing the end is nearer every day. The stress that can cause must be crushing, and depression sets in. So, like some Catholics, last rights are read when death is near to ease the mind for what is yet to come, or the fear of it at least.
Look at what religion has to offer. A person is to live by a set of rules, doing good, leading a good clean wholesome life, and contributing to society in a positive manner; the reward is a life in heaven. Or, even some times mentioned is ‘eternal life in heaven’. Notice, that the reward is what is important; especially the ‘eternal life’ which sounds great, to anyone who fears death. Being able to achieve everlasting life, therefore there is no fear of death because at that instant you begin a ‘life’ in immortality, the Bible is littered with this concept; then again how else do we keep society in line with laws? Naw, people break those. But if you promise life eternal in Heaven after you pass, then a person is more likely to want to do as much good for fellow man to secure a place in Heaven when they die. Is it a bad concept? No, it seems to work pretty well, since the majority of people who elected Bush into office felt they were doing so to ensure a more moral society in which to live in. There fore a more moral society will more likely be ensured a seat in the throne of Heaven. Now, if anyone reading this says I’m full of it, ask yourself why else do you serve who you do but to be able to see your maker in Heaven? And you know that you can’t do that living an unclean immoral life.
I can understand why you feel that having no faith or belief in a higher power before death can seem pretty depressing. Consider though how death for some people occurs. If you were, or anyone else was, in a car accident, that you could see coming, some people aren’t as likely to believe that this was the instant in which they would loose their life. Therefore there is no depression to set in. Now consider a person lying a bed for long periods of time, dying slowly, knowing the end is nearer every day. The stress that can cause must be crushing, and depression sets in. So, like some Catholics, last rights are read when death is near to ease the mind for what is yet to come, or the fear of it at least.
Look at what religion has to offer. A person is to live by a set of rules, doing good, leading a good clean wholesome life, and contributing to society in a positive manner; the reward is a life in heaven. Or, even some times mentioned is ‘eternal life in heaven’. Notice, that the reward is what is important; especially the ‘eternal life’ which sounds great, to anyone who fears death. Being able to achieve everlasting life, therefore there is no fear of death because at that instant you begin a ‘life’ in immortality, the Bible is littered with this concept; then again how else do we keep society in line with laws? Naw, people break those. But if you promise life eternal in Heaven after you pass, then a person is more likely to want to do as much good for fellow man to secure a place in Heaven when they die. Is it a bad concept? No, it seems to work pretty well, since the majority of people who elected Bush into office felt they were doing so to ensure a more moral society in which to live in. There fore a more moral society will more likely be ensured a seat in the throne of Heaven. Now, if anyone reading this says I’m full of it, ask yourself why else do you serve who you do but to be able to see your maker in Heaven? And you know that you can’t do that living an unclean and immoral life.

[Jolie Rouge]

Religion-baiting
The elite media declared open season on the President and his supporters
November 8, 2004
Joe Scarborough

A nasty streak of religious intolerance is rearing its ugly head in America.
And it's coming from America's cultural elites.

The election of George W. Bush has exposed an ugly anti-Christian streak in many of those who work in America's most powerful newsrooms. A flood of vicious opinion pieces over the past few days have generalized Christians who helped elect the President as a group of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals whose aims are nothing less than anti-American.

Not surprisingly, some of the most offensive and bigoted rhetoric came from the opinion pages of The New York Times, a paper that at one time embraced diversity of thought and belief. But apparently, those positions of convenience are closeted away when it comes time to opine on conservative Christians.

The day after George Bush's victory, the Times ran an Op Ed by famed historian Gary Wills, who questioned whether a people who believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus can be called an enlightened nation. Wills suggested that because of those Christians who helped elect George Bush, America now shares more in common with al Qaeda and Saddam's Sunni loyalists than modern Europe. Wills wrote, "Americans wonder why the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous... They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed."

So according to the Times Op Ed page, if you believe in the Bible's account of Jesus' birth, you are at par with those terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11th. Strip it down any way you want, but that is what lies at the base of Wills' jihad argument.

Thomas Friedman, long one of my favorite columnists on all matters foreign, concluded that Mr. Bush was elected by Christians who are hell bent on legislating social issues and "extending the boundaries of religion so hard that it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution and not electing a president."

Rewriting the constitution? Just because George Bush carried Ohio by 100,000 votes? Talk about one of our most gifted writers losing all perspective.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne swung wildly at windmills blasting away at the "exploitation of strong religious feelings" and the "radical efforts to destroy the achievements of progressive government."

George Bush and Christians radicals want to destroy American government? Oh really? I guess I missed the debate when the W. laid out that plan of attack.

Michael Moore blasted the President, of course, for pandering to the Christian conservatives, while Maureen Dowd accused Mr. Bush of taking America into "another dark age, where we replace science with religion and facts with faith."

The Pulitzer Prize winner concluded that "The new evangelicals challenge science because they have been stirred up to object to social engineering on behalf of society's most vulnerable: the poor, the sick, the sexually different."

Dowd also accused the President of running a "jihad along the fault lines of fear, ignorance and religious rule."

Never in my life as a practicing attorney, a newspaper publisher, a Congressman or a news host have I witnessed America's cultural elite become so unglued over any historical event. And most distressing is the fact that these opinion leaders are singling out a group of Americans for no other reason than the God they worship.

To paint all Republican Christians as angry, hate-filled, science-loathing, right-wing beasts only helps explain why the Mainstream Media continues to lose market share and why those Democrats who take solace in their bigoted anti-Christian screeds remain out of power for another four years.

It leads me to wonder, can we only be good Americans if we turn our backs on our faith, or become champions of abortion on demand, stem cell research without reservation, and marriage defined in a way that conflicts with the spiritual beliefs of a majority of Americans?

Isn't it interesting that when pluralism and diversity of thought become politically inconvenient, it is the cultural and media elites who become the most close-minded and bigoted?

[Jolie Rouge]

What would Bubba do?
November 11, 2004
Joe Scarborough

I have been in touch with Democratic friends in Washington over the past few days to see what stage of mourning they have entered.

We are told there are, what, four, five stages of mourning?

Well, whatever the number, my friends are in the stage where the victim is really, really ticked off. (There is another word that is far more appropriate than "ticked" but the Justice Department probably reads these blogs, so the homogenized version will have to do) .

For those mentally healthy Democrats who are ready to put conspiracy theories behind them and start preparing for the next election, may I suggest you take a listen to one of the lone voices for moral values in the Democratic Party— Bill Clinton.

I will leave it to you to determine exactly what it means to the Democratic Party that a formerly impeached and disbarred politician is the voice of moral reason in his own party. But all that ugliness aside, right now William Jefferson Clinton seems to understand better than most what it takes for a Democrat to win votes in states like Missouri, Iowa, and Florida.

And no, my elitist, lefty friends: People in Kansas City don't want to launch a jihad against gay men. They just don't want appointed judges in Boston, Massachusetts passing orders to their Kansas leaders on the subject. Bill Clinton understands that better than John Kerry. That's why Mr. Clinton was called "Mr. President" for eight years while Senator Kerry's own Senate peers now call him "loser" behind his back.

It's not fair treatment for a man who just pulled in tens of millions of votes in such a way, any more than it is fair for MSM elites to dismiss all of us who live in flyover space as Jesus freaks.

Mr. Clinton knows that the stereotyping has led his once proud party to the edge of a cliff by creating a cultural divide between Us and Them.

How exactly does one respond to a New York Times opinion piece that suggest Christians who believe in the biblical version of Jesus' birth are on par with al Qaeda terrorists? What smoke signal does a Democrat living west of Manhattan send the Mother Ship explaining that insulting millions of voters' faith in God may not be the best way to win elections? (New York Times website subscription only— free but required)

James Carville claims the 2004 election was a "born again" experience for him, and that he now understands the importance of values to Americans living in Red States. But soon after making that proclamation, he boiled the entire GOP message under Bush down to this: "We will protect you from terrorists in Tikrit and homos in Hollywood."

Maybe you need to get back on your knees, James.

As I explained after the Times opinion page compared those who believed in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ to Islamic fascists, there are many middle Americans who believe in the virgin birth who also drink vodka— just as there are those who go to church on Sunday morning and watch "Desperate Housewives" Sunday night.

Interesting isn't it, that a year after bashing George W. Bush for living in a world of black and white, it is his most vicious critics in the elite media who are incapable of grasping nuance?

Manhattan and Hollywood insiders have spent the past week dismissing 90 percent of America's land mass as "Jesus-land," while Bill Clinton and a scattering of Democrats begin their efforts to save the Democratic Party by mainstreaming it. But the task won't be easy.

Just as elites convinced themselves that the Democratic Party lost its foothold on the South because of some secret racist strategy adopted by Richard Nixon, these same political losers are now blaming Jesus for their worldly woes.

But religious bigotry and stereotyping won't save the Party of FDR. Instead, their leaders should be asking the one question I continually urged John Kerry to ask himself throughout the 2004 campaign: W.W.B.D.?

Yes, my friends— What would Bubba do?

Ask that question, listen to the former president's answers, and those same clueless Democrats who once again find themselves out of power may actually get themselves locked up in a competitive election with Karl Rove in the next few years.

And if they can stop from looking down their noses long enough to ask for our votes, they may even win a race or two west of New York City.

[Jolie Rouge]

We are told there are, what, four, five stages of mourning?

Denial and Isolation

Anger

Bargaining

Depression

Acceptance

http://www.greaterswiss.com/mourning.htm

[Damnifiknw]

my husband's father is an atheist too. i find it extremely depressing to not have any hope. i've been doing this Hospice nursing now for a couple of months, and when you see someone lying there dying (i mean within minutes) it's going to be very hard when i encounter an atheist....it has bothered me. what do you say to someone like that who has no hope, "well, he had a good life" i suppose is one thing to offer. luckily so far, all the deaths i've been to have been people who believe in God. that has made it much easier, their pastors/preacher/minister/reverend whatever you want to call it.. usually come and pray. and so far ALL of the deaths i've been to.....the one's that are immenent (within minutes or hours) the dying have made reference to "seeing,talking to" past dead relatives ......some tell them it's ok, it's time to go home or something like it. now, i know what non-believers will say to that.......they are hallucinating or are confused. I DON'T BUY THAT, THIS WHOLE EXPERIENCE IS JUST REAFFIRMING MY FAITH. i've also heard..could just be a myth....but i've heard that when a person dies, they weigh 3 pounds less which is supposedly the soul departing the body. you say that to you it seems foolish and i have to say to that i'd rather be foolish than wrong on this matter in the end.

My life is far from depressing. I actually have a wonderful life, who do I have to Thank for my life? My parents..They are the ones who gave me life, raised me to be the person I am.

Have you actually read the bible? Have you understood what you read? Have you also noticed all the contridictions? Why believe it?? If you read the bible from a dufferent view, you will see how foolish it all sounds. I could go on about this crap but I won't..

What I find depressing is how religion has destroyed this world. Every religion believes their way of living is the right way, other religions are wrong in their beliefs. In turn it causes nothing but pure heck..Most if not all the wars were based around religion. Why is religion such a good thing if it does nothing more than cause people to kill one another? Look at it on here (or anywhere) - people bickering because their religion is better than the next persons..It's all a load of crap if you ask me.


also you say that you can't believe that people believe in something they can't see......it's called faith. i can't see my brain but i know it's there, my heart, the planets, the solar system, other galaxies and so on and so forth.

Those you mentioned are proven facts...God, on the other hand is not a proven fact. At any rate believe in whatever cranks your chain....It's all good.. :D

[Njean31]

My life is far from depressing. I actually have a wonderful life, who do I have to Thank for my life? My parents..They are the ones who gave me life, raised me to be the person I am.

Have you actually read the bible? Have you understood what you read? Have you also noticed all the contridictions? Why believe it?? If you read the bible from a dufferent view, you will see how foolish it all sounds. I could go on about this crap but I won't..

What I find depressing is how religion has destroyed this world. Every religion believes their way of living is the right way, other religions are wrong in their beliefs. In turn it causes nothing but pure heck..Most if not all the wars were based around religion. Why is religion such a good thing if it does nothing more than cause people to kill one another? Look at it on here (or anywhere) - people bickering because their religion is better than the next persons..It's all a load of crap if you ask me.



Those you mentioned are proven facts...God, on the other hand is not a proven fact. At any rate believe in whatever cranks your chain....It's all good.. :D


yes, i've read the Bible, yes, i've understood most of it and if i didn't i'd ask someone who knew to explain...just as i would if i tried to study physics or the like. yes, there may be contradictions especially between the Old Testament and the New Testament which are really not contradictions at all, just things changed after Christ was born and died. You have your right to not to believe and i was not saying that your life must be depressing, i'm saying it is depressing to me to know that there are so many people who think that life ends with a rotting corpse. i also would like to note that when i was growing up i was taught that the only unforgiveable sin is Blasephemy (sp) which i believe goes beyond just Non believing.......i think it means like mocking, belittling, etc GOD. calling it crap would fall under that i would think, but that don't matter to you since You don't believe anyway. i think i'm right, you think your right...........in the end of course we will all know and if i was right there is reward, if you were right there is nothing. what i guess i'm trying to say is something to the effect that "i'd rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it." :) and your right, it is all good :D

btw, where are you in NC? i am from there and miss it terribly :( mainly just because of family/friends

[YNKYH8R]

What would Bubba do?
November 11, 2004
Joe Scarborough

I have been in touch with Democratic friends in Washington over the past few days to see what stage of mourning they have entered.

We are told there are, what, four, five stages of mourning?

Well, whatever the number, my friends are in the stage where the victim is really, really ticked off. (There is another word that is far more appropriate than "ticked" but the Justice Department probably reads these blogs, so the homogenized version will have to do) .

For those mentally healthy Democrats who are ready to put conspiracy theories behind them and start preparing for the next election, may I suggest you take a listen to one of the lone voices for moral values in the Democratic Party— Bill Clinton.

I will leave it to you to determine exactly what it means to the Democratic Party that a formerly impeached and disbarred politician is the voice of moral reason in his own party. But all that ugliness aside, right now William Jefferson Clinton seems to understand better than most what it takes for a Democrat to win votes in states like Missouri, Iowa, and Florida.

And no, my elitist, lefty friends: People in Kansas City don't want to launch a jihad against gay men. They just don't want appointed judges in Boston, Massachusetts passing orders to their Kansas leaders on the subject. Bill Clinton understands that better than John Kerry. That's why Mr. Clinton was called "Mr. President" for eight years while Senator Kerry's own Senate peers now call him "loser" behind his back.

It's not fair treatment for a man who just pulled in tens of millions of votes in such a way, any more than it is fair for MSM elites to dismiss all of us who live in flyover space as Jesus freaks.

Mr. Clinton knows that the stereotyping has led his once proud party to the edge of a cliff by creating a cultural divide between Us and Them.

How exactly does one respond to a New York Times opinion piece that suggest Christians who believe in the biblical version of Jesus' birth are on par with al Qaeda terrorists? What smoke signal does a Democrat living west of Manhattan send the Mother Ship explaining that insulting millions of voters' faith in God may not be the best way to win elections? (New York Times website subscription only— free but required)

James Carville claims the 2004 election was a "born again" experience for him, and that he now understands the importance of values to Americans living in Red States. But soon after making that proclamation, he boiled the entire GOP message under Bush down to this: "We will protect you from terrorists in Tikrit and homos in Hollywood."

Maybe you need to get back on your knees, James.

As I explained after the Times opinion page compared those who believed in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ to Islamic fascists, there are many middle Americans who believe in the virgin birth who also drink vodka— just as there are those who go to church on Sunday morning and watch "Desperate Housewives" Sunday night.

Interesting isn't it, that a year after bashing George W. Bush for living in a world of black and white, it is his most vicious critics in the elite media who are incapable of grasping nuance?

Manhattan and Hollywood insiders have spent the past week dismissing 90 percent of America's land mass as "Jesus-land," while Bill Clinton and a scattering of Democrats begin their efforts to save the Democratic Party by mainstreaming it. But the task won't be easy.

Just as elites convinced themselves that the Democratic Party lost its foothold on the South because of some secret racist strategy adopted by Richard Nixon, these same political losers are now blaming Jesus for their worldly woes.

But religious bigotry and stereotyping won't save the Party of FDR. Instead, their leaders should be asking the one question I continually urged John Kerry to ask himself throughout the 2004 campaign: W.W.B.D.?

Yes, my friends— What would Bubba do?

Ask that question, listen to the former president's answers, and those same clueless Democrats who once again find themselves out of power may actually get themselves locked up in a competitive election with Karl Rove in the next few years.

And if they can stop from looking down their noses long enough to ask for our votes, they may even win a race or two west of New York City.

I find it disheartening that some news columns would write articles in such a way that would make look Christian’s looks as bad as terrorist Jihadists. There are some overt parallels between the two and it is only in their zeal. (Which has seem to become a bad word these days, I have a lot of zeal for my marriage and my child is that bad? :))

As we move into a new era, one filled with those who would put stickers on text books to declare Evolution as a theory (Which is about right it is a theory, a very strong one I might add) and 11 states would ban same sex marriages one has to wonder just what is going on in our country? Some people may see it as an escape from the rational and descending into the dark ages. I will not jump on that band wagon just yet. So far all I have seen is boundary testing. While some make claims that this administration road in on the same donkey Jesus did (and the conservative right are making a mad dash to refute the claims) Christians and Republicans alike are taking steps to ensure what they see is their vision for the future, leaving a lot us democrats in the cold.

Will the Democrats and the liberals allow for this country to continue to make, what some see, as a step back or will they try to harness the public to go boldly into a future where Roe v. Wade is completely intact, homosexuals will have civil unions and equal rights regardless of bedroom antics, and stem cell research is put to the forefront of modern medicines that might usher in an era the likes of which were only seen once through the discovery on penicillin?

Time will tell; it always does. As Christians fight to make their voices heard; this country’s true colors are starting to show. It will be a battle for the ages and one that will not only be fought upon capital hill but also in the streets. People are starting to take sides, win at all cost, raise the banners and sound the battle cry.

Or this could all could be nothing at all……

[YNKYH8R]

You have your right to not to believe and i was not saying that your life must be depressing, i'm saying it is depressing to me to know that there are so many people who think that life ends with a rotting corpse.
Why do you find this to be a drepressing statement? Some people view death as the last natural step in the course of life, just as birth is the first natural step.

[Njean31]

Why do you find this to be a drepressing statement? Some people view death as the last natural step in the course of life, just as birth is the first natural step.

that is fine for those people, not for me and billions more. who wouldn't want everlasting life, immortality, be reunited with loved ones? no, I am not happy with rotting in the ground until dust is all that remains and that's all folks. if that is not depressing, i don't know what is :(

[Jolie Rouge]

Christians and Republicans alike are taking steps to ensure what they see is their vision for the future, leaving a lot us democrats in the cold.

And the plan of the Liberal and the Democrats was to take steps to ensure what they see as their vision for the future, leaving a lot us who did not share their views in the cold.


homosexuals will have civil unions and equal rights regardless of bedroom antics, and stem cell research is put to the forefront of modern medicines

Most of the "rights" that they are demanding can be gained by hiring a qualified lawyer - inheiritance, next of kin standing ect.

And "Stem cell research" is considered by many in the medical field to be "junk science" - which is why their is so little funding for it in the private sector.

And sorry - when the time span of thirty seconds or less can make the determination between "a woman's choice" and the legal definintion of "homicide" then there are real and ethical problems with "Roe versus Wade".

Consider this : when your daughter goes to school, the school nurse can not give her an asprin but can give her birth control pills. They can not pierce her ears, look at her teeth or give her an eye exam with out parental consent - but they can perform a surgical procedure which is invasive and potential lifethreatening without your knowledge ( before or after the fact.)
If an adult not her guardian takes her across state lines for any of the above ( or to get a drink or cigerettes - or just without your permission) they are in violation of Federal Laws -- UNLESS they are taking her to get an abortion. Then they can seek the protection of Federal Law.

In LA we had to fight long and hard just to pass a law requiring health regulations and inspections of abortion clinics. You have to pass inspections to run a vets office, a nail salon, a barber shop, - even a tanning bed BUT not an abortion clinic which preforms surgical procedures on women for cash. ( Insurance doesn't cover abortions - but give the dems time ... )

Don't kid yourself -- abortion is not about Womens' Rights - it is about money. It is a multi million dollar cash only business which resists any form of goverment regulation - with the goverments' and victims enthusiastic assistance.

[Jolie Rouge]

Consider this : when your daughter goes to school, the school nurse can not give her an asprin but can give her birth control pills. They can not pierce her ears, look at her teeth or give her an eye exam with out parental consent - but they can perform a surgical procedure which is invasive and potential lifethreatening without your knowledge ( before or after the fact.)

FDA Criticized on Abortion Pill Safety
By DIEDTRA HENDERSON

WASHINGTON (AP) - The father of a teen who died after taking an abortion pill says new safety warnings added by the government aren't enough to protect women. Because a third death now has been linked to RU-486, the Food and Drug Administration should bar sales of the abortion pill, said the grieving father. ``How many more deaths is it going to take before the FDA takes action to remove this drug from the market?'' said Monty Patterson, 51, of Livermore, Calif.

His 18-year-old daughter, Holly, died on Sept. 17, 2003, of septic shock caused by inflammation of the uterus. The teen took RU-486 on Sept. 10 to terminate an unplanned pregnancy, Patterson said. At least two other American women who took the pill in the United States died, although the FDA says it is unclear if their deaths were directly related to the pill's use.


After his daughter's death, Patterson began lobbying for changes to the drug's label to avoid another tragedy. He received a courtesy call Monday from the FDA alerting him to new warnings linking RU-486 to the risk of life-threatening bacterial infections. He didn't learn about the third death until reviewing the agency's Web site.

The FDA approved Mifeprex in 2000 to terminate pregnancy up to 49 days after the beginning of the last menstrual cycle. The drug blocks progesterone, a hormone required to sustain a pregnancy. When followed by another medicine, misoprostol, Mifeprex terminates the pregnancy.

Mifeprex already carries a ``black box'' warning, the agency's most strident alert, to highlight other safety concerns. The FDA said Monday that the drug's black box warning will expand, adding information about such rare but potentially life-threatening complications as serious bacterial infections and bleeding that can follow any abortion, including one induced by Mifeprex.

Since the drug was approved, the agency has received reports of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, ectopic - tubal - pregnancies that have ruptured and death. The fatalities including a death from sepsis, a severe infection, recently reported to FDA and leading to the revised black box.

Serious bacterial infection may happen silently, without typical signs of infection like fever or tenderness, the label warns. The revised label also cautions health care providers that prolonged, heavy bleeding may warrant surgical intervention.

Women who have taken the drug should contact a doctor immediately if they suffer fever, abdominal pain and heavy bleeding, a medication guide aimed at consumers says. And the FDA counsels women to take their medication guide to any health care provider they visit to speed treatment.

In addition, women who take the pill must sign a patient agreement pledging to contact a doctor immediately if they have fever higher than 100.4 degrees that lasts more than four hours or severe abdominal pain. The women are also warned that heavy bleeding that soaks two, thick full-sized sanitary pads per hour for two consecutive hours is cause for contacting a doctor.

According to Danco Laboratories, 360,000 American women have used the pill since it was approved by the FDA. In a letter sent to health care professionals on Nov. 12, the company stood by the safety and efficacy of the drug.

Concerned Women for America blasted the FDA for not pulling RU-486 from the market. ``It is reported that another woman has died after taking the abortion drug RU-486, and the FDA's response is to change the drug's label,'' said Wendy Wright, the group's senior policy director, in a statement. ``This is a dangerous drug that deserves to be pulled off the market immediately.''

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1500&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041116%2F1017931097.htm&sc=1500

On the Net:

FDA: www.fda.gov



11/16/04 10:17





:mad: {{ This can also be given to a minor with out parental knowledge or consent. }} :mad:

[YNKYH8R]

that is fine for those people, not for me and billions more. who wouldn't want everlasting life, immortality, be reunited with loved ones? no, I am not happy with rotting in the ground until dust is all that remains and that's all folks. if that is not depressing, i don't know what is :(
I think that everlasting life and imortality would be a very worthwhile pursuit, but at the cost ones life? When I think of everlasting life I view it as being spent here. But that is me.

[YNKYH8R]

FDA Criticized on Abortion Pill Safety
By DIEDTRA HENDERSON

WASHINGTON (AP) - The father of a teen who died after taking an abortion pill says new safety warnings added by the government aren't enough to protect women. Because a third death now has been linked to RU-486, the Food and Drug Administration should bar sales of the abortion pill, said the grieving father. ``How many more deaths is it going to take before the FDA takes action to remove this drug from the market?'' said Monty Patterson, 51, of Livermore, Calif.

His 18-year-old daughter, Holly, died on Sept. 17, 2003, of septic shock caused by inflammation of the uterus. The teen took RU-486 on Sept. 10 to terminate an unplanned pregnancy, Patterson said. At least two other American women who took the pill in the United States died, although the FDA says it is unclear if their deaths were directly related to the pill's use.


After his daughter's death, Patterson began lobbying for changes to the drug's label to avoid another tragedy. He received a courtesy call Monday from the FDA alerting him to new warnings linking RU-486 to the risk of life-threatening bacterial infections. He didn't learn about the third death until reviewing the agency's Web site.

The FDA approved Mifeprex in 2000 to terminate pregnancy up to 49 days after the beginning of the last menstrual cycle. The drug blocks progesterone, a hormone required to sustain a pregnancy. When followed by another medicine, misoprostol, Mifeprex terminates the pregnancy.

Mifeprex already carries a ``black box'' warning, the agency's most strident alert, to highlight other safety concerns. The FDA said Monday that the drug's black box warning will expand, adding information about such rare but potentially life-threatening complications as serious bacterial infections and bleeding that can follow any abortion, including one induced by Mifeprex.

Since the drug was approved, the agency has received reports of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, ectopic - tubal - pregnancies that have ruptured and death. The fatalities including a death from sepsis, a severe infection, recently reported to FDA and leading to the revised black box.

Serious bacterial infection may happen silently, without typical signs of infection like fever or tenderness, the label warns. The revised label also cautions health care providers that prolonged, heavy bleeding may warrant surgical intervention.

Women who have taken the drug should contact a doctor immediately if they suffer fever, abdominal pain and heavy bleeding, a medication guide aimed at consumers says. And the FDA counsels women to take their medication guide to any health care provider they visit to speed treatment.

In addition, women who take the pill must sign a patient agreement pledging to contact a doctor immediately if they have fever higher than 100.4 degrees that lasts more than four hours or severe abdominal pain. The women are also warned that heavy bleeding that soaks two, thick full-sized sanitary pads per hour for two consecutive hours is cause for contacting a doctor.

According to Danco Laboratories, 360,000 American women have used the pill since it was approved by the FDA. In a letter sent to health care professionals on Nov. 12, the company stood by the safety and efficacy of the drug.

Concerned Women for America blasted the FDA for not pulling RU-486 from the market. ``It is reported that another woman has died after taking the abortion drug RU-486, and the FDA's response is to change the drug's label,'' said Wendy Wright, the group's senior policy director, in a statement. ``This is a dangerous drug that deserves to be pulled off the market immediately.''

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1500&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041116%2F1017931097.htm&sc=1500

On the Net:

FDA: www.fda.gov



11/16/04 10:17





:mad: {{ This can also be given to a minor with out parental knowledge or consent. }} :mad:

You mentioned school nurses not being able to give an aspirin but being allowed to give birth control, and then you follow it up with an article on RU-486. RU-486 is not birth control; it is the ‘day after pill’ aka an abortion pill and should not be used as a contraceptive in the first place. Birth control is described as a prescription that is used to prevent conception before sex and is also used to regulate the menstrual cycle of some women. The article does not state that the RU-486 was given to her in school by a nurse either.

[Jolie Rouge]

You mentioned school nurses not being able to give an aspirin but being allowed to give birth control, and then you follow it up with an article on RU-486. RU-486 is not birth control; it is the ‘day after pill’ aka an abortion pill and should not be used as a contraceptive in the first place. Birth control is described as a prescription that is used to prevent conception before sex and is also used to regulate the menstrual cycle of some women. The article does not state that the RU-486 was given to her in school by a nurse either.

It can be given by a clinic worker or ER - to a minor - without parental knowledge or consent.

The article does ( and the reason I posted it ) detail the complications that can ( and often do ) accompany a surgical or chemical abortion.



it is the ‘day after pill’ aka an abortion pill and should not be used as a contraceptive in the first place

should not doesn't mean does not -- and long term health problems and even death are a high price to pay.


But hey - nice way to avoid everything I said ....

[YNKYH8R]

Most of the "rights" that they are demanding can be gained by hiring a qualified lawyer - inheritance, next of kin standing ect.

Why should people who share an attraction with the opposite sex have to go over such hurdles to gain these rights? If the same was being done to heterosexuals then there would be a real stink. Bottom line, peoples private matters should not come into play regarding legal issues of insurance, health, and marriage/civil unions


And "Stem cell research" is considered by many in the medical field to be "junk science" - which is why there is so little funding for it in the private sector.

Do you realize how many day to day items we use and medicines we use were once attributed to junk science? If the American public does not want to federally fund stem cell research then that is their choice. But consider this should we really be relying on other countries for our own needs? We look to England for Flu vaccines, Canada for prescription drugs, and France spearheaded AIDS research. What is to come next possible cures to some of life’s most debilitating ailments to be founded in France and the rest of Europe while we sit on the side lines and smack out palms to our foreheads because religious fundamentalists want an entirely different agenda?

[YNKYH8R]

It can be given by a clinic worker or ER - to a minor - without parental knowledge or consent.....

Why would someone going to the ER take RU-486 in the first place? After a rape? Then parents should make their kids knowledgeable about such drugs. It is society's ineptitude to research things and make other people aware of them that causes a lot of problems. People need to be educated about abstinence and abortion and birth control and RU-486, parents need to be parents, wether they want to be or not.



The article does ( and the reason I posted it ) detail the complications that can ( and often do ) accompany a surgical or chemical abortion......
It was very informative thank you.




But hey - nice way to avoid everything I said ....

Wait a minute...some people use a knife in place of a screw driver, if someone is using RU-486 not the way that it was intended then that is that persons fault. Sorry to be so blunt but there are risks to everything in life and taking RU-486, or any other pill for that matter is a gamble. Heck less than a gram of coke is enough to kill you, but people still risk it.

A nice way to avoid everything you said? What did you say? I'll admit it the truth sucks. If parents would just be parents we wouldn't have half of the problems we do, but we have to have PSAs on TV to educte paople about how to listen to and talk to and educate our children. That is pretty sad, when I watch commercails and see a PSA about things that should be commmon sense, but that is life one that is lead by people in denial and ignorance.

[Jolie Rouge]

If the American public does not want to federally fund stem cell research then that is their choice.

Ding - ding - ding !


EXACTLY!



Why don't we put it to a vote ?

Oh - because you might not get the result you want ?

The "American Public" ( at least those in twelve states ) did so in the issue of same sex marriages -- that didn't work out the way they wanted so now it is time to "Legislate by Litigation" to circumvent that vote.


Canadian RX companies initiate almost no R&D, they wait for the patents to play out and then manufacture generic versions that AMERICAN companies have spent money developing. Flu vacines ? -- see the thread devoted to that topic. We lead the world in surgical procedures, neonatal care, medical technologies of almost any kind ( why do you think critically ill children wolrdwide are brought HERE for treatment and surgeries ? )

WHY are these companies NOT spending money on stem cell research -- they see no future ( and in their terms - no profits ) in it. Instead they squander their monies in cancer research, heart disease, and ED. Go Figure.

[YNKYH8R]

Out of my whole enitre post you pick that one line?

Yes America did vote in many states about same sex marriages? Does that make it right? What if the shoe was on the other foot?

America doesn't want stell cell research, that's fine. I personally don't like being the laughing stock of the planet but that's okay.

And we all know where the prescrpition companies spend tons of money...advertiseing. Count how many prescription drug comercials you see tonight. Then ask yourself if you could have asked your doctor for the same information.

[Jolie Rouge]

Out of my whole enitre post you pick that one line?

LOL

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black !

:rolleyes:

[YNKYH8R]

What if cancer could be solved through stem cell research? Look at the big picture, cancer, of all kinds, generates millions in revenue. In the course of the last 50 years that people have been researching cancer untold billions have been raised for cancer awareness and study. And they still have not found a cure. Now, I’m not saying stem cell research is the Holy Grail for all diseases, but I am asking for some people to take a leap of faith and imagine, if you can, what would be in the best interest of mankind if diseases and spinal cord injuries could be rectified by stem cell harvesting.

On another note, the union of two people regardless of sexual orientation has come under fire. Why? I would like to find someone who could give me some justifications to the legal discrimination of the certain people that does not have a Bible based answer. I mean does the thought of two people who love each other and want to wed really piss you off as much as the country would have you believe?

It is a shame that some people in America would want to put down other people based on the choices they make, that are really non of our business in the first place.

[Jolie Rouge]

Yearning for the middle
Suzanne Fields

The culture war is real, but it's not about pitting Republican against Democrat, the God-fearing against godless or even about conservative against liberal. Those people have firm opinions about cultural warfare, but what the war is really about is over who gets to define the common culture that unites us all.

Voters in the great middle joined hands in outrage at half-time at the Super Bowl. Fathers and mothers, sitting in their living rooms watching with their children were treated to the affront that closed the culture gap with the opening of a blouse. Janet Jackson's exposed nipple didn't make anyone faint but it epitomized the contempt the entertainment world holds for the rest of us.

The culture war is about the raunchiness that seeps into everyday life, entertainments that appeal to the lowest common denominator among us. In defining deviancy down, in the memorable phrase of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, sexual explicitness, nearly always vulgar and trashy, is thrown in the faces of everyone.

Americans have always yearned to be a part of the great middle, looking for moderation in nearly all things. This includes the culture. Large majorities of Americans support civil rights for homosexuals but nevertheless believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and if necessary the law should define it that way.

Large majorities believe that an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy is sad but not murder, yet this same majority believes that partial-birth abortion is barbaric brutality.

Large majorities of Americans want to protect freedom of speech but nevertheless loathe the obscenities that pass for lyrics in popular music and don't want their children exposed to them.

Most Americans eagerly uphold our liberties and want to protect their children above all else, and see how the intellectual and entertainment elites demand freedom without protecting common decency. The popular culture and the politically correct mavens have replaced independent thinking with groupthink that's considerably more repressive than the rigid culture we overthrew five decades ago.

The sexual revolution was aimed at rigid rules of behavior that treated adults like adolescents. We've replaced it with an adolescent mentality that governs adults. When the adults were in charge, they fostered middle-class values of politeness and postponed gratification. With the adolescents in charge, the mature of mind become the rebels against a culture that celebrates man's basest instincts.

Video games, for example, draw on the worst of the hip-hop lyrics: fantasy games about dragons and dungeons have been replaced by portrayals of ritual thuggery, gangster rap and rape, carjackings and brutal beatings.

Stanley Crouch, the iconoclastic black columnist, takes aim at the purveyors of images of black youth on MTV, BET or VH1 that draw on stereotypes as insidious as the stereotype drawn in D.W. Griffith's " Birth of a Nation." Modern blacks are routinely "depicted as bullying, hedonistic buffoons ever ready to bloody somebody." He's specifically concerned with the way these images corrupt young people in the "hood," but such images permeate the popular culture for children of all races, where the thumping energy of violence is celebrated without any appeal to or even recognition of what's right and what's wrong.

In "The Artificial White Man," he writes: "A blue, despairing cry is coming at us from behind the trends of extreme hairdos, piercings, ethnic getups, aggressively bad taste, nose rings, tattoos, and the fashion collages that draw so badly and so freely from the worlds of the primitive, science fiction, and street gang posturing."

We've dropped moral judgment from creative thinking. The remake of the movie "Alfie," a misogynist cad, dramatically illustrates the damages wrought by the sexual revolution. In the 1965 version made in England, Michael Caine plays a nasty philanderer who has a moment of recognition of his own moral monstrousness as "an accomplice to murder" when he looks into a bucket containing a fully-formed fetus dropped there from an abortion he arranged for a woman he impregnated.

In the new version made in Hollywood (by Paramount), Alfie is a disarming, charming bounder whose only insight is that his philandering leaves him childless and a little lonely.

Republicans are widely believed to be winning the culture wars by better articulating a fundamental desire to return to traditional middle-class values. Bill Clinton told an audience at Hamilton College last week that "I think the
current divisions are partly the fault of the people in my party for not engaging the Christian evangelical community in a serious discussion of what it would take to promote a real culture of life."

The ex-president is no dummy and he got it half right. You don't have to be an evangelical Christian to want to change the culture.

[Jolie Rouge]

Now, I’m not saying stem cell research is the Holy Grail for all diseases, but I am asking for some people to take a leap of faith and imagine, if you can, what would be in the best interest of mankind if diseases and spinal cord injuries could be rectified by stem cell harvesting.



and stem cell research is put to the forefront of modern medicines that might usher in an era the likes of which were only seen once through the discovery on penicillin?


Guess what -- the majority of cancer research is privately not federally funded. and you're right the amount of money spent on advertising is silly; but I still think there are better avenues of research than stem cells.


On another note, the union of two people regardless of sexual orientation has come under fire. Why? I would like to find someone who could give me some justifications to the legal discrimination of the certain people that does not have a Bible based answer. I mean does the thought of two people who love each other and want to wed really piss you off as much as the country would have you believe?

No one is stopping them from loving wom they want - or having a ceremony to acknowledge their commitment. But they claim that can only gain certain rights by having a "marriage recognised by the goverment" -- not true. See a lawyer. Problem solved. But that is not really the issue is it ?

Fifty years ago it was illegal for a "white" to marry a "black". Did people still fall in love, get married, and have children ? YES. and they worked at educating the "masses". The people behind this issue do not want to educate anyone, to take it slowly, to teach - they demand everything right now, including the right to shove their choices down everyone else's throats.

BTW -- I voted against the ban in LA. You can not legislate "morality" on eigther side of the issue.

[Njean31]

No one is stopping them from loving wom they want - or having a ceremony to acknowledge their commitment. But they claim that can only gain certain rights by having a "marriage recognised by the goverment" -- not true. See a lawyer. Problem solved. But that is not really the issue is it ?



ain't that the truth :rolleyes:

you can do practically anything you want in life with a good doctor and attorney :D

[YNKYH8R]

I’m still not saying that it is the Holy Grail and yes it should be the forefront of research because of its potential. Stem cell research started out as a possible promise for spinal cord injury, and other possible brain dysfunctions. So when I state that this research is not the Holy Grail I am correct, because I am referring to diseases. And yes I did know that cancer is privately funded and since stem cell research has fallen out of grace with the general population I guess we’ll have to sit and wait for another answer. Sorry Chris.

Actually their commitment cannot be acknowledged…by the state. And as I said before why do we have to have these people go through legal hoops to get what they want? You would you fight just as hard? About educating the masses, what do you wish to be educated about? I find it rather dubious that people needed to educated about interracial couples, I mean we are all human. But my question was never answered, why is it such a big deal outside of religious doctrine? I realize you voted against the ban, and for a good reason no one can legislate morality it starts at home; which is something that I feel needs to be addressed more by this administration, any administration for that matter.

A lot of the concerns brought up in your last article are issues that should be family driven. If you don’t want violent video games, lewd movies, or poor television programming in your home be parent and turn it off. Some people have a hard time saying ‘no’ to their children. It starts as early as one. I’ve seen it and I her about it.

[Jolie Rouge]

I’m still not saying that it is the Holy Grail and yes it should be the forefront of research because of its potential. Stem cell research started out as a possible promise for spinal cord injury, and other possible brain dysfunctions. So when I state that this research is not the Holy Grail I am correct, because I am referring to diseases. And yes I did know that cancer is privately funded and since stem cell research has fallen out of grace with the general population I guess we’ll have to sit and wait for another answer. Sorry Chris.

So you let Hollywood celebs give you your scientific updates and not medical professionals ? Interesting. These are the same types that think injecting sheep urine will keep them young.



I noticed you sidestepped the discussion of Roe Versus Wade - and I am interested in your opinion since you thing it should remain unrestricted - so I will repost and await your repy.


And sorry - when the time span of thirty seconds or less can make the determination between "a woman's choice" and the legal definintion of "homicide" then there are real and ethical problems with "Roe versus Wade".

Consider this : when your daughter goes to school, the school nurse can not give her an asprin but can give her birth control pills. They can not pierce her ears, look at her teeth or give her an eye exam with out parental consent - but they can perform a surgical procedure which is invasive and potential lifethreatening without your knowledge ( before or after the fact.)
If an adult not her guardian takes her across state lines for any of the above ( or to get a drink or cigerettes - or just without your permission) they are in violation of Federal Laws -- UNLESS they are taking her to get an abortion. Then they can seek the protection of Federal Law.

In LA we had to fight long and hard just to pass a law requiring health regulations and inspections of abortion clinics. You have to pass inspections to run a vets office, a nail salon, a barber shop, - even a tanning bed BUT not an abortion clinic which preforms surgical procedures on women for cash. ( Insurance doesn't cover abortions - but give the dems time ... )

Don't kid yourself -- abortion is not about Womens' Rights - it is about money. It is a multi million dollar cash only business which resists any form of goverment regulation - with the goverments' and victims enthusiastic assistance.

[YNKYH8R]

So then Christopher Reeve was just a big phony? He wasn’t working hard to get the research that he would have liked to have been done so that he and others like him could be given a remote possibility for movement? No problem, its thier fight not mine so who cares, right? But homosexuals want to be taken seriously and oh gosh look out!

I never said it should remain unrestricted, that is why I never said anything. If you look back in my previous posts you’ll see that I was willing to compromise the Roe v. Wade issue if my 2nd Amendment clause was allowed to go through. But if you must, I have some questions of my own…

Why would my daughter go to the nurse for an aspirin if I can send her to school with Ibuprofen?
Why would the school nurse need to pierce her ears?
And since when has a nurse had the capability of performing a surgical procedure? Oh I see you switched subjects on me. Okay I get it. The invasive and potential life threatening procedure I believe is at the discretion of the patient involved in rape or incest. If a child of 13 or older is raped by a parent or stranger I believe it is to give them the ability to terminate the pregnancy before any knowledge is leaked to the, could be, rapist, especially if it is the parent.

I was unaware of the LA issue regarding abortion clinics. Barber shops and nail salons don’t perform invasive procedures so that is kind of a weak argument.

In the end it may be about money, so is the whole health care system, so it comes as no surprise. Clinics should be regulated, no doubt, but in all honesty I believe abortions should be solely limited to health of mother, rape and incest cases. Abortion and RU-486 have been perverted into contraceptive measures because of laziness and ignorance, whether on the part of the parent or the child is moot. Ignorance is ignorance.

[Jolie Rouge]

So then Christopher Reeve was just a big phony? He wasn’t working hard to get the research that he would have liked to have been done so that he and others like him could be given a remote possibility for movement? No problem, its thier fight not mine so who cares, right? But homosexuals want to be taken seriously and oh gosh look out!

No Cris Reeves was desperate. It was the only thing that held out even a slim glimmer of hope.



I never said it should remain unrestricted, that is why I never said anything. If you look back in my previous posts you’ll see that I was willing to compromise the Roe v. Wade issue if my 2nd Amendment clause was allowed to go through. But if you must, I have some questions of my own…

I will scroll back and give you the post number...


Why would my daughter go to the nurse for an aspirin if I can send her to school with Ibuprofen?

If you do she can be expelled under the Zero Tolerance Policy regarding drugs.

{No - I am not kidding.}


Why would the school nurse need to pierce her ears?

You are being silly.

But allow me to clarify.

She can not go to the mall or any establishment and receive a piercing or tatoo of any kind with out parental consent.


And since when has a nurse had the capability of performing a surgical procedure? Oh I see you switched subjects on me. Okay I get it. The invasive and potential life threatening procedure I believe is at the discretion of the patient involved in rape or incest. If a child of 13 or older is raped by a parent or stranger I believe it is to give them the ability to terminate the pregnancy before any knowledge is leaked to the, could be, rapist, especially if it is the parent.

That is the arguement of the Pro-Choice people. Seems that they need to alert LE or Social Services to protect the child -- but no, they can't do that because it would invade her privacy. So let's take her cash, her health (poss) and dump her right back in the hellhole she came from.


I was unaware of the LA issue regarding abortion clinics. Barber shops and nail salons don’t perform invasive procedures so that is kind of a weak argument.

Nail Salons are required to becasue they can introduce infection under your nails with the tools to do cuticules and such if it is not kept sterile.

Barber shops and hair salons because they must prevent the spread of disease carrying head lice and other such vermin.

WOW - those are Health Issues - but preforming invasive surgical techniques on women on a cash only - out patient basis is not. hmmmmmm


In the end it may be about money, so is the whole health care system, so it comes as no surprise. Clinics should be regulated, no doubt, but in all honesty I believe abortions should be solely limited to health of mother, rape and incest cases. Abortion and RU-486 have been perverted into contraceptive measures because of laziness and ignorance, whether on the part of the parent or the child is moot. Ignorance is ignorance.


Something we can actually agree on :D. I find most people run for the hills if you bring up the "Money issue". Don't you find it odd that this is a cash - carry industry that resists all regulation with the cooperation if not colussion of the State ?

[janelle]

Abortion is a huge dirty money making industry. If our courts weren't pro-choice the clinics would be put out of business. Maybe with the conservatives in charge now they will be. This horrifies the abortion business. They will not go down without fighting.

Guess I won't be seeing the "Alphie" movie with the watered down version. Never thought I would think the movies of the sixties were more truthful but seems like they were. Probably not be able to find a copy of the sixties version. I saw it on TV and it had to be censored but I wonder if a rented one from the sixties would be still be around? Thanks Jolie.

What it all about Alphie. You won't know what it's all about now. It's a new age. A Brave New World. :eek: :confused:

[ladybugbhb]

i must have missed in here about the movie alphie. what is it about, and why is it watered down? tia
bev

[YNKYH8R]

Something we can actually agree on :D. I find most people run for the hills if you bring up the "Money issue". Don't you find it odd that this is a cash - carry industry that resists all regulation with the cooperation if not colussion of the State ?
And as I've said before, we obviously need to have the laws changed, unfortunatley it does seem to be high on the political hit list. But, all in due time. For now let's work on our parenting skills.

[YNKYH8R]

i must have missed in here about the movie alphie. what is it about, and why is it watered down? tia
bev
I don't know, I have no interest in seeing either this version or the original. Sorry. :o

[YNKYH8R]

Abortion is a huge dirty money making industry. If our courts weren't pro-choice the clinics would be put out of business. Maybe with the conservatives in charge now they will be. This horrifies the abortion business. They will not go down without fighting.
Doesn't it make more sense to keep them open but have them regulated by health officals and have the pateints screened, make a strict process? The only reason I say this is becuase my fear is that if you do away with clinics altogether na dthe laws, then you're bound to hear about a lot more drastic 'ameture' abortion attempts. :(

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/jd041113.gif

[janelle]

i must have missed in here about the movie alphie. what is it about, and why is it watered down? tia
bev



From Suzanne Fields article that Jolie posted-----

We've dropped moral judgment from creative thinking. The remake of the movie "Alfie," a misogynist cad, dramatically illustrates the damages wrought by the sexual revolution. In the 1965 version made in England, Michael Caine plays a nasty philanderer who has a moment of recognition of his own moral monstrousness as "an accomplice to murder" when he looks into a bucket containing a fully-formed fetus dropped there from an abortion he arranged for a woman he impregnated.

In the new version made in Hollywood (by Paramount), Alfie is a disarming, charming bounder whose only insight is that his philandering leaves him childless and a little lonely.
================================================== =======

And we 've dropped moral judgment cause it's not politically correct to judge anyone or anything anymore. The big J word. :mad:

----------------------

[janelle]

Doesn't it make more sense to keep them open but have them regulated by health officals and have the pateints screened, make a strict process? The only reason I say this is becuase my fear is that if you do away with clinics altogether na dthe laws, then you're bound to hear about a lot more drastic 'ameture' abortion attempts. :(

If abortions were really for the mother's life then Ob/GYNs would do them in the hospital where it's safe and not shuttled off to a clinic on the side streets. Most doctors will not do them---ever ask yourself why?

[YNKYH8R]

No, I've never thought of that. And that is another good idea, we'll get OB/GYN's to do it. Good job! :)

[Jolie Rouge]

If abortions were really for the mother's life then Ob/GYNs would do them in the hospital where it's safe and not shuttled off to a clinic on the side streets. Most doctors will not do them---ever ask yourself why?

Not entirely correct -- if you are pregnant and under the care of a OB/GYN and have serious problems with the baby/mother's health, they will admit to the hospital and do a D&C which is the same procedure an abortion clinic does. EXCEPT that the patient is kept in the hospital for 24 hours to be monitored for post-op complications. Abortion clinic does the same procedure for the same cost - but sends the patient home on her own reconnaissance ( including minors .... )

HHHHMMMMMMMMM .....

Don't you think something is wrong with this ?

[janelle]

I'd like to get the stats on how many women have died from complications or had their future fertility stopped with an abortion. Where does one get these stats or are they protected? If we knew it may put the industry out of business.

If there were no abortion clinics you can't tell me women would still get them so readily. They would still get them but not as birth control as they do now. People always use the system for things it wasn't meant to be used for. Clinics get money for such thinking. They don't care.

[YNKYH8R]

I'd like to get the stats on how many women have died from complications or had their future fertility stopped with an abortion. Where does one get these stats or are they protected? If we knew it may put the industry out of business.

If there were no abortion clinics you can't tell me women would still get them so readily. They would still get them but not as birth control as they do now. People always use the system for things it wasn't meant to be used for. Clinics get money for such thinking. They don't care.
They might not go get them readily in a cliinc, but they might use a coat hanger or a baseball bat to purposly miscarriage.

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/comics/bo041116.gif

[YNKYH8R]

Vatican aide says Europe squeezing out God
Top adviser sees 'aggressive secularism' as threat to religion

Reuters
Updated: 1:06 p.m. ET Nov. 19, 2004


ROME - Freedom of religion is being threatened in Europe by an aggressive secularism which has made the mention of God “almost indecent,” a top adviser to Pope John Paul said in an interview published on Friday.

“We have gone from a Christian culture to an aggressive secularism with intolerant traits,” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told la Repubblica daily.

“It has started to become an ideology which imposes itself through politics and does not cede public space to the Catholic and Christian vision,” said the powerful head of the Vatican department in charge of safeguarding and interpreting doctrine.

“A struggle exists and we must defend the freedom of religion against the imposition of an ideology that presents itself as the only voice of reason,” the German cardinal added.

Censure of conservative Catholic EU candidate
The censure last month of Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian conservative Catholic politician who came under a storm of criticism by the European Parliament for his views on gays and women, has raised questions about religion in Europe.

Buttiglione said homosexuality was a sin and marriage existed so that women can have children and the protection of a male mate. He was eventually forced to step down as a candidate for EU commissioner over the row.

“In the political sphere it seems almost indecent to talk about God, almost as though it were an attack on the freedom of those who don’t believe,” Ratzinger said in the interview.

He also defended crosses in the classroom in countries with a Christian tradition like Italy, and warned against legalizing gay marriage.

“If we deem this union more or less equivalent to marriage, we have a society that no longer recognizes the fundamental character of the family,” he said.

Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

[YNKYH8R]

In my opinion, I believe the previous article is a misnomer. I think we are seeing a turn not from GOD himself but from things religious in nature all together. I know that on some occasions I have seen the reports from across the globe and I’ve had to shake my head. I, like others, have a problem with people killing other people over religious views.
My Christian co-worker tried to explain the conflict that has erupted between the Palestinians and the Israelis and to adlib she basically put it that these two tribes have a conflict between who are the chosen people of GOD. Depending on which blood line from Abraham you follow either one could be correct I am guessing here so don’t flame me.
Between conflicts of chosen people and conflicts of how we came to be (creation over evolution) I find myself exhausted. I’ve had many debates over the latter, and I have come to one conclusion; if some one is set in their ways forget it you won’t sway them. LOL!
I guess the one thing that irks me the most from time to time is that some people will or will not do some of the simplest things before they take a religious figure into consideration; now I don’t necessarily mean GOD here. From destinations to marriage partners to choices of clothing to choices of food most of all these things are run past a higher power. There is nothing, quintessentially, wrong with these ideas, in my opinion, but when other decisions are made with the same thought process in mind I kind of get leery.
I know why, because I don’t understand the mentality. I wasn’t raised religious, I went to church but it wasn’t pressed and it was more for show anyway. So these are my two cents. Feel free to put in your too. :)

[janelle]

I know why, because I don’t understand the mentality. I wasn’t raised religious, I went to church but it wasn’t pressed and it was more for show anyway. So these are my two cents. Feel free to put in your too.
================================================== ========

Maybe that's your answer right there. It didn't really mean that much to you, you just showed up and many people do this.

I see some talking to each other all through service and not really conscious as to why they are there---to worship God.

Getting back to roots would be a good thing but it seems our culture is headed away from it's roots. Look at Europe. The women and children go to church and the men stay home. Maybe some "Promise Keepers" going over there would help? We just do not want our country to head in that direction and we see that it is. I think that is the reason for the backlash we had in the last election and not just from so called religious people.

What is "religious people" anyway? LOL, Everyone's definition is different. :confused:

[janelle]

They might not go get them readily in a cliinc, but they might use a coat hanger or a baseball bat to purposly miscarriage.

I have a flash for you---they are using a baseball bat right now. Did you read the article Jolie posted? Sorry Jolie, Surfergal posted it. You post so much I just thought it was you. LOL ;)

I don't think as many would have an abortion. Before it was legal, getting pregnant without being married was a scandal, now it doesn't have that stigma. And we have people ready and willing to help all they can. I wish we had adoption centers instead of abortion centers.

[Jolie Rouge]

Congress Helps Providers Refuse Abortions

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress made it a little easier for hospitals, insurers and other to refuse to provide or cover abortions.

A provision in a $388 billion spending bill passed by the House and Senate on Saturday would block any of the measure's money from going to federal, state or local agencies that act against health care providers and insurers because they don't provide abortions, make abortion referrals or cover them. ``This policy simply states that health care entities should not be forced to provide elective abortions, a practice to which a majority of health care providers object and which they will not perform as a matter of conscience,'' said Rep. David Weldon, R-Fla., a doctor who sponsored the language.

Weldon said his measure was simply a refinement of decades-old restrictions against federal aid for most abortions. ``This provision is meant to protect health care entities from discrimination because they choose not to provide abortion services,'' he said.

But Democrats complained that the provision was slipped into the voluminous year-end spending bill without debate or discussion in the Senate or the House. ``Now any business entity can decide to tell doctors working for it they can't give information to women about their right to choose,'' said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

Many clinics and other providers, in exchange for federal funds, are required to at least tell pregnant women who do not wish to have a child that abortion is among their options. Weldon's language would make it more difficult to enforce that, opponents said. ``The Weldon amendment is essentially a domestic gag rule, restricting access to abortion counseling, referral and information,'' said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. ``Health care companies should not be able to prevent doctors from giving medically necessary information.''

Boxer said she has been promised a vote in next year's Senate to repeal the provision. But House Democrats conceded earlier this year that they lacked the votes to stop Republicans from approving the measure, and likely would not have votes to strip the measure next year either.

11/20/04 21:38


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1153&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041120%2F2139309676.htm&sc=1153

[Damnifiknw]

btw, where are you in NC? i am from there and miss it terribly :( mainly just because of family/friends

Jacksonville

[YNKYH8R]

I have a flash for you---they are using a baseball bat right now. Did you read the article Jolie posted? Sorry Jolie, Surfergal posted it. You post so much I just thought it was you. LOL ;)

I don't think as many would have an abortion. Before it was legal, getting pregnant without being married was a scandal, now it doesn't have that stigma. And we have people ready and willing to help all they can. I wish we had adoption centers instead of abortion centers.
This is not a flash, I read the same thread. Although that case was an obvious adoption situation, look at the result. Which proves my point, to a degree, if you make abortions completely illegal, people will find a way to abort or miscarry on purpose, to avoid certain situations. Where as if it was an option, that was looked down on but still available, and could be done in a clean AMA guidline run facility then you start to see a change.

Now, about the stigma that you mentioned, I just happen to have a story for you. A couple that we know found out that they were pregnant before we got married. When they announced this to everyone, the father's family (southern baptists) wouldn't speak to him for a while, even his own sister. Now you must know that he was considering dumping her before hand and moving back to Florida, then she became pregnant. So what did they do; they got married? Why, because it was the 'right thing to do'. Now this child was born and is showing symptoms of PTSD. The reason he is exerting these symptoms is because his father drinks and pretty loud, and very agressive. His mother didn't want the pregancy, but was iving to live with it, and she doesn't feel like she has a good bond. The childs parents fight, a lot, and have just recently moved to Florida to be closer to his family, and we wouldn't be surprised if she came back alone, divorced and childless.
Now, they got married, as I said before, because it was 'the right thing to do'. Right thing for who, the child who is subjected to his parents arguements and alcholic rages? Or right for his parents who pretty much can't stand each other and she was quoted in saying she would leave him if he wasn't so good around his kid? (Note: he does love his son, and has a good bonfd with him, but he doesn't do anything to curb the boy's behavior.) Or was it right for his family, they won't feel so bad if there is a child in the world as long as the parents are married. Or is it right by GOD?
I feel bad for them, the mother is my wife's cousin and long time friend. But, don't you see...being married doesn't make you a parent, having a child does. They shouldn't have gotten married, he should have broken up with her so that he would be such a destructive force in her or the child's life. I mean to say, if they weren't subjected to the pressures of being married then things would probably have been better for all party's. But who's to know, all I know is that teo people who really don't get along got married because of a child. It is still possible to raise a child and not be married.

[janelle]

And this is a situation for adoption as well. When will people stop making children the pawns of fixing problems. You will always have that, abortion or not. Also some people 'FIND GOD" and straighren out their lives when children come along. That happens a lot so we never know how God will work. The woman was taken a chance and I think she still needs to try to keep her family together but if not possible then she needs to leave him and find a good man to father that child. That happend a lot too. Killing does not answer anything but it sure does diminish us.

My hubby wnats to add---"is that the child'sfault"? Does the child have to die cause of the parents life choices"? Adoption into a family who will love and protect the child is the answer, not killing it.

[YNKYH8R]

And this is a situation for adoption as well. When will people stop making children the pawns of fixing problems. You will always have that, abortion or not. Also some people 'FIND GOD" and straighren out their lives when children come along. That happens a lot so we never know how God will work. The woman was taken a chance and I think she still needs to try to keep her family together but if not possible then she needs to leave him and find a good man to father that child. That happend a lot too. Killing does not answer anything but it sure does diminish us.

My hubby wnats to add---"is that the child'sfault"? Does the child have to die cause of the parents life choices"? Adoption into a family who will love and protect the child is the answer, not killing it.
Well in the situation of our 'friends' in Florida abortion was not the answer, then again neither was getting married. And no abortion was not the answer for the couple who purposely miscarried the child, adoption was. Abortion doesn't work in either cases. but if it is an option someone wishes to explore ie. rape or incest then it is something that should be available, as well as adoption.
A child doesn't have to die. And it depends on ones defantion of a child. If some one is two weeks pregnant, doesn't know it, smokes heavily and drink and the cells are destroyed or 'aborted' then should criminal charges follow? No. There is no child at that stage only a potential for life.
What would society rather have people swinging bats, or going and having it done professionally? I know I know you're saying neither, but these are choices people face. It is the reality.
As for finding GOD when achild is born, that depends on the person. I've been told that I would find GOD or have a growing faith if I lost someone close to me or I have child, i've hed both I've felt nothing. There is nothing wrong with having a belief in a higher power you have the right, just as do to not have one, or if one never comes along. People don't want their beliefs put down others don't want beliefs thrown in other peoples faces.
Chrisitans live with higher expectations, how many times have you done or said something and someone looked at you and said 'that's not very Christian of you'? No one looks and says that to me, because I don't openly express a faith. That's why a lot lof people come under fire all the time, there is resentment of abortion but at the same time pro capital punishment. Hmmmmm. LOL! :)

[janelle]

If one doesn't know they are pregnant and miscarry how would all these what ifs take place? Doesn't make sense. Many miscarriages happen with and without the parents knowledge. I think women of child bearing age should take care of themselves. Just smart, but people get hooked even on drugs, and addicted women have had babies and gave them up for adoption. I knew of a baby like that and babysat for him. He was the sweetest thing and the adoptive parents were so happy. Continued later I have to leave. LOL

[janelle]

I'm back. I went to take my mother's laundry back and take her out to dinner. She lives in a care home and is 96. Some would say her quality of life is over so why not abandon her to the care home and stop visiting? Who decides another's quality of life? It's happening with lots of people being abandoned to care homes. With our society aborting at the beginning of life it's not long before we abandon at the end of life. Will euthansia be long from becoming a law?

It's sad that you felt nothing when you had a child. Maybe you have cut yourself off to feelings.

Being a Christian does not make a person pro-life. Lots of Christian denominations are pro-choice. It all depends.

Capital punishment is also treated with caution within the church. It's something not to take lightly but there is self defense and it is allowed in very strict circumstances.

How can I put your beliefs down---you just said you have none. I don't mind having my beliefs put down, Jesus had His beliefs put down but He did not turn away and become PC. We are called to be like Jesus today and for as long as we follow Him. Jesus said it would not be easy to follow Him. He wasn't talking about when He was alive but always.

[Damnifiknw]

how many times have you done or said something and someone looked at you and said 'that's not very Christian of you'?

I've heard that phase directed at me a few times. Why they thought I was a Christian is beyond me.

[YNKYH8R]

It's sad that you felt nothing when you had a child. Maybe you have cut yourself off to feelings.
I never said I felt nothing, in fact I was mor ethan over joyed that our daughter was born. I was refering to maknig a connection with GOD. My quote was. I've been told that I would find GOD or have a growing faith if I lost someone close to me or I have child, i've hed both I've felt nothing.

There was probably a misunderstanding so no problem I just wanted to make myself clear. :)

That is a good question who does decide another's qualityof life, I guess you have to compare it to your own. You have to put yourslef in to that persons shoes and ask if you would be happyin their situation. And for some people you can only od the best you can. :)
I 'm glad to hear you have a lot of consideration for your mother, I'm not surprised. Or at least I wouldn't put it past you. :)

I made the comment on drinking and drug use and fetus aborting on its own because there are other instances in life where people are drunk or on drugs and kill someone accidentally, depending on the situation a criminal prosocution is begun against the drunk or high person. Now in the case of a pregnant person who does this to there own body could they be brought up on criminal charges considering what happened in the Peterson caes? Yes he knew about the child, but still some consider it a life even if the life isn't recognized by the parent. Just curious, becuase I got thinking about the Peterson case, this is definatley going to shape the way the law looks at abortion.

Damnifiknw, I've never been accused of being a Christian, although I do have (what I feel is) a good moral center and a good set of ethics, they stem from the belief that we are all human, with feelings, prone to mistakes and dserve consideration and respect because of that if I am considered a Christian so be it...they just can't make me wear one of those funny hats. :) :D

[janelle]

Well I did think you felt something when your baby was born I just wanted you to think about it. You felt love---God is love---you felt God. LOL :eek:

I love cynical young men.LOL My SS is one right now too. "I don't believe in a God, I've never seen Him, He's never talked to me, He needs to prove He exists, He's never knocked on my door". But you guys are still searching and that is great. You have good hearts and you will find what you are searching for. We all search until we die or we die cause we stop searching.

As far as deciding on quality of life from our own feelings, that is very dangerous. I can't decide for someone else if they are happy by observing them. I know people with disabilities and they have very good lives from their point of view. Some are happier than lots of people who are healthy.

As far as killing a pre-born baby, many think it's murder. Lots of parents have had their babies killed this way but have no recourse cause our society has said it's not human. Now some states are making laws to say if you kill a baby in uterio you are guilty of murder. No, abortionists do not like this cause they do this everyday and it just may affect them someday when they can be charged with murder.

See how one thing can lead to another? Christians or pro-life people have known this for a long time. This is how we got to this point today. We fell down in our duties to humankind and now we have lost millions to our ignorance.

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/prc041122.gif

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/tmate041123.gif

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/jd041123.gif

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/prc041125.gif

[YNKYH8R]

Pope worries about drop in U.S. vocations
Pontiff says priests' decline presents 'stark challenge' for church

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:38 a.m. ET Nov. 26, 2004


VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul II expressed concern Friday over the decline in priestly vocations in the United States, telling visiting American bishops that the drop presents a “stark challenge” that cannot be ignored.

He also suggested, in an apparent reference to the clergy sex abuse scandal, that seminary training needs to be tightened to instill a commitment to “holiness and spiritual wisdom.”

The pope has raised the sex abuse scandal and other problems facing the U.S. church as American bishops have been making a periodic visit to the Vatican throughout the year.

In Friday’s address to bishops from Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri, the pope outlined how bishops must provide for the future of the church.

“No one can deny that the decline in priestly vocations represents a stark challenge for the church in the United States, and one that cannot be ignored or put off,” the pope said.

He urged a program of vocational promotion and a national day of prayer for priestly vocations.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says nearly 500 new priests were ordained in 2003, down about half from 1965.

The pope’s reference to seminaries comes amid plans for a Vatican-sponsored investigation of U.S. seminaries, a project stemming from the abuse crisis. The outgoing president of the U.S. Catholic bishops, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, has said onsite visits should start within a year.

[Jolie Rouge]

'DON'T IMPOSE YOUR VALUES' ARGUMENT IS BIGOTRY IN DISGUISE
Sun Nov 21, 2004
By John Leo

I am struggling to understand the "don't impose your values" argument. According to this popular belief, it is wrong, and perhaps dangerous, to vote your moral convictions unless everybody else already shares them. Of course if everybody already shares them, no imposition would be necessary.

Nobody ever explains exactly what constitutes an offense in voting one's values, but the complaints appear to be aimed almost solely at conservative Christians, who are viewed as divisive when they try to "force their religious opinions on us." But as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh writes, "That's what most lawmaking is -- trying to turn one's opinions on moral or pragmatic subjects into law."


Those who think Christians should keep their moral views to themselves, it seems to me, are logically bound to deplore many praiseworthy causes, including the abolition movement, which was mostly the work of the evangelical churches courageously applying Christian ideas of equality to the entrenched institution of slavery. The slaveowners, by the way, frequently used "don't impose your values" arguments, contending that whether they owned blacks or not was a personal and private decision and therefore nobody else's business. The civil rights movement, though an alliance of Christians, Jews and nonbelievers, was primarily the work of the black churches arguing from explicitly Christian principles.


The "don't impose" people make little effort to be consistent, deploring, for example, Catholics who act on their church's beliefs on abortion and stem cells, but not Catholics who follow the pope's insistence that rich nations share their wealth with poor nations, or his opposition to the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq.


If the "don't impose" people wish to mount a serious argument, they will have to attack "imposers" on both sides of the issues they discuss, not just their opponents. They will also have to explain why arguments that come from religious beliefs are less worthy than similar arguments that come from secular principles or simply from hunches or personal feelings. Nat Hentoff, a passionate opponent of abortion, isn't accused of imposing his opinions because he is an atheist. The same arguments and activity by a Christian activist would likely be seen as a violation of some sort.


Consistency would also require the "don't impose" supporters to speak up about coercive schemes intended to force believers to violate their own principles: anti-abortion doctors and nurses who are required in some jurisdictions to study abortion techniques; Catholic agencies forced to carry contraceptive coverage in health plans; evangelical college groups who believe homosexuality is a sin defunded or disbanded for not allowing gays to become officers in their groups; the pressure from the ACLU and others to force the Boy Scouts to admit gays, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the Scouts are entitled to go their own way.


Then there is the current case of Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian Christian Democrat who was named to be justice and home affairs commissioner of the European Union, then rejected for having an opinion that secular liberals find repugnant: He believes homosexuality is a sin. The Times of London attacked the hounding of Buttiglione "for holding personal beliefs that are at odds with the prevailing social orthodoxy ... despite a categorical statement that he would not let those beliefs intrude upon policy decisions." The Times said this is a clear attempt by Buttiglione's opponents to impose their views. No word of protest yet from "don't impose" proponents.


Sometimes the "don't impose" argument pops up in an odd form, as when John Kerry tried to define the stem-cell argument as science vs. ideology. But the stem-cell debate in fact featured ideology vs. ideology: the belief that the chance to eliminate many diseases outweighs the killing of infinitesimal embryos vs. the belief that killing embryos for research is a moral violation and a dangerous precedent. Both arguments are serious moral ones.


Those who resent religiously based arguments often present themselves as rational and scientific, whereas people of faith are dogmatic and emotional. This won't do. As professor Volokh argues, "All of our opinions are ultimately based on unproven and unprovable moral premises." No arguments are privileged because they come from secular people, and none are somehow out of bounds because they come from people of faith. Religious arguments have no special authority in the public arena, but the attempt to label those arguments as illegitimate because of their origin is simply a fashionable form of prejudice. Dropping the "don't impose" argument would be a step toward improving the political climate.

[Jolie Rouge]

Saturday, November 27, 2004
Funny old anti-Commie comic book

"Just found this link to some really interesting anti-communist propaganda from the 1960's. It's a comic book that looks at what *COULD* happen to *YOU* if those evil commies get their hands on the USA. Endorsed by none other than J. Edgar Hoover himself !" Link : www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/cover_01.html

http://www.boingboing.net/images/commiecomic.jpg

(When I read it, I mentally swapped every instance of "communists" with "red-state republicans" or "blue-state democrats" and it was even more enjoyable -- Mark) www.boingboing.net/2004/11/27/funny_old_anticommie.html

[YNKYH8R]

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/tmate041127.gif

[YNKYH8R]

For me the do not impose idea comes from the varied argumentative arrogance of people, who claimed to be Christian, that I have run into in the past. For example I happen to be around a group of people and the conversation turned toward religious beliefs. After my departure with one of the other people in the discussion I said “That was pretty interesting huh?”
“Yes,” he replied “although it is too bad that they were all wrong and are going to hell.”

The article is very good, morals are morals, if you teach morals to your children from the Bible more power to you. But the basis for these morals being the only right ones conflict with some of mine and other peoples morals.

[Jolie Rouge]

GRACE, GRATITUTE AND GOD
by Michelle Malkin


My 4-year-old daughter recently learned to say grace at mealtimes. I taught her the same little prayer my mom taught me in childhood:

God is great

God is good

Let us thank him for our food

By his hands we all are fed

Give us Lord our daily bread

Amen.



At first, my daughter questioned the need for reciting this strange passage. "Why do we have to thank God?" she wondered.

"To show that we are grateful for our daily bread," I explained.

"What is 'grateful'?" she asked.

"Being appreciative for what we have," I answered.

"But I'm not eating daily bread," she argued in between bites of macaroni and cheese.

"It means whatever fills your tummy each day," I clarified.

"Oh."



In typical toddler fashion, my daughter is now absolutely fanatical about her new routine. Not only must we say grace before every meal, but also before each snack. And anytime we have a drink. And anytime her baby brother gobbles Cheerios in his car seat. Failure to give thanks to God is met with swift retribution. Our daughter has no qualms about chastising us in public -- at restaurants, airports or Starbucks:

"Hey, stop eating! You forgot to say grace!"

Despite the embarrassment it sometimes causes, I love her unrepentant zeal. It reminds us not to take for granted our too-infrequent gestures of daily thanksgiving. It reminds us to be humble. Following her lead, we must all bow our heads and fold our hands and shut our eyes and shout a full-throated "Amen!"

The snobs of secularism will no doubt disparage such simple-minded expressions of piety. They call us "Jesus freaks," "Bible-thumpers" and "fundies." They accuse us of being "weak" and of suffering from a "neurological disorder." They consider us such a threat that they have sought to expunge even the most innocuous references to thanking God in the public schools.


When Garwood, N.J., student Kaeley Hay wrote a Thanksgiving poem mentioning the Pilgrims' gratitude to the Lord, according to the Newark Star-Ledger, skittish administrators initially removed the word "God" from her piece:

Leaves are falling out of the air,
Piles of leaves everywhere.
Scarecrows standing high up with the corn,
Farmers harvest in the early morn.
Pilgrims thank [blank] for what they were given,
Everybody say . . . happy Thanksgiving!


Here in my home state of Maryland, according to the Annapolis Capital, "Maryland public school students are free to thank anyone they want while learning about the 17th century celebration of Thanksgiving -- as long as it's not God."

True to the religio-phobic conception of educational "diversity," Maryland public school officials have turned Thanksgiving into a multicultural harvest devoid of its spiritual essence. Students are taught that Pilgrims had a "belief system," but nothing further. Not to worry, though. "The Pilgrim Story is read in Spanish and English," Alfreda Adams, principal at Mills-Parole Elementary School in Anne Arundel County where 70 Hispanic students attend, told the Capital. "We make sure that we celebrate all cultures."

Such politically correct muddle-headedness explains why Maryland students can't learn Pilgrim prayers in public schools while the town of Hamtramck, Mich., feels free to blast Islamic prayers over public loudspeakers five times a day.

Once an unabashedly pious land, we have been transformed into a nation of historically clueless ingrates -- embarrassed about our heritage, afraid of offending all newcomers, and more committed to inculcating a sense of entitlement over a culture of gratitude. Abe Lincoln's Thanksgiving proclamation of 1863 rings truer than ever:

"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved, the many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to God that made us!"

Amen.

[Jolie Rouge]

http://www.creators.com/lch/author.gif
by Linda Chavez


Thanksgiving has always been my favorite holiday, a time to reflect on the many blessings bestowed on this great nation while enjoying the company of family and friends. It's hard to imagine that anyone could consider the celebration controversial or feel the need to censor Thanksgiving discussions among schoolchildren. But when it comes to political correctness, no holiday is safe. Having turned Christmas and Hanukkah into amorphous winter festivals, now some school districts want to rob Thanksgiving of its historical roots. Apparently some school officials worry that the religious overtones of Thanksgiving might represent a chink in the wall secularists insist separates church and state, so they proscribe any mention of Who it is the nation thanks on this day.

In Maryland, the Capital News Service recently reported, "students are free to thank anyone they want while learning about the 17th-century celebration of Thanksgiving -- as long as it isn't God."

George Washington had no such qualms when he proclaimed the first day of thanksgiving in 1789: "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." In 1863, Abraham Lincoln declared a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens." In the midst of civil war, President Lincoln thought the day should be used to "fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union." And even President George W. Bush soberly reminded guests who came to the White House last week to witness the mock pardoning of the "First Turkey" that "in this nation of many faiths, we ask that the Almighty God continue to bless us and to watch over us."

Religious faith is at the heart of Thanksgiving. The Pilgrims were Puritan dissenters who left England as a form of religious protest against the Anglican Church, which they felt retained too much of the pomp and ceremony of Roman Catholicism. After surviving a brutal first winter in their new colony of Plymouth, the Pilgrims celebrated the harvesting of their first crops by giving thanks to the Creator Whose Providence they believed was responsible. But that part of the Thanksgiving story is largely missing from most public school curricula. Teachers may encourage schoolchildren to mimic the Pilgrims' dress -- wearing black hats, stiff collars, big buckles and white leggings -- or recreate the banquet the colonists enjoyed, but they forbid them from acknowledging the true roots of the holiday.

Ironically, some school guides devote more time to teaching about the origin of the Wampanoag traditions of thanksgiving than they do the Puritans'. Several guides mentioned the importance these Native Americans attached to giving thanks to the Creator for the crops they grew in each season. Apparently it is permissible to teach about the Indians' belief in a Divine Being, just not a Judeo-Christian one. In one online teachers' guide, I found references to Kiehtan, the Wampanoag name for the Creator, as well as lesson plans that encouraged students to thank "Mother Earth" for her bounty. Indeed, many of the study guides and teachers' resources available online placed greater emphasis on the role Indians played in the first Thanksgiving than that of the Pilgrims. While most of the guides depicted the Indians giving thanks to the Creator, the Pilgrims were largely confined to giving thanks to the Wampanoag for saving them from the ravages of the harsh Massachusetts winter.

No one is suggesting children should be forced to pray as part of their public school Thanksgiving celebrations, but they should not be denied learning an important lesson in American history. The founders of this nation were a deeply religious people, and Americans remain among the most religious people in the world. Religious faith has guided the development of our democracy and imbues our leaders still with a belief in the worth of every man, woman and child. When we sit down to our Thanksgiving feasts, we should remember and thank God for that.


Originally Published on Wednesday November 24, 2004

[YNKYH8R]

No, I don’t feel that if you teach your children a simple prayer before meal you are a simple minded person. Nor do I find it wrong. My wife, in fact, used to say her prayers before bed; I believe she will most likely teach them to our daughter too.

Religious text, teachings, and prayer in public school is always a touchy subject. Some people practice they’re faith on Sunday, some practice it five times a day. That may be the thinking of some school administration officials when it comes to Islamic students in public schools; it represses their religious beliefs from denying them their prayer. (Just an observation) While modern Baptist/Methodists practice on Sunday. Catholics and most Jewish people have their own schools to do with as they please.

I don’t know anything about Native American heritage or spiritual practice. But I do know there is no controversy surrounding it because their spiritual belief does not encompass Jesus. Obviously Christian type faiths Baptist/Methodists and the like see Jesus is the focal point of their beliefs. Islam and Muslim do not. So there is conflict right there. I think it is about avoiding conflict, fights and ostracizing.

This is one of the reasons I don’t like religion in the first place, the conflicts that ensue over different beliefs.

The schools do not have it easy. Have you ever been to a school board meeting and discussed the whole religious nature of the students versus the rules governing the schools? I think if you were to ask them why they take the stance they do then you might be able to see their point of view.

[janelle]

I'd bet most students in our public schools are Christians. When in Rome and all that stuff you know. Go back to how it was before prayer or the mention of God was prohibited and I think most people would be happy. No teaching religion but no denying it either.

[YNKYH8R]

I think it depends on the person. How important is it for some people to pray before they learn? For some cultures their beliefs are the focal point for their government, way of life, thought, foreign policy, laws, diet, education, choice of clothes, music, reading material, occupation, who they marry, how many children they have, where they are buried, how they are inturned, when they vaction, where they go, who runs the household, how much they tithe, if they tithe, their views on themselves, each other, their parents, and just about anythigng else I haven't thought of.

I think it is safe to say that some cultures are more religious than Americans are. Or at least they show it outwardly more. Like, for example, some people believe that if they die in service of their diety then they are assured a place in heaven, and they do just that. We are all different, and we all have to respect each other for what we all are, human.

And I think that is what it comes down to. Respect. We show respect to others who come here by allowing them to live their lives with out fear of rights being violated. This is a great country, and it those people that choose to become citizens that make it great. We are rich in diversity, now we just need to embrace it.

[buglebe]

I have just read this whole thread. I have read previously that the Republicans voted for religion and the Democrats voted for the economy.
There is no need for me to add what I feel about all the different subjects but I do feel strongly about all the subjects mentioned. My vote for Kerry was as much a vote against Bush as for Kerry. I think a politician will say anything he needs to say to get elected. I don't understand why we can't have some people have the religion they want and others not. I don't understand why we had to choose between religion and starving people because that is the choice I think we made. And our country as a nation chose to let many of our people continue to starve, remain homeless, go without medical treatment so they could prevent same sex marriages etc. I don't get it. God loves us all but together we decided to let these bad things continue to happen. We did it, so now some of us will suffer for it but not all of us. That is the sad part.

[YNKYH8R]

Wow, you read the whole thread? Good for you. there are some threads I do that for too. Sometimes I have to stop for a snack. LOL! But you brought a good point. In the end I see and some others do too, that Bush ogt elected based on morals and religous belief rather than on his record of the previous four years. Plus I also feel strongly that he played upon the fears of people using terrorism and 9/11 as a platform to get elected. I will admit that the democrats could have and should have had a stronger candidate. But regardless, with his track record he really should not have gotten in. Where is he now? Apologzing to the Canadians.

[Jolie Rouge]

Why is he apoligizing to the Canadians ?? Because of all the 'Disappointed' & 'Disenchanted' who suddenly want to move there ??

I voted for Bush because I wanted Bush to remain in office. Kerry has *yet* to reveal his plans for all the changes he wanted to make. And I agree, a politician will say anything he needs to say to get elected - which is a reason to vote *against* Kerry. He tailored his speech to his audience a little too much and a little too often. I have heard several people say that they were not voting 'for Kerry'; they were voting against Bush. To the end, that seem Kerry's main platform and ( as I said for months ) "I hate Bush" was not enough to gain him a seat in the Oval Office.

[Jolie Rouge]

If Democrats want to get back in the "values" game and change the perception of their party as being full of secularists intent on removing any reference to G-d from culture and even the history of America, they can start in the government schools. That's where reverent or favorable mentions of G-d are often prohibited, but using His name as a curse word is protected by the same First Amendment that supposedly prohibits the favorable mention of His name.

Democrats have an ideal case that they could make their own in the San Francisco suburb of Cupertino, where a fifth-grade public school teacher has filed a discrimination lawsuit against his school. The teacher, Steven Williams, says he has been prohibited by the school principal, Patricia Vidmar, from teaching the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents of the United States because they often refer to G-d .


It's one thing to ban contemporary attempts to use the schools to proselytize. It is quite another to censor history. It is a fact beyond dispute that the Founders often referred to G-d or "Divine Providence" or "the Almighty" in their public lives. Ignoring or censoring such facts presents a false history of our nation and denies students their right to know the truth.


According to Williams' lawsuit, among the other materials rejected by the principal were George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."


Democrats could make political hay for their party and do a good deed for public school students by opposing the extension of political correctness to history books and historical documents.


Attempts to expunge references to G-d , past or present, are not limited to one California school. In Maryland, there is a dispute concerning what may and may not be properly taught in that state's public schools.


The Washington Times carried a Capital News Service (CNS) story Nov. 23 that reported that when teachers instruct about the 17th-century origins of Thanksgiving, they can only say the Pilgrims thanked the Indians and cannot say they also thanked G-d for their safe journey and for the bounty set before them.


The story quoted Charles Ridgell, the director of curriculum and instruction for St. Mary's County Public Schools (they had better change the county's name to something other than "St. Mary's" to be consistent): "We teach about Thanksgiving from a purely historical perspective, not from a religious perspective." It is impossible to accurately teach about Thanksgiving without including the "religious perspective." The Pilgrims believed they were directed by G-d to make their journey to America and owed thanks to Him for a safe trip and good crops.


Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, disputes the CNS report. He says the state does not bar teachers from addressing the religious aspects of Thanksgiving. But school administrators from several Maryland counties said that they don't include religious materials in their curriculums. So while the state may not ban religious historical references, local officials apparently are doing so on their own authority.


This is a ready-made issue for Democrats to jump on and save the history of our country. While they're at it, they might also want to look at efforts by certain Islamists to infiltrate public schools with teachings about their religion.


As Daniel Pipes detailed in the Nov. 24 issue of Front PageMagazine, the 15th tip in a list of "18 tips for Imams and Community Leaders" from the Islamic Web site www.SoundVision.com is "Establish a parents' committee to monitor public schools." The committee, Pipes writes, is to "arrange for Muslims to deliver talks about Islam and Muslims" in the schools.


Pipes summarizes other suggestions from www.DawaNet.com, including: "Lobby to include Islamic dates on the school calendar;" "Add books and magazines about Islam . . . to the school library;" and "Incorporate Islam into class projects. 'For example, if students are required to give a speech in class and they can choose any topic, an Islamic subject should be selected. Similar opportunities can be created in history, social science, writing and other classes.'"


So, while the history and faith of our own country is being erased and a spiritual vacuum created, Islamists are rushing to fill that vacuum with the history and faith of another country.


Will Democrats ride to the rescue?


Cal Thomas

November 30, 2004

[YNKYH8R]

"Thank you for calling America, unfortunatly the Democrats are not running things right now. If you have a problem with our country please press pound and you will be directed to a listing of the Republicans that are in charge. Please stay on the line while our directory is being updated as some many people are stepping down from their post. There will be a hymnal while you wait."