PeterDavid.net

Have you read "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood? I read it when it first came out and was sure nothing like that would ever happen in this country. Slowly, but surely we seem to be headed in that direction. Fear (of seeming to air or write an unbalanced piece)is also the reason journalists have a "he said/she said" approach to the news, instead of looking behind what is said to the facts. May I also commend the church's message. I've often wondered where some of these groups are getting new converts when they seem to exclude so many.

Oh, by the way, I would like to wish you and your family a very happy Hannukah at sundown tonight. My daughter will be getting a nice haul now, and, since my husband was raised a Baptist, she will, like your family, be getting a nice haul from the other side of the family at Christmas.

I'm kinda surprised at your reaction PAD, as as a long-time comic book professional, you should be more aware than most people how the wonderfully slippery road of self-censorship/ "regulation" operates. It really is quite fantastic as now the govt or "concerned citizens" don't have to say anything. The industry's own fear will push them further into the fold.

PAD wrote "Apparently it's okay to laugh at gay men; just not accept them as people in the name of the Christian Messiah." There's a good deal of evidence to support this. It took a long time for WILL & GRACE, DAWSON'S CREEK, and BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER to show a kiss between a same-sex couple in a relationship. By contrast, for comedic purposes, same-sex kisses have been shown on SPIN CITY, SEINFELD, even back to ALL IN THE FAMILY. (The latter made TV GUIDE's list of top 100 television moments.) It's less dangeous to laugh at someone than to accept them.

I disagree with PAD about the "they'll air this, but not that" attitude of ABC. If they never air religious ads, this is consistent. As for the message of the ad, I always found a contradiction in many church's "we hate the sin, but we love the sinner" attitude towards homosexuality: "We consider what you do an abomination, we think you'll go to hell for doing it, we will fight tooth and nail to prevent you from marrying -- but as long as you totally deny your sexuality, you're more than welcome here." Still, if churches in American turned away everyone who used birth control (even a sin for married couples in Roman Catholicism!), there's be a *lot* fewer people there. At least some churches are reaching out to people instead of condemning them.

This is, unfortunately, one of the results of Conservatism: Fear. Fear of rocking the boat. Fear of reprisal. Fear of gay rights. Fear of change. It's one of the reasons Bush is successful: In a country still walking on eggshells since 9/11, he speaks fluent fear (indeed, his command of it surpasses his grasp of English.)

Excuse me? In a land full of political correctness because liberals don't want to offend people, you blame this (at least primarily) on conservatism? Give me a break.

First, as a very outspoken conservative, I am appalled that they refused to run the ad. And I am confident I am not alone. This ad was not that controversial to begin with. And while I may "preach" that homosexuality is wrong, I would welcome any gay couple who came to my church.

Second, the networks did NOT cave to conservative protests. In fact, Fox News is airing the ad. So there goes your suggestion our the window that this is the fault of conservatives. You have pointed out well the hypocrisy of the networks in rejecting the ad.

Yes, I agree we are in trouble in this nation when a very positive religious ad is rejected by the networks. But your analysis of the reason fails to look at the reality of what is happening.

Jim in Iowa

Can't say that I have ever been to a church that would not allow anyone in their doors.

I see the decision to not air this as more liberal bias than conservative.

Most churches are going to welcome anyone, there is no other way to fulfill the mission of leading others to Christ if they don't.

It seems very paranoid and less than believable to me to be blaming the right in a case like this.

Yet another entry from "PAD's Recliner of Rage", eh?

I really have nothing to contribute, I just wanted to make a "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" reference for a little levity. First person who can name where that comes from wins a cookie!

I'd have to say that the blame for this kind of political climate probably lies with both the liberals and the conservatives.

The "fear" mentioned by PAD in his post and the political correctness of liberals have different foundations, but the end result can be the same.

From PAD:
"This is, unfortunately, one of the results of Conservatism: Fear. Fear of rocking the boat. Fear of reprisal. Fear of gay rights. Fear of change. It's one of the reasons Bush is successful: In a country still walking on eggshells since 9/11, he speaks fluent fear (indeed, his command of it surpasses his grasp of English.)"

Yeah, those Crafty Consertatives only have fear to work with, unlike the Enlightened Liberals that will welcome with open arms things they don't agree with or understand.

Except for...
The case of Stephen Williams, suspended from his teaching job for using supplemental materials containing the word God in them. Things like the US Constitution and other historical records.
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883

Or a December holiday parade in Denver that includes gay and lesbian shamans, but not Christians who want to sing yuletide hymns or carry a Merry Christmas message.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/religion/article/0,1299,DRMN_61_3365940,00.html

Or Macy's changing their policy for advertising and clerks saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Do you think they will have a "After Holiday Sale" instead of the traditional "After Christmas Sale" this year?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41700

Or school bands not allowed to even play the music for Christmas carols. Not the lyrics, the music itself has been banned.
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=Carols+out+in+some+N.J.+schools&intcategoryid=5&SearchOptimize=Jewish+News

"I see the decision to not air this as more liberal bias than conservative."

Sure, because the networks are quaking in their boots over protests from outraged liberal organizations regarding gay marriage. Please.

PAD

PAD,
You're right! Networks and corporations NEVER cave in to LIBERAL groups! Just ask Al Campanis (who actually roomed with Jackie Robinson and stood up for him and then was forced to resign after msnterpreted remarks that were considered insensitive, Jimmy The Greek, Rush Limbaugh (after his Donovan McNabb comments) and many others.
In your world, I guess Jesse Jackson NEVER pressures or shakes down corporations, then backs off when he/his organization get the attention or money they are seeking.
And I guess open-mindedness and tolerance of differnt ponts of view was on the minds of the staff of the various college newspapers that refused to run ads by David Horowitz stating 10 reasons he thought reparations for Blacks were a bad idea.
If you could ever try to use your critical thinking skills regarding this issue, you would realize that you are obsessed about this issue and paranoid about "conservatives" in general.
You hate Bush. Fine.
But that sure as hell doesn't give the Republicans or "conservatives" the "fear" issue on their own.
1.) Having Kerry tell young people that Bush is bringing back the draft? That's fear.
2.) Having Kerry tell seniors that Bush had a "secret plan" that was going to cost seniors IMMEDIATELY hundreds in their paychecks is playing on fear, and it contnued a "proud" tradition, of Democrats, (as McCain said recently in discussing the need for reform) "scaring the hell out of senors for decades.
3.) Having Democrats and black leaders telling their "flock" that Bush would set back Black people 40 years, that Black people can't prosper without the current affirmative action programs, that(this was actually said in Philadelphia) that Bush would bring back slavery is playing on fear.
4.) Racial profiling is playing on the ingrained distrust and "fear" many blacks have for cops and our criminal justice system (which was definitely earned, but which makes the manipulation today that much more despicable
5.) It's "well-meaning liberals" who have frightened the hell out of people with everything from global warming - or is that a new Ice Age? - overpopulation and other environmental "issues" proven to be false.
6.) Oh, and it's liberals like Ted Kennedy who proclam that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would "force women back into back-alley abortions" when A.) Many women die as a result of "safe and legal" abortions and
B.) If a majorty of the American people have now come to favor abortion "rights" as is often claimed, then there should be nothng to worry about. It can simply be legislated. Unless...
There are, of course, many other examples of "fear". I'm prety sure Kerry didn't portray our military as inept bunglers regarding the "missing" explosives during the last week of the campagn to reassure the American people that thingswere going well. He wouldn't have been "feeding on fear", would he? Nah:)
Oh, and only someone who has become as illogical as yourself regarding this issue and conservatives/Bush in general would see "intolerance" in a network refusing to run a religious ad when it shows NO reliogious ads - from the catholic church to Jerry Falwell, even - and two others who simply dd not want to mess with somethng that could be seen as interpreting Jesus' message and being controversial.
Or was it conservatives who wanted jokes about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. - by a black cast in a comedy - to be excised?
Think rationally, for heaven's sakes.

"You just have to wonder how far this country has fallen"
I guess you do, if you are determned to be cynical, angry and determined to blow every perceived slight and every perceived issue out of proportion.

Jerome Maida said:
"5.) It's 'well-meaning liberals' who have frightened the hell out of people with everything from global warming - or is that a new Ice Age? - overpopulation and other environmental 'issues' proven to be false.

I don't think its fair to make this claim without providing a sited source- my father made the same claim, and I have been waiting a year for him to provide me with evidence of something he claims there is plenty of. Even if you find some, most politically charged studies are pretty easy to debunk (especially when follow up studies done by independant research groups fail to reproduce the results). The last I heard, Bush's own scientests brought him back evidence that global warming exists.

I haven't seen this ad, and I haven't been to a church in quite a long time, so one point confuses me:

Since when did churches start employing bouncers???

A good way to start the demise of censorship would be to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in every school in the United States. But that's just my own, lonely, opinion.

Hmmm. Having seen the ad (on that pinko commie democrat mouthpiece channel Fox) I can hardly think of a more innocuous reason for a controversy. Sure, the ad is deceptive--it doesn't just preach that the UCC is open to diversity, it also claims that (unnamed) other churches actively exclude minorities, including gays. can't recall the last time I heard of any real church telling blacks, latinos, asians, etc they couldn't worship there but all things are possible I guess.

As for PAD's predictable blame the conservatives notion...well, ABC says it doesn't air religious ads. End of story there. I can't find anything to back up his claim that "CBS and NBC were skittish over the notion of advocating the notion that Jesus might accept gays". CBS also mentioned some vague policy against ads advocating a particular religion (Note--this is for the Network, not local affiliates) among other reasons. Others have said that it was the implication, without evidence, that other churches are bigots that did them in (an easy test would be to simply remove the part about the bouncers and see if it passes).

In fact, according to the boston globe, " the president of research for NBC, Alan Wurtzel, said the spot ''violated a longstanding policy of NBC, which is that we don't permit commercials to deal with issues of public controversy." Wurtzel, who is in charge of broadcast standards at the network, said such issues should be handled by the news department and not in advertising.

''The problem is not that it depicted gays, but that it suggested clearly that there are churches that don't permit a variety of individuals to participate," Wurtzel said. ''If they would make it just a positive message -- 'we're all-inclusive' -- we'd have no problem with that spot."

The same article has this bit of questionable sincerity from a UCC spokesperson: "Taylor said the ad is not intended to criticize other denominations." Because, you know, hiring bouncers to boot people out is not something one would criticize...

So liberal CBS bans the ad, while conservative Fox runs it...and PAD blames conservatives. Of course.

Uh... for everyone who wants to blame liberals for this... liberals aren't the ones who hold up the bible as an excuse to hate homosexuals and condemn homosexuality, conservatives are.

A group therefore implying that the church would welcome gay people seems like it would upset the bible thumping homo-haters, who are, by and large, conservative... and at this point, people would rather just not piss them off just to avoid the headache of dealing with them...

and that is fear. That is intimidation.

Conservatives are the type of people who just have to tell others how they need to live their lives. They're proactive ones who tell you that you must do this and do that, and not to this and not do that. And should someone ever present a viewpoint that disagrees with their agenda, it's not long before complaints and protest.

Do liberials do it too? Certainly, but Conservative groups do it far more often, are much better at it, and tend to promote cultures of hatred and intolerance.

A good way to start the demise of censorship would be to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in every school in the United States. But that's just my own, lonely, opinion.

What's the big deal with the Ten Commandments, anyway? The Old Testament is still considered valid, yes, but Christians should pay even more attention to the update, a.k.a. New Testament. If there is a definite Christian set of guidelines, it should be the Sermont on the Mount, no?

1.) Having Kerry tell young people that Bush is bringing back the draft? That's fear.

Instead, Bush has simply put a backdoor draft by preventing those whose enlistment is up from leaving the military.

3.) Having Democrats and black leaders telling their "flock" that Bush would set back Black people 40 years, that Black people can't prosper without the current affirmative action programs, that(this was actually said in Philadelphia) that Bush would bring back slavery is playing on fear.

As opposed to republicans in Philly who were circulating fliers in black neighborhoods telling them that if they or any member of their family has so much as an outstanding parking ticket and they try to vote, they will be arrested and their children taken away?

5.) It's "well-meaning liberals" who have frightened the hell out of people with everything from global warming - or is that a new Ice Age? - overpopulation and other environmental "issues" proven to be false.

Source, please.

A good way to start the demise of censorship would be to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in every school in the United States. But that's just my own, lonely, opinion.

An even better way would be to allow the Bill of Rights (with the First Amendment circled in red ink, highlighted, and asterisked) to be posted in every school in the United States instead.

I haven't seen this ad, and I haven't been to a church in quite a long time, so one point confuses me:
Since when did churches start employing bouncers???

Apparently, the only people who aren't allowed in UCC churches are conservatives. Although I hear you can sneak in if you're a black conservative. You just have to shut up and do what you're told. You know, just like the Democratic party.

I haven't seen this ad, and I haven't been to a church in quite a long time, so one point confuses me:
Since when did churches start employing bouncers???

Apparently, the only people who aren't allowed in UCC churches are conservatives. Although I hear you can sneak in if you're a black conservative. You just have to shut up and do what you're told. You know, just like the Democratic party.

Funny. I've read about all these purges and slapdowns of Republicans not following the party line (Arlen Spector being the most dramatic recent example in a long line), but nothing of the like on the Democrat side. Perhaps you're being a bit reflexively partisan?

We don't allow the Ten commandments to be posted in schools because we have (or did have) something called a seperation of church and state.
A list in which the first item is "I am the Lord thy God" is religious.

And while I may "preach" that homosexuality is wrong, I would welcome any gay couple who came to my church.

Sure, you "welcome" them at the same time that you tell them if they don't force themselves to be straight they're going to hell.

Think rationally, for heaven's sakes.

This country elected Bush in 2004. It's hard to be rational in the face of a country devoid of rational thinking.

"An even better way would be to allow the Bill of Rights (with the First Amendment circled in red ink, highlighted, and asterisked) to be posted in every school in the United States instead."

But then you'd have millions of school children asking the question, "Where's the 'separation of church and state' clause?" Want to risk revealing the truth about one of the greatest judicial slight of hands in recent history?

1.) Having Kerry tell young people that Bush is bringing back the draft? That's fear.

Okay, Jerome, it's put-up-or-shut-up time on this one.

I propose a wager -- $100, to be precise. If the draft is reinstated within the next 18 months, you pay to the charitable organization of my choice. If it is NOT reinstated within 18 months, I'll pay to the organization of your choice. (Note that political parties are not charities.)

Determination of what would constitute "a draft" can be made by a group of people here we'd both consider fair judges -- I assume we could find such a group.

I am sufficiently convinced of Bush's goals and the requirements it would take to achieve them that I'm willing to put up the stakes (not an insignificant sum for a teacher with a new baby, I'd point out).

Are you willing to defend your claims with some sort of concrete assurance? Or are you going to just continue trying to rant and rave about this one without being willing to support it?

2.) Having Kerry tell seniors that Bush had a "secret plan" that was going to cost seniors IMMEDIATELY hundreds in their paychecks is playing on fear

Proof that he said this, please? (I also take a lot of issue with claims that Kerry in any way represents liberalism, but that's an entirely different conversation.)

5.) It's "well-meaning liberals" who have frightened the hell out of people with everything from global warming - or is that a new Ice Age? - overpopulation and other environmental "issues" proven to be false.

Proof that said concerns are false, please. Proof not requested, but demanded. Every environmental scientist I know says you're full of crap on this one.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit that both sides can use fear in demagogic ways -- but frankly, you're going so far out of your way to present conservatives as blameless victims that you're coming across as one of Karl Rove's paid lackeys. Not really interested.

Up for the bet, Jerome?

TWL

But then you'd have millions of school children asking the question, "Where's the 'separation of church and state' clause?" Want to risk revealing the truth about one of the greatest judicial slight of hands in recent history?

Then the teacher can point to the establishment clause and explain why our Founder Fathers didn't want to establish a theocracy, show them Jefferson's letters and explain how, based on the doctrine of "original intent" that Scalia loves so much (as long as it conforms to his conservative agenda) resulted in over 200 years of legal precedent protecting our religious institutions from becoming tools of the state.

"A good way to start the demise of censorship would be to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in every school in the United States. But that's just my own, lonely, opinion."

I would be ok with this...as long as you also have up there the 5 Pillars of Islam, a diagram of where chakras can be located, the wiccan rede and a full course on darwinism. I would be perfectly happy with that.

"An even better way would be to allow the Bill of Rights (with the First Amendment circled in red ink, highlighted, and asterisked) to be posted in every school in the United States instead."

But then you'd have millions of school children asking the question, "Where's the 'separation of church and state' clause?" Want to risk revealing the truth about one of the greatest judicial slight of hands in recent history?

The idea of millions of school children actually engaging in debate on whether or not there is a basis for the Separation of Church and State (some using "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as helping define the concept along with the writings of numerous Founding Fathers and legal eagles while others using similar bases to argue against) makes this left-leaning patriot grin with glee.

BTW, about the ad in question ... while I haven't seen the ad itself, my own sense of this particular firestorm is that the networks are being conservative in rejecting it -- but "conservative" in the don't-rock-the-boat sense, not in any sort of political sense.

That also explains why Fox would air it, being the youngest and the least inertia-ridden of the big 4.

I don't think this particular decision is political; there are certainly examples of the networks making very politically biased decisions, but I don't really see this one as one of them.

TWL

We could also have the 180 Tenets of Taoism put up as well which make the Ten Commandments look like Cliff Notes for being nice.
I've been thinking...maybe it isn't fear that separates the Blues & Reds. Maybe it's something even more fundamental:

"Elizabeth Fried, a hair and makeup artist from Chelsea who took advantage of the pet-friendly policy, was sauntering in flip-flops through the store with her Chihuahua, Romeo. Since the store opened, she said, she has bought a light fixture, faucets and a toilet seat, none of which she installed herself.

"We're city people," she said. "Most of the stuff, we don't do ourselves. I can do very little myself. Except spend the money.".....But if the store is to bridge the gap between the self-sufficient and the helpless, it may take some time. Bill McDermott, a transplant from South Dakota who stopped by to pick up supplies for a plastering job in his apartment, took a look around at the power tool section.

"New Yorkers don't know anything about this stuff," he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/fashion/05HOME.html

"Funny. I've read about all these purges and slapdowns of Republicans not following the party line (Arlen Spector being the most dramatic recent example in a long line), but nothing of the like on the Democrat side. Perhaps you're being a bit reflexively partisan?"

You may hear less about purges and slapdowns of Democrats who don't follow the party line because they've already managed to get rid of them. You can be a pro-choice republican and still go far in the party--Guliani, Shwartzenegger, Rice, Powell, etc. Any chance of a pro-life democrat getting pushed as a presidential or vp candidate?

Some big name Republicans are pro-affirmitive action. Who are the major Democrats who are willing to risk losing african-american votes by even discussing ending racial preferences?

Granted, the GOP is not nearly as inclusive as it should be, but the Democrats are not blameless in that regard.

Tim,

If Jerome doesn't take you up on the offer, would you let me?

In return, I promise that the charity I'd pick would be one that we both would agree is worthy--something like Ronald McDonald house. I would not pick one that is overtly religious or conservative in nature. Me, I feel that being proven right is it's own reward anyway, no need to rub someone's face in it (you may of course disagree and if I end up giving $100 to the Atheist Lesbian Society For The Incarceration Of White Republicans I'll only have myself to blame.)

Tim,

PS--it's posts like your one above that make me respect you so much. We may disagree on 80% of the issues (or maybe not) but if push came to shove I'd always have your back.

Sadly, I'm not one of those gun-owning conservatives so it might not do you much good...

Bill,

Let me think about it. I've no doubt you'd pick something relatively inoffensive, but I'm not sure if being able to place the bet with someone is entirely the point.

(And no, I wouldn't pick the ALSftIoWR, though now that you've brought it up I might see if someone here is interested in founding it. :-)

TWL

It's "well-meaning liberals" who have frightened the hell out of people with everything from global warming - or is that a new Ice Age? - overpopulation and other environmental "issues" proven to be false.

Yes, source please. Certainly, CFCs and ozone is a settled matter--hard not to be, when you find the remnants of the molecules AND the process in the stratosphere. Damn near every atmospheric scientist has agreed that global warming is a concern...the only controversy is the extent. What things have been debunked?

Bill,

Which of the two posts above is the one you meant? I need to take note of my respect-gathering skills properly. :-)

(And I doubt we disagree on 80% of the issues. Probably more than 50, but not 80.)

TWL

"5.) It's "well-meaning liberals" who have frightened the hell out of people with everything from global warming - or is that a new Ice Age? - overpopulation and other environmental "issues" proven to be false"

Here's one "well-meaning liberal" that's inviting you to Shishmaref Alaska to tell the people whose village is falling into the sea, that there's no global warming.

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/mcherald/news/nation/6449098.htm

Call it what you want. Call it fear, I don't care much. But at least recognize that not everything human beings do is smart considering we'd like to stay here on the planet for a while.

What always cracks me up about this story on the news is the fact that they point out that their network will not run this ad...

and then they run it in the package.

So... we can't run it, but we'll run it to show you what we can't run.

Looks to me like they're just doing the story so they have an excuse to run it.

"The idea of millions of school children actually engaging in debate on whether or not there is a basis for the Separation of Church and State (some using 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' as helping define the concept along with the writings of numerous Founding Fathers and legal eagles while others using similar bases to argue against) makes this left-leaning patriot grin with glee."

And this conservative Christian would love such a debate as well. The First Amendment and the writings of the Founders speak plainly on the issue.

Peter, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm a Catholic and a Conservative, yet I can hardly recognize what is going on. Like most of America, I don't really want to encourage homosexuality, but nor do I wish to descriminate against it. I also cannot fathom that "JESUS HATES GAYS" is even a message that any resonable person would want to send. It pains me to see Christians acting in a decidedly un-Christian way.

Oh heck: religion + gay = headache, with a dask of television and you have a migraine

And yes I am gay so I say that statement with a lot of knowledge and a lifetime subsription to the nearest chemists! In other words folks: It's happened before (in some way or form) and will happen again! Remember "Ellen" people, and of course we wont get started on "Queer as Folk".

May I suggest it's an ongoing debate/argument/point of interest about what is and isn't shown on television?

Sure, you "welcome" them at the same time that you tell them if they don't force themselves to be straight they're going to hell.

Where, exactly, did I say I believe a gay person is going to hell? My belief, and the belief of a large number of evangelical Christians, is that we get to Heaven because of God's grace, not my living a good life. If someone is a drunk, a drug addict, is promiscuous, or lies all the time, I would also tell them that their actions are harming themselves and others. But I never have said, nor do I believe, they are going to hell because of their actions. So quit putting words in my mouth without knowing what I believe. It is possible to disagree with someone without believing they are going to hell simply because they don't agree with me.

5.) It's "well-meaning liberals" who have frightened the hell out of people with everything from global warming - or is that a new Ice Age? - overpopulation and other environmental "issues" proven to be false.

Proof that said concerns are false, please. Proof not requested, but demanded. Every environmental scientist I know says you're full of crap on this one.

Two of the things mentioned in the original post are mutually contradictory (global warming vs. an ice age), and one of them, over population, is no longer feared like it was 30 years ago. So the demands for his source are beside the point. I can dig up my stuff from the Club of Rome back in the 70's that made a lot of dire predictions that have not come true.

Go read Sunday's issue of Parade magazine and the article by Michael Crichton. He lists a lot of things that we have been told were coming and that never happened. One of them was that the world was going to be overpopulated and there was a coming Ice Age. As late as the early 70's, credible scientists were warning of global cooling, not global warming. And there were A LOT of scientists who believed this was the case. So forgive me if I have a healthy dose of skepticism about global warming. Especially when a volcanic explosion can put an enormous amount of "polutants" in the air. Some think this will lead to more global warming, while others think this actually is "masking" the warming that is taking place.

Bottom line: There is evidence that we have warmed some in the last century. But the evidence is far from conclusive that global warming is the disaster many are predicting. (Note: I am all for cutting back polutants wherever we can. I believe we should be responsible in using our natural resources. It is the "fire and brimstone" warnings that are not yet certain that bother me.)

Jim in Iowa

"Two of the things mentioned in the original post are mutually contradictory (global warming vs. an ice age)"

Well, maybe not. Sounds crazy but it is possible that when the polar ice melts it will set in motion events that will lead to an ice age.

I agree though, that anyone who says they know for sure is blowing smoke. To coin a phrase.

No, Jim, asking Jerome for his sources is not beside the point. He's challenging the science, and as a science teacher I'd frankly like to see what evidence he's got for his claim. (And while you mention a lot of claims, the clear thrust of his point is that "environmental concerns are full of nonsensical fear-mongering" -- and as global warming is the particular case most under discussion, that's the one I focused on.)

"They've been wrong before" is an argument you rejected when I discussed giving women the vote, so I hardly think it stands up to scrutiny here.

And while I'll get around to the Parade issue eventually (it's sitting at home), you'll have to forgive me if my opinion of Michael Crichton, who's made his entire career out of dramatizing the fear of science and the Frankenstein complex, is perhaps not very high.

TWL

I'm just concerned that a message of tolerance... ANY message of tolerance, was rejected. Tolerance pushing is a GOOD thing, REGARDLESS of where it originates.

We live in horribly troubled times. The country is divided and many feel either disenfranchised or outright angry. Can we really afford to ignore or dismiss something, even just an ad, if it promotes something positive? A little could go a long way.

And by the way, dismissing warnings as "not yet certain" goes right back to the discussions of the scientific method which you protested as detracting from "the main point" earlier.

NO prediction can be entirely certain. While I take the main point of your argument, your specific phrasing reflects a poor understanding of how scientific predictions actually work.

The details matter, good sir -- and the phrasing reflects the underlying thought more than most people think.

TWL

And while I'll get around to the Parade issue eventually (it's sitting at home), you'll have to forgive me if my opinion of Michael Crichton, who's made his entire career out of dramatizing the fear of science and the Frankenstein complex, is perhaps not very high.

Good point about Crichton. I would not use his Parade article as a source, just as a list of examples. Many he cites are widely recognized as being overblown hype in the past. I did find his article ironic in light of "The Andromeda Strain" and "Prey" and "Jurrasic Park."

Jim in Iowa

"The idea of millions of school children actually engaging in debate on whether or not there is a basis for the Separation of Church and State (some using 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' as helping define the concept along with the writings of numerous Founding Fathers and legal eagles while others using similar bases to argue against) makes this left-leaning patriot grin with glee."

And this conservative Christian would love such a debate as well. The First Amendment and the writings of the Founders speak plainly on the issue.

Hurm. Just realized how potentially partisan my post could sound. Let me clarify.

My glee isn't at the idea of millions of schoolkids embracing the concept of the Separation of Church and State (although, admittedly, I would hope they would), it's at the idea of our youth engaging in open and (hopefully) civil conversation of the basic tenets of our nation. The thought of kids becoming a more involved and informed citizenry at such an early age is what sets my heart aflutter.

We could also have the 180 Tenets of Taoism put up as well which make the Ten Commandments look like Cliff Notes for being nice.

Hell, while we're at it, we should have Machiavelli's The Prince and Sun Tzu's Art of War while we're at it. Might as well teach kids something about capitalism and the warfare of words. ;)

resulted in over 200 years of legal precedent protecting our religious institutions from becoming tools of the state.

I would also say it's prevented the state from becoming a tool of religious institutions as well. For the most part.

TWL:
Proof that said concerns are false, please. Proof not requested, but demanded. Every environmental scientist I know says you're full of crap on this one.

Oh dear me, I so love throwing people's words back in their faces.

First, as others have pointed out, science cannot "prove" anything. That ain't how the process works.

Just a quick thought for all of you: ever notice how Fox News is known as this bastion of conservative commentary, while Fox's broadcast arm is home to some of the most thoroughly liberal shows on television ("The Simpsons," "Trading Spouses," "The OC"...)?
Has anyone else ever gotten the feeling that Rupert Murdoch is playing one big fat joke on all of us crazy Americans by burning both ends of the candle? How else can you explain the same group being responsible for both Bill O'Reilly and "Temptation Island?"

Simple: Rupert Murdoch is the devil.

Nice try, EClark, but one of the mainstays of the scientific method is that proving a claim false is easy. It's proving a claim true that's impossible. Disproving a claim merely involves finding one counterexample; "proving" one involves showing that it works every single time forever.

For example, the claim "the Earth causes all objects to accelerate away from it" is trivially disprovable, whereas the claim that it causes all objects to accelerate TOWARDS it would involve testing every object ever made.

I'd be a hell of a lousy teacher if I got something that basic wrong on my home subject, now wouldn't I?

TWL

"Hurm. Just realized how potentially partisan my post could sound. Let me clarify.

"My glee isn't at the idea of millions of schoolkids embracing the concept of the Separation of Church and State (although, admittedly, I would hope they would), it's at the idea of our youth engaging in open and (hopefully) civil conversation of the basic tenets of our nation. The thought of kids becoming a more involved and informed citizenry at such an early age is what sets my heart aflutter."

And I agree with you completely!

Any chance of a pro-life democrat getting pushed as a presidential or vp candidate?

If you think the red state republicans will ever stand for Giulliani as the GOP nominee, I've got a bridge I've been looking to unload that might interest you.

That also explains why Fox would air it, being the youngest and the least inertia-ridden of the big 4.

Question: Did Fox actually air the commercial, or did they air a report about how other networks have refused to run it and included the commercial as part of the discussion?

Conservative or liberal, you can't deny the chilling effect of the FCC clampdown. Here in glorious St. Louis, we got to see "Hoosiers" on Veterans Day instead of "Saving Private Ryan" for fear of the FCC.

Now this, from the Associated Press:
***********
In an apparent reversal of decades of U.S. practice, recent federal Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations bar American companies from publishing works by dissident writers in countries under sanction unless they first obtain U.S. government approval.

The restriction, condemned by critics as a violation of the First Amendment, means that books and other works banned by some totalitarian regimes cannot be published freely in the United States, a country that prides itself as the international beacon of free expression.

**********
That means everything from "Reading Lolita in Tehran" to "Dr. Zhivago" would have been ILLEGAL to read in the U.S. Anyone else scared?

I read and I want to respond, I read further and discover that Jim in Iowa has already said what I want to (except for maybe the global warming thing. In terms of percentages, I'm thinking Man has little to do with global warming since you can drive through all the environmental laws you want and a good burp from a volcano will render it all useless. What's the number from National Geographic? We're something under 10% of contributary causes of global warning? So reducing it to 8% isn't going to do anything...)

Jim already covered this, but

"Sure, you "welcome" them at the same time that you tell them if they don't force themselves to be straight they're going to hell."

Umm, no. We're all going to Hell unless God steps in. What we're doing has nothing to do with our destination, only our journey. So a gay man and I are as good as brothers - we're both doomed unless Jesus intervenes and neither of us are worse or better than the other.

To suggest that conservatives "hate homosexuals" is ascribing feelings inaccurately and unjustly.

We're all going to Hell unless God steps in.

Which quite nicely encapsulates why I personally find organized religion of no great worth. Why people find personal solace in a philosophy that says "you're screwed unless someone else steps in to save you" is something I've always found mystifying. If it works for you, great, but I'm in no hurry to sign up.

(And yes, in this case I guess I am referring to Christianity in general, since I don't believe most other faiths have that as a core tenet. I could be wrong there, though.)

TWL

I don't begin to dispute that liberals can be as huge jarheads as anyone. Indeed, anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention has seen me say repeatedly that liberal PC thinking has done as much damage as anything else to the concept of free speech. Furthermore, I think separation of church and state is a joke. Christmas is a Federal holiday and "In God We Trust" is everywhere from on the money to inside Federal courthouses, so who's kidding whom? Accept that this country is going to continue to shove God in your face, keep the Ten Commandments on display and play Christmas music at school concerts, and let's just move on.

But this go-around, considering that it's been conservatives who have used the acceptance as gays as a scare tactic repeatedly for political gain--from gays in the military in order to hobble Clinton to gays in marriage in order to make sure conservative Bush supporters come out to vote (what, you think anti-gay initiatives just happened to appear in eleven states?)--the conservatives GOP can credit this round of fear all for themselves. Just as the GOP leaders have kept America in a constant state of fear for their very lives for the last three years. And all the "Yeah? Well so's your mother!" responses aren't going to change that.

PAD

But this go-around, considering that it's been conservatives who have used the acceptance as gays as a scare tactic repeatedly for political gain--from gays in the military in order to hobble Clinton to gays in marriage in order to make sure conservative Bush supporters come out to vote (what, you think anti-gay initiatives just happened to appear in eleven states?)--the conservatives GOP can credit this round of fear all for themselves. Just as the GOP leaders have kept America in a constant state of fear for their very lives for the last three years. And all the "Yeah? Well so's your mother!" responses aren't going to change that.

PAD,

Did I miss it? Did any of the networks actually say that they did not run this BECAUSE of fear of conservatives who support the marriage ammendment? I suggest this is your *opinion* and that there are no actual facts to prove it. If a clearly conservative network, Fox News, chooses to run the ad, I find your opinion to lack any weight. That, of course, is my opinion.

Jim in Iowa

I would also say it's prevented the state from becoming a tool of religious institutions as well. For the most part.

That's the beauty of the separation of church and state that Jefferson so strongly believed in: It works both ways. When church and state become intertwined, you have inquisitions and witch hunts. When they're kept separate, religion is free to provide comfort for those that seek it without coercion while the state is kept out of the thought police business.

Jim,

Again I'll ask: Did Fox News air the ad as and advertisement or did they run it as part of a story about other networks' refusal to run it?

Again I'll ask: Did Fox News air the ad as and advertisement or did they run it as part of a story about other networks' refusal to run it?

I read in a news report, but can't find it right now, that they actually accepted the ad to run as a regular advertisement. Not sure if it has actually run yet or not. I don't get cable, so I wouldn't see it anyways.

Jim in Iowa

Here is what I found:

"The church says the ad has been accepted on a number of other networks, including ABC Family, BET Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, TBS and TNT."

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/01/news/fortune500/jesus_ad_ban/

Jim in Iowa

"The church says the ad has been accepted on a number of other networks, including ABC Family, BET Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, TBS and TNT."

So, ABC won't air it on its regular network, but will on its family network?

Let's look at tonight's lineup and see if ABC is really scared of this ad getting conservatives up in arms:

7pm: Full House
8pm: Five People You Meet In Heaven
11pm: 700 Club

Hmmm, doesn't look like its conservatives ABC is fearful of.....

Okay, that's what I wanted to know. Fox News airing the ad as a paid advertisement at least shows that they don't have any policy against religious ads. Maybe they feel comfortable in their market position not worry about things like that.

Or maybe, as I'd suspect, Rupert Murdoch would air a human sacrifice if he thought it would get ratings.

Rupert Murdoch would air human sacrifice if it would earn him money. Murdoch is the Gary Groth of TVland...he'll use his news arm to bash conservative values into America's head while using his entertainment arm to fund it all, exploiting anything he can. Fox is the channel that airs Simpsons, Married With Children, America's Naughtiest Police Chases and Temptation Island. Fox glories in the decline of morals, Fox News protests the same decline. He's making money from everyone, and he's not even American!

Jim thank you for finaly putting down into words my problem with your religion: "we get to Heaven because of God's grace, not my living a good life"
As long as you sign that loyality pledge, you get through the Pearly Gates, huh? I support you believing this. I do. It gives you comfort, and that's the whole point of religion. And Peter David's blog isn't the place to debate it.

So I saw the ad last night while watching MASH on Hallmark. I didn't think much, other than wondering why the Mormons were advertising as being the opening inclusive church. (Isn't the Church of Christ the Mormons? Or am I confusing them with someone else).

The Mormons are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If the organization that made that ad refers to themselves as simply The Church of Christ, then they're not the Mormons. I've seen loads of TV ads the Mormons have put on TV and they've always ended with, "This message was brought to you by the Mormans, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

Ah..then I was confused...the commercial still sucked.

Re: Blaming Conservatives or Liberals:

I think both sides should look in the mirror, for both sides are equally to blame.

Jim thank you for finaly putting down into words my problem with your religion: "we get to Heaven because of God's grace, not my living a good life"

As long as you sign that loyality pledge, you get through the Pearly Gates, huh? I support you believing this. I do. It gives you comfort, and that's the whole point of religion. And Peter David's blog isn't the place to debate it.

I would not call it a loyalty pledge. I would say I have entered into a relationship with a person. As such, it is not a "game" of trying to do good, but my actions come out of a love for the person to whom I am committed. I am not faithful to my wife because I am following a printed list of rules. I am faithful to my wife because I love her and don't want to do anything that would cause her harm or sorrow. The same is true in my relationship with God.

I am curious: Why do you see that as nailing your problem with religion? Not trying to debate your view, just curious about it.

Jim in Iowa

Jim, I believe I made the same comment about "the problem with religion" earlier in the thread.

If someone's faith says that being saved has nothing to do with how good a person you were in life and everything to do with one particular act of ... well, you don't like "loyalty", so let's try "love" ... then it's a faith that frankly mystifies me, and not in good ways. It suggests that Bishop Desmond Tutu and the Zodiac killer both have equal chances to be saved so long as they make that one last Hail-Mary pass at the closing moments. I think that's ill-advised.

I'm a pretty clear-cut atheist ... but if there WERE a god, I'd like to think he/she/it would care a lot more about someone being a good and decent person who tries to make a difference in the world and a lot less about one particular administrative hoop being jumped through or not jumped through. My god, were there one, would be more results-oriented and less bureaucratic.

I can't speak for the previous poster, but I hope that gives you a little more insight into my views, at least.

TWL

Nice try, EClark, but one of the mainstays of the scientific method is that proving a claim false is easy.

So now you're saying you CAN prove a negative? After pointing out that science can't prove anything?

Which is it Tim? Either it can or it can't.

bill mulligan says:

"Funny. I've read about all these purges and slapdowns of Republicans not following the party line (Arlen Spector being the most dramatic recent example in a long line), but nothing of the like on the Democrat side. Perhaps you're being a bit reflexively partisan?"

You may hear less about purges and slapdowns of Democrats who don't follow the party line because they've already managed to get rid of them. You can be a pro-choice republican and still go far in the party--Guliani, Shwartzenegger, Rice, Powell, etc. Any chance of a pro-life democrat getting pushed as a presidential or vp candidate?"

its not Pres or VP yet, but would you be willing to consider senator Harry Reid?

he's a mormom, he's pro-life.

and he's replacing Tom Daschle as Senate Minority leader.

I was probably somewhat unclear; apologies for that.

[Pedant mode on]

For something to be considered a legitimate scientific hypothesis, it must make testable predictions -- and "testable" in this sense means that there's a way one would knock the idea down. For example, the statement "there is intelligent life off Earth" is not a testable prediction, because the only way to disprove it is to look everywhere in the universe over alltime.

One particular unified theory of physics predicts that the proton is not entirely stable, but has a half-life somewhere in the range of 10**32 years or so. That IS a testable prediction; get a whole ton'o'protons together and look for decays over a period of time. Over time, the lack of decays would strongly suggest that your model needs revising.

So science cannot prove anything as "true"; the best we can do is say something is confirmed by all the evidence to date. With enough evidence mounting, people tend to accept a particular notion as "good enough" to be confirmed fact -- hence Newtonian mechanics, natural selection, general relativity, etc., are all considered as close to unshakable as anything in science gets.

However, Jerome's claim was that certain ideas (global warming) had been invalidated. Invalidating a hypothesis is easy -- it can potentially be as easy as finding a single counterexample, and certainly a whole set of them gets the scientific community to say "er, that model there needs some significant changes."

Therefore, if the model's been invalidated someone must have found clear-cut evidence against it -- in that sense, it's "proving" the model is invalid. My request was therefore legitimate, and as yet unanswered.

[Pedant mode off]

If anyone feels I've misrepresented things (especially those who gave great explanations upthread), feel free to jump in.

In sum:

Proving a prediction (and thus a theory) true = impossible, since a counterexample could always lurk around the next bend.
Proving a prediction (and thus a theory) false = very possible, by finding a single counterexample.
My statement to Jerome = valid, though the phrasing clearly invited equally valid questions.
EClark's understanding of the scientific process = limited.
EClark's interest in understanding said process in comparison to trying to score debate points = well, I'll let others judge that one.

(I'm all in favor of throwing people's words right back at them ... but when I do it, I first tend to make sure that I'm actually, y'know, correct.)

And as for "either it can or it can't" ... I realize you live in a binary world where everything is black/white, night/day, right/wrong, "with us"/"against us", but most of us live in a world with a lot more ... gee, am I allowed to use the word "nuance" nowadays?

TWL

Tim Lynch wrote...
Invalidating a hypothesis is easy -- it can potentially be as easy as finding a single counterexample, and certainly a whole set of them gets the scientific community to say "er, that model there needs some significant changes."

Well said. I'd just like to emphasize the bit about "a whole set of them" getting the attention of the scientific community.

If one study is conducted that seems to indicate that global warming is not, in fact, a threat, the scientific isn't going to get too worked up when they look at the one thousand (I pulled that number out of my ass, I have no idea how many actual studies have been done) studies that suggest global warming is dangerous.

A scientific statement is only going to be taken seriously if it's been reliably replicated by other scientists around the world. Otherwise it could be a freak result of poor experimental design, or just plain old chance.

Good point, Jeff.

While evolution/creation hasn't really come up here, your "whole set of them" comment calls a story to mind.

One thing creationists love to do is say that "lots of scientists" are backing them up in their attacks on evolutionary theory. On more than one occasion they've published lists saying "here are dozens of scientists who disagree with evolution." They leave out that most of them are in fields wildly separate from biology.

Well, the biologist community decided to answer in kind, and published "The Steve List", named in honor of the late Stephen Jay Gould. This list was all the scientists *named Steve* (or Steven, Stephen, Stefan, etc.) who support evolution, and it vastly outnumbers all of the creationist lists.

Obviously the validity of one theory over another has nothing to do with a popularity contest, but it struck me as a wildly amusing PR stunt that brought the "we've got dozens! Dozens, I tell you!" claim into clearer focus.

If anyone's curious to see it, you can head over to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp . Enjoy.

TWL

Tim Lynch wrote...
If anyone's curious to see it, you can head over to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp. Enjoy. [hotlink added by me]

I did! That's pretty funny stuff, I'd never heard of the project before. It's sad that they felt the need to call psychologists "borderline" scientists, but unfortunately I can't completely disagree with the statement. Thanks for the link.

My pleasure. (And given the large number of psychologists in the maternal line of my family, I've personally got NO problem with the characterization given. :-)

TWL

Adam says:
"its not Pres or VP yet, but would you be willing to consider senator Harry Reid"

Good point. I'll be curious to see whether Reid has to modify his position during the inevitable upcoming Supreme Court fights.

Someone upthread said something about offering to sell me a bridge if I think that Red Staters will support Guliani. I say--dismiss the possibility at you peril. All he has to say is that he will appoint judges without a pro-choice litmus test and he will almost certainly be a more desireable choice than the likely Democrat candidate.

I dunno, Bill. All a primary opponent has to do is point out that Rudy lived with a gay couple during his divorce proceedings, and an awful lot of "cultural conservatives" will start having serious qualms.

All my guess, of course -- but having dealt with Rudy back when he was just a rotten prosecutor instead of a rotten pseudo-dictatorial mayor, I have a lot of difficulty seeing him going too much further. (Then again, I didn't think much of my chances of seeing my current home governed by Ahnold, so make of my gut feels what you will.)

TWL

Someone upthread said something about offering to sell me a bridge if I think that Red Staters will support Guliani. I say--dismiss the possibility at you peril. All he has to say is that he will appoint judges without a pro-choice litmus test and he will almost certainly be a more desireable choice than the likely Democrat candidate.

Please, he'll get hammered on abortion, adultery, and living with a gay couple and never make it past the Iowa caucus.

Please, he'll get hammered on abortion, adultery, and living with a gay couple and never make it past the Iowa caucus.

If a lot of ideologues aren't being hypocritical.

We'll see about that...

Proving a prediction (and thus a theory) true = impossible, since a counterexample could always lurk around the next bend.
Proving a prediction (and thus a theory) false = very possible, by finding a single counterexample.
My statement to Jerome = valid, though the phrasing clearly invited equally valid questions.
EClark's understanding of the scientific process = limited.
EClark's interest in understanding said process in comparison to trying to score debate points = well, I'll let others judge that one.

I'm not a scientist, granted, so naturally, my understanding of the "scientific process" is limited. That said, in the previous thread there was no need to "attack" my use of the word "proof" when here you are in this thread using the word in a similar manner you just criticised me for.

When I attempted to clarify my use of the word, you criticized me for that as well:
Sounds like that how the process works to me. And since 'proof" is nothing more than a collection of evidence gathered by one or more of the means listed in the above definition of "science", and sufficient enough to convince others of a particular belief.

Yet, here you are again saying something similar.
So science cannot prove anything as "true"; the best we can do is say something is confirmed by all the evidence to date. With enough evidence mounting, people tend to accept a particular notion as "good enough" to be confirmed fact

And as for "either it can or it can't" ... I realize you live in a binary world where everything is black/white, night/day, right/wrong, "with us"/"against us", but most of us live in a world with a lot more ... gee, am I allowed to use the word "nuance" nowadays?

Hmm, how about this? You're somewhere between "an arrogant conceited bastard and a bonafied prick." That "nuanced" enough for you?

Oooo, that might get me shrouded. Oh well. que sera sera.

I'm not a scientist, granted, so naturally, my understanding of the "scientific process" is limited. That said, in the previous thread there was no need to "attack" my use of the word "proof" when here you are in this thread using the word in a similar manner you just criticised me for.

Um, no.

Sorry, but there was every reason to continue to correct your mis-use of the term, PARTICULARLY when you blew off the corrections as mere semantics.

And it's quite apparent to me that you're not trying to understand the "nuances", which are vital to the scientific process you are misunderstanding and make a hell of an impact on the policy decisions that rely on the science. If you're not sweating the "small stuff", then you're gonna have a disaster on your hands later down the line--being sloppy just isn't going to cut it.

This country elected Bush in 2004. It's hard to be rational in the face of a country devoid of rational thinking.

No, that would have been if Kerry won. (One hyperbolic ad hominem attack deserves another.) Actually, if the nation were devoid of rational thinking, that would mean that neither Bush nor Kerry voters were rational, beacuse there were a heck of a lot of both of them.

I propose a wager -- $100, to be precise. If the draft is reinstated within the next 18 months, you pay to the charitable organization of my choice. If it is NOT reinstated within 18 months, I'll pay to the organization of your choice. (Note that political parties are not charities.)

I'm in. In fact, I'll go further. If there is a draft at any time in Bush's entire second term, I'll cough up, and you don't have to pay me anything if I'm right. I ask only one escape clause: if a war breaks out with another nuclear power, maybe we might see a draft. But any draft as a result of Bush Administration policy triggers my payment.

Then the teacher can point to the establishment clause and explain why our Founder Fathers didn't want to establish a theocracy, show them Jefferson's letters and explain how, based on the doctrine of "original intent" that Scalia loves so much (as long as it conforms to his conservative agenda) resulted in over 200 years of legal precedent protecting our religious institutions from becoming tools of the state.

Jefferson's "original intent" is irrelevant to the Constitution, as he was not involved in its creation. My believe is that his original intent was to defeat ratification, at least in the absence of a Bill of Rights, an initiative he fortunately couldn't join because he was posted in Paris at the time. The term "separation of church and state" and the wall metaphor come from one of Jefferson's letters, as you suggest. (The term was actually coined by someone else but popularized by Jefferson.) But considering that the letter was from Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican, to a New England church that was ardently Federalist, urging them to remain neutral in the upcoming election, there is just the slightest chance that Jefferson had an ulterior motive.

This is the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, after all.

Yes, it is a sad day in the USA. While I try not to be a controversy-monger, I do maintain a website, Sites Unseen , that is a safe place for alternative Christian websites. I have found over 3,000, and if my 40,000 plus visitors over the past year and a half prove anything, its that there is a spiritual voice in this country that's crying to be heard.

I do believe that Jesus Christ is at home with and within the marganlized and the outcasts of polite society. But I realize that I--and we--are in the minority of ChristianRightAmerica. I have absolutely no problem with political conservatism as one viable governance option among many, but as a lifelong Christian I've seen how it can be particularly odious when people of faith start amassing power and influence in ways that Jesus specifically warns His followers against.

And so I pray...I pray for an alternative community of Christ-worshippers--and other peoples of goodwill--to emerge, and challenge this current hegemony with nonviolent love.

An interesting aside in all of this alleged semantic-quibbling.

As some of you know, I spent a lot of time online for about ... eesh, fifteen years ... doing commentary on the various Trek series. During that time, there were naturally moments where I wound up commenting on particularly egregious misuses of science (especially gratuitous ones that were there only to provide a plot point and not ones that had been created back in the original series).

I was, and am, continually amazed by the number of people (and I am NOT referring to anyone here) who respond to such criticism with something along the lines of "well, sure that matters to you, you're a scientist" as if an understanding of science is irrelevant to everyone else.

My sense has always been that if you don't at least understand the scientific process in enough detail that your scientist characters sound plausible, you should avoid writing such characters.

Nobody says, "Well, it's okay if Writer X doesn't know how cops actually behave; he/she can write them anyway and be convincing." To me, misrepresenting scientists is the same type of problem as misrepresenting any other type of profession -- it's bad characterization and bad writing.

(And I realize that's not the same as getting a particular detail wrong. There's a reason the former drew a lot more annoyed comments from me than the latter.)

I realize it's a little (okay, more than a little) presumptuous of me to be posturing about writing when I'm on PAD's site here, but I'd certainly be curious to hear his (or other writers') thoughts on the matter if he happens to be reading this far downthread.

TWL

The United Church of Christ should change it's name to the United Church of Apostasy.

Tim Lynch,
First, glad to see you back in the thick of things around here. You always add substance and insight to the discussions here, even if I usually disagree with you.
Second, I accept your offer. If there is a military draft instated by June 30,2006 I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. If, instead, we wake up on July 1, 2006 and the Bush Administration has not reinstated a military draft, you donate $100 to the charity of my choice.
I choose $50 to the USO and $50 to ACTOR (A Commitment To Our Roots), which helps the strugling writers and artists who helped build the comic book industry and who largely have been unable to share in the rewards for their work to be able to hold on to their homes, pay for medicine and health care and other things.

"Determination of what would constitute "a draft" can be made by a group of people here we'd both consider fair judges - I assume we could find such a group."

I nominate Bill Mulligan and David Bjorlin to be on this "judges panel".

" I am sufficiently convnced of Bush's goals and the requirements it would take to achieve them that I'm willing to put up the stakes."

And I am convinced that the military and Administration soooo don't WANT a draft and will use other means (increasing troop pay, etc.) to increase ranks if necessary, I am willing to do the same.)

"Are you willing to defend your claims with some sort of concrete assurance?"

Yes, and it would have been nice for you to end wth that statement.

"Or are you going to rant and rave about this one without being willing to support it."

Instead of this. It was simply a cheap shot and unnecessary.
Will address your other points shortly, and I DO mean that. So much so, that I will give you my e-mail address so we could possibly continue long after this thread is no longer a subject on this board.
It is jeromemaida@hotmail.com.

Rob S.,
REALLY tired and REALLY need to get to bed, but I just had to respond to this.

YOU SAID:

"Umm, no. We're all going to hell unless God steps in. What we're doing has nothing to do with our destination...we're both doomed unless Jesus intervenes."

You know, I was raised catholic and am currently agnostic, but I strongly believe it is this kind of thinking and belief that, at best annoys people and turns them off to religion and at worst scares the hell out of them and loks at al religious people as being from another planet.
This whole idea that "you can't get into heaven through good deeds" but "only by accepting Jesus."
Well, it strikes me as accepting a God who doesn't care what you do for OTHERS but only for HIM. I look at that and hear that and I just feel that if Jesus/God truly accepts people into His kingdom on that basis, then he must be pretty selfish.
Me, I try to live by the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
That would seem to be a good way to enter the kingdom of a benevolent god, be he Jesus, Mohammed, or whoever else.
f I'm wrong.."Oh, well.guess I'm going to h....

UMMMMMM maybe folks you could all agree to disagree?

Jefferson's "original intent" is irrelevant to the Constitution, as he was not involved in its creation.

Not directly, but his writings were just as influential in its formation as the Federalist papers. Without the anti-Federalists, of whom he was considered one of the leaders, we would never have had the Bill of Rights.

Oooo, that might get me shrouded.

Not sure why you'd think that. The only time Peter's actually shrouded people is after they've made highly derogatory comments about his wife or his marriage (at least so far as I remember). Given that I'm not married to PAD (for which I imagine all sides are quite thankful), I can't see why you simply sending an insult or two my way would even make the shrouding antennae tingle.

TWL

Jerome,

I accept your offer. If there is a military draft instated by June 30,2006 I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. If, instead, we wake up on July 1, 2006 and the Bush Administration has not reinstated a military draft, you donate $100 to the charity of my choice.

Accepted, and thank you. Before we finalize this, though, it would probably be useful for us both to come up with a common definition on what constitutes a draft. That means the "judges' panel" only has to see if the circumstances meet that definition, not come up with one and impose it on us. We'll have to work on that shortly.

I will admit that I'm somewhat surprised to see you take up this particular challenge: I'd considered it unlikely. Kudos for that.

I nominate Bill Mulligan and David Bjorlin to be on this "judges panel".

Agreed, though I think I'd like a third person as well given that the other two both wanted to take up the bet alongside you. :-) I do trust their judgements in this matter, but it'd be nice to have someone else. Would Roger Tang be a satisfactory choice?

As for the e-mail address -- appreciated, but given the massive (and I mean *massive*) pile of e-mail in my "to be answered" box on a routine basis, I suspect the conversation's going to be here or nowhere.

TWL

Tim,
1.)Roger Tang is more than acceptable. We might want to include Luigi Novi as well, to balance things out.

2.) The e-mail address was to prove I'm serious and also in case one of us (or both) take a hiatus from this board for a while. We both have in the past year. Believe me, my Inbox is not exactly empty.

3.) Do the two organizations I chose meet your criteria of charities?

4.) I am more than looking forward to answering the rest of your questions/challenges/rebuttals from your post, and will attempt to do so later today.

If someone's faith says that being saved has nothing to do with how good a person you were in life and everything to do with one particular act of ... well, you don't like "loyalty", so let's try "love" ... then it's a faith that frankly mystifies me, and not in good ways. It suggests that Bishop Desmond Tutu and the Zodiac killer both have equal chances to be saved so long as they make that one last Hail-Mary pass at the closing moments. I think that's ill-advised.

In essence, you are right. They both have an equal chance. However, I have a question: Exactly how much would the Zodiac killer have to do to truly redeem himself? Would he need 10 months? Ten years? Is redemption really available for everyone?

I have another question: How good a life must you live? What is the standard? The Bible teaches that the standard is perfection, not just having your good works out weigh your bad. For the moment lets assume that is the standard. Under that system, Bishop Tutu may live a better life, but he still falls short of the standard. So it really doesn't matter in that regard how "good" a life he does or doesn't live. It takes an act of God to save either of them.

Finally, I would take issue with one part of what you said. I do not believe either is saved by simply making a last minute statement of "oh, I'm sorry, please save me." It is an actual commitment to a person. God, I believe, knows the heart, and so he would be able to know the motivation and sincerity of the person. Most hardened murderers may not want to die, but they generally do not truly put their trust in God at the end. They are still trying to work things out in their own power.

(Ironically enough, the Bible has a story that demonstrates both sides. When Jesus is crucified, two theives are also executed on either side. One repents, and Jesus says he will be with him in paradise. The other does not and continues to mock Jesus.)

I'm a pretty clear-cut atheist ... but if there WERE a god, I'd like to think he/she/it would care a lot more about someone being a good and decent person who tries to make a difference in the world and a lot less about one particular administrative hoop being jumped through or not jumped through. My god, were there one, would be more results-oriented and less bureaucratic.

I can understand your point. My problem with it is that if God was truly just, then sin needs to be dealt with. Why should God just "wave his hand" and say that the fact that a person was nice for 20 years will undo the fact that he raped two women? How is that really justice? Salvation by "grace alone" is not a matter of jumping through one administrative hoop. It is a matter of recognizing that we are beyond our ability to save ourselves, so we ask for help.

Furthermore, salvation is not just about going to live in a nice place. Salvation is about having a relationship with God. I do think that God cares about how we live and treat our fellow man. But why should he let us into an eternity with him if we don't even care about him?

Salvation by grace does not mean or actually encourage someone to do harm to others and then just pray a quick prayer before they die. God does care about how we treat others, and how we act does have an impact both now and in eternity.

I can't speak for the previous poster, but I hope that gives you a little more insight into my views, at least.

It does. I don't expect you to agree with me, but hopefully I have clearly explained my perspective on this matter.

Jim in Iowa

The United Church of Christ should change it's name to the United Church of Apostasy.

Novafan, that is uncalled for. Whether you or I agree with their theology or with their ad is beside the point in this debate and on this thread. The reality is some networks refused to play a religious ad, and they should be held accountable as to why. There is no reason they should have refused this one.

Jim in Iowa

Jerome,

1.)Roger Tang is more than acceptable. We might want to include Luigi Novi as well, to balance things out.

If you'd like, though I think three will do. Of course, this also contingent on the 3-4 of them accepting the job.

3.) Do the two organizations I chose meet your criteria of charities?

Absolutely. The only criterion I'd set down is that they not be political parties, and I'm pretty sure those both qualify in that regard. :-) Truth be told, I haven't even thought of what mine would be (Bill's suggestion aside) -- I figure I've got 18 months to figure it out.

Back to work...

TWL

I'm flattered that both sides find me acceptable. I agree with Tim that you two need to define what a draft is--I'm assuming we mean something along the lines of people who were civilians suddenly finding themselves in army fatigues with semi-comical "WTF?" expressions on their faces.

I'll be feasting on some generous helpings of crow if this happens, expecially in the next 18 months--it would pretty much ensure big Democrat gains in the 2006 elections, don't you think? I'd see Bush just leaving Iraq rather than resort to a draft. But I guess we'll see.

You realize that they're already doing it, right? In addition to extending the stays of people already there yet again, they're conscripting people who served thirty, forty years ago. I'm waiting for John Kerry to be called up to serve.

PAD

PAD:

>You realize that they're already doing it, right? In addition to extending the stays of people already there yet again, they're conscripting people who served thirty, forty years ago. I'm waiting for John Kerry to be called up to serve.

It has been all over the news as of late. There is actually a lawsuit ongoing against the government..... initiated by 3 people fitting the description you've described. On one of the primetime news shows last week, I almost fell over when they interviewed a man. When they did a close-up of his face, all I could think of was the greatest generation and my grandfather. The guy must have been 60+ years old.

Fred

Yep, the "back-door draft" is in full effect. I wonder if those servicemen will win their lawsuit to avoid the backdoor draft...

In addition to extending the stays of people already there yet again

There's another story here in Colorado of a woman who, after serving 8 years and receiving her discharge papers back in May, has been called up.

Apparently she forgot (or, according to her, wasn't told) to resign her commission. Not that I think it would stop the military anyways.

She's suing. Hope she wins.

Which reminds me of the article in The Onion where Bush stated that he was going to now fulfill his National Guard commitment. Wouldn't it be nice to have Bush go to Iraq to serve in the Reserves? Fair justice.

Which reminds me of the article in The Onion where Bush stated that he was going to now fulfill his National Guard commitment. Wouldn't it be nice to have Bush go to Iraq to serve in the Reserves? Fair justice.

Of course, it would have to be deferred until his job as Commander in Chief is done. Assuming that would not count towards his service, he could start in 4 years. Of course, he would then have a stronger incentive to get out before 2008!

Jim in Iowa

Of course, I meant "get out of Iraq" in my last post.

Jim in Iowa

PAD says:
"In addition to extending the stays of people already there yet again, they're conscripting people who served thirty, forty years ago. I'm waiting for John Kerry to be called up to serve."

Could someone direct me to some link about this? I'm having a hard time understanding how this is working. The woman mentioned above supposedly made the mistake of not resigning after her discharge so she was still technically eligible. Are you saying that guys who served 30, 40 years ago and have been out of the military ever since are being suddenly called up?

Bill Mulligan wrote...
Could someone direct me to some link about this?

I've been hearing the recent talk of this too, but it was on TV and damned if I can remember which (Canadian) network I heard it on. I was unable to dig up anything recent on the major news station websites (which tend to be a mess if you want archived stuff), but here is a link from way back in June. At FOX News, no less.

Of course, I want to see a current link just as much as I'm sure you do, so hopefully someone can find one.

Mere minutes later...
I managed to find a good Google search string and found this article at CBS.

It basically refers to the soldiers in question as "semi-retired" and mentions a clause in their contracts that many of them didn't even know about.

Gee, maybe if I formatted my links correctly...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/03/60minutes/main658994.shtml

A few thoughts. I don't think this is necessarily a good idea, but from having a brother as an elisted part of the military, and two close friends who are officers, I have a few thoughts.

1.) I am not in the military but I knew about this clause. While the government may not have gone to any effort to warn those leaving active service it was a possibility, it was clearly there. Not to defend the military, but this is also a rather obscure rule that few thought would apply on this scale. So while it would stink for those called up, it was not a deep secret that they suddenly pulled out of nowhere.

2.) Some being called up chose to keep their commission active because of other benefits. I don't understand how it works, and I realize they did not dream this would happen, but some being called up now chose to not resign their commission.

3.) From the bigger picture, I suspect this is not the best move. I supported and still support the war, but doing something like this will neither win friends nor lead to the best force we could put on the ground over there. While it is legal, it is bad in terms of public relations and troop morale. Those currently in active service who have their terms extended are one thing. That is the "gamble" you take for being a National Guard or serviceman in the first place. But for those who are completely out, I would agree that for them this a "back door" draft and do not support it.

Jim in Iowa

This link isn't quite the same as the story in question, but it's certainly along very similar lines. It's from the PIttsburgh Post-Gazette in mid-November.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04319/411224.stm

TWL

Just out of curiosity: How many of you here in this thread who find it so irresistible to comment on the possibilities of a draft, and how unfair it is, have actually served in any military capacity?

My hand is raised. Any others?

Jefferson's "original intent" is irrelevant to the Constitution, as he was not involved in its creation.

Not directly, but his writings were just as influential in its formation as the Federalist papers. Without the anti-Federalists, of whom he was considered one of the leaders, we would never have had the Bill of Rights

By this logic, John Milton and James Harrington's original intents are relevant to the body of the Constitution, because their writings were absolutely crucial to the development of American constitutional thought. And they played every bit as much role in the crafting of the thing as Jefferson, which is to say, none.

I'm not sure it's fair to call Jefferson a leader of the Anti-Federalists. In fact, I'm confident it isn't, which is why I hedged my comment earlier. Jefferson was 3000 miles away during the ratification process, and Madison spent a voluminous correspondence persuading Jefferson to remain neutral or supportive about the proposed Constitution, and Jefferson essentially sat it out from his position in Paris. I do agree with your underlying assumption, that Jefferson would have opposed the Constitution had he been here to join in the fray; he certainly withheld his blessing until he had assurances from enough people to believe that a Bill of Rights was inevitable.

I'm flattered to be invited to join the judging committee. I do think we have to define draft to be the conscription of persons from civilian life, not the "backdoor draft" PAD mentioned. Agreed?

but this is also a rather obscure rule that few thought would apply on this scale

What a surprise.

I'm flattered that anyone would think I would remember the terms of this for any time length over 30 seconds.....

"back door draft" = bad for morale. bad BAD policy, I think, as a lot of folks out of it for a long time aren't trained, haven't kept themselves in fighting fitness and will be much more likely to get themselves killed or, worse, their fellow soldiers killed.

"Just out of curiosity: How many of you here in this thread who find it so irresistible to comment on the possibilities of a draft, and how unfair it is, have actually served in any military capacity?

My hand is raised. Any others?"

One term, USAF HQ SAC/XOXPC, dually assigned to JSTPS/JPPPC, as a SIOP Programmer/Analyst (and does anyone really care what all the alphabet soup means? If you are interested, I can explain - it's not classified or anything...).

I volunteered to support and defend my Constitution and my country. I deeply believe, however, that conscription is morally wrong, very nearly the equal of slavery. If a nation cannot defend itself through citizen volunteers, perhaps it has outlived its usefulness (see also USSR).

BTW, while we're on the topic, did I miss the occasion when Congress declared war on Iraq? I keep hearing about "wartime sacrifices" and "wartime rules" and such, but the last I heard, Bush had used his authority as Commander-in-Chief to order the troops into Iraq - an invasion, and perhaps even an act of war, but not a formal declaration. Congress has to do that. Did they?

If a nation cannot defend itself through citizen volunteers, perhaps it has outlived its usefulness (see also USSR).

Damn, then we should have let the Nazis overrun the United Kingdom, because it was hanging on by its fingernails even with a massive draft. Our bad.

BTW, while we're on the topic, did I miss the occasion when Congress declared war on Iraq? I keep hearing about "wartime sacrifices" and "wartime rules" and such, but the last I heard, Bush had used his authority as Commander-in-Chief to order the troops into Iraq - an invasion, and perhaps even an act of war, but not a formal declaration. Congress has to do that. Did they?

Yes. Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq 16 October 2002. John Kerry voted for it. The joint resolution 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. It didn't use the magic words "war" or "declare," but neither did Korea or Vietnam, and whom are we trying to kid?

Thanks for the links folks. PAD's reply had left me with the impression that any former member of the armed forces could be dragooned off to fight, leaving me wonder if my father would be eligible (and while my Dad is one of the All Time Great Guys, if there ever comes a time that the army says they need him for the war, I'm investing heavily in Iraqi war bonds).

So while we worry about the fact that networks that routinely reject religious ads also reject one that features people that may be homosexual, France seems to be trying for some balance on the other side:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=591175

"France moved yesterday towards the creation of a new law which would make sexist or homophobic comments illegal and forbid job discrimination against homosexuals."

"If the bill is passed, anyone found guilty of making such remarks, verbally or in writing, would risk a one-year prison sentence and a fine of up €45,000 (£31,000). The law, which would make penalties against homophobia and sexism stronger in France than almost any other EU nation, has been pushed very strongly by President Jacques Chirac."

Amazing...

TallestFanEver: Yet another entry from "PAD's Recliner of Rage", eh? I really have nothing to contribute, I just wanted to make a "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" reference for a little levity. First person who can name where that comes from wins a cookie!
Luigi Novi: As a huge Conan fan, someone who was present at a taping through one of the sketch writer/actors who invited me, and who made a caricature of Conan and Andy Richter as Laurel and Hardy that he left there (no, I didn’t meet him, so I had to leave it for him with the security office), I can safely say:

Pierre Bernard, whose little title card graphic caricature that accompanies his bit has way more hair than he himself does. :-)

Tim Lynch: One thing creationists love to do is say that "lots of scientists" are backing them up in their attacks on evolutionary theory. On more than one occasion they've published lists saying "here are dozens of scientists who disagree with evolution." They leave out that most of them are in fields wildly separate from biology.
Luigi Novi: Or, they confuse genuine debate within the field of evolutionary biology regarding the mechanism of natural selection (i.e.: those like Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins advocating gradualism vs. Niles Eldredge, Stephen Jay Gould, etc. pushing punctuated equilibrium) with debate on whether evolution itself exists.

Tim Lynch: I was, and am, continually amazed by the number of people (and I am NOT referring to anyone here) who respond to such criticism with something along the lines of "well, sure that matters to you, you're a scientist" as if an understanding of science is irrelevant to everyone else.
Luigi Novi: As an aspiring illustrator working for a market research company, I can say that it matters to me, particularly those instances where the slipup is avoidable/unnecessary, but then, I guess those same people would respond that “well, sure it matters to you, you have a layman’s interest in science.”

Jerome Maida: Roger Tang is more than acceptable. We might want to include Luigi Novi as well, to balance things out.

Tim Lynch: If you'd like, though I think three will do. Of course, this also contingent on the 3-4 of them accepting the job.
Luigi Novi: Sure. Just make sure we lay down the parameters, perhaps through a Microsoft Word document circulated to all participants via email.

For example:

Parameter 1: Parties must agree to show Luigi Novi how to friggin’ format a link into text.

Ya know, simple, clear, relevant stuff like that. :-)

Just out of curiosity: How many of you here in this thread who find it so irresistible to comment on the possibilities of a draft, and how unfair it is, have actually served in any military capacity?

6 years in the Air Force and 5 years in the AF Reserves.

I'm actually leaning toward mandatory duty for all citizens akin to the Netherlands. I think anyone who serves in Congress should understand the hardships that are part and parcel of military life, not just for the member, but his/her dependents, too. I also think anyone who has served would have a clearer idea of what the military entails and could speak with more authority on subjects such as war and drafts and the Geneva Conventions take on atrocities. If everone is expected to serve in some capacity, then the argument that very few in Congress have children serving would also be moot. I bet they would be less interested in going to war for spurious reasons if their kids were involved.

But that's just me.

uigi Novi: Sure. Just make sure we lay down the parameters, perhaps through a Microsoft Word document circulated to all participants via email.

Oh, hell....I gotta put a GENUINE email on that form now?

Karen wrote...
I'm actually leaning toward mandatory duty for all citizens akin to the Netherlands.

I can see what you mean, and the idea does have a certain appeal, but I know that while I have a great deal of pride in my country, and wouldn't trade it for any other, I don't think the price of living here should be becoming part of the national war machine.

While I believe that having a military is vital to the survival of a nation, and that war is even necessary at time, I'm a pacifist at heart, and have no desire to be forced into military service. If a conflict ever arises that I feel justifies the use of military action, I can only hope that I'll have the courage to contribute. Until then, though, I'm much happier staying out of it.

Of course, since I'm Canadian, this is all largely hypothetical, given the current state of our military. =)

Jefferson was a leader among the anti-federalists. He was the first president elected from the party they formed, the Democratic-Republicans. The fact that he was 3000 miles away does not mean that his ideas were not influential on those that were there.

And without the anti-federalists, we wouldn't even have the Bill of Rights, so how can one of their leading advocates be considered irrelevent?

Luigi Novi wrote...
Parameter 1: Parties must agree to show Luigi Novi how to friggin’ format a link into text.

Sure, I'll give it another go since our first attempt didn't work so well.

The basic format of a web link is <a href="http://website.com/">Link Text Here</a>

So, if I wanted to have a link that goes to PAD's site with the text of "Peter David, writer of stuff" I would type:
<a href="http://www.peterdavid.net/">Peter David, writer of stuff</a>

And the post would come out looking like:
Peter David, writer of stuff

Once again, I hope that all looks good, because it's really annoying to get the greater than/less than signs to show up properly on a web page, and my Preview button never works.

I'm actually leaning toward mandatory duty for all citizens akin to the Netherlands.

I've wondered myself if that would be a viable option. I honestly haven't come to a conclusion one way or the other about it.

I tend to think it would do alot of people alot of good. But then I look at the flip side, and I see how people are trained in the Army and such, I don't much care for the fact that they basically destroy you, in the hopes of building you up again.

And as a side note to the latter comment of mine, I have to wonder about the mental state of any of those involved in situations like the Iraqi prison abuse.
I mean, seriously, for all the training, our soldiers should not be capable of such acts - either independently or under orders. It really makes me question the integrity of how our soldiers are trained.

Jeff,
I would hardly call the Netherlands a warlike country. I think mandatory service in this country should include much more than just the military. Many could opt for civil service positions, for example, to help shore up our aging infrastructure. But a mandatory 2 year service for all is not too much to ask for the benefits of living in this country. Many jobs in the Air Force are not completely war related. I would venture to say that the other services have support positions for those who conscientiously object.I was in Accounting and Finance on active duty and in Public Health while in the reserves. I had war skills in addition to my regular duties that I would have had to perform in the event of a war. And while on active duty we trained and were prepared, I can't say 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year had me completely prepared for going to a war zone. I bet the reservists called up felt the same.

Karen,

How's this for a quick reply? =)

Of course I didn't mean to imply that the Netherlands is some sort of military regime, and I intended (but forgot) to mention that I know nothing of their situation except for what you mentioned.

Within the context of mandatory service of any sort, military or otherwise, it's a very interesting idea. One could argue it flies in the face of the concept of freedom, but by the same token so does the education system.

Craig,
I can only comment on my basic training for the Air Force, and while the main goal was instant obedience to authority, they did not completely break us down. The military was a good choice for me. It gave me direction and motivation in my life, which until that time I was sorely lacking.

I don't understand Abu Ghraib. One of the things we were taught is if you are given an unlawful order you must go through the chain of command to report it and if you get no satisfaction you go to the Inspector Generals office. (The IG has offices on every base.) The only explanation I have on the atrocities taking place is that the orders come from too high to complain about. While on duty those at lower rank are strongly discouraged from showing too much initiative. Suggestions to make your job more efficient: OK, Taking matters into your own hands in order to torture prisoners? Not unless they were ordered to do it. The family of a young man in the army live next door to me. He was told the prisoners were terrorists responsible for killing and wounding members in his unit. He was not one of those guarding the prisoners, but can you imagine having someone under your control who you believe may have killed your buddy? And then being told by your supervisor that you can do a few things to soften them up to get intel? I like to think I would refuse that direct order and suffer the consequences, but I am not in a war zone eating crappy food, probably not getting enough sleep, and watching my friends get killed and wounded while wondering if I am next, while getting my stay in country extended time and time again by this government. I am horrified by what is being done over there.

Jeff,
I replied the way I did because you mentioned you were a pacifist. I wanted you to know that, unlike the US right now, military service does not have to include war. I did not take your words to imply the Netherlands was warlike. :)

I was in the Netherlands for 3 years and they are a lovely people. They have socialized medicine, mandatory military service, pot is legal as is prostitution, and they survive quite well. Last I heard the hand of God has not risen to smite them down, either. Although, I was a little put off by the prostitutes in Amsterdam soliciting my husband while we walked past their windows, I still think their society has ours beat in several aspects. :)

Jefferson was a leader among the anti-federalists. He was the first president elected from the party they formed, the Democratic-Republicans. The fact that he was 3000 miles away does not mean that his ideas were not influential on those that were there.

Hegel's ideas were influential on communists. He was not a communist leader. Jefferson took no role in the debates or conventions about the ratification of the Constitution, so your claim that he was a leader of the opposition party in those conventions is fatuous. I suspect that, had he been available, he would have become an Anti-Federalist, but counterfactual speculation is not what you're claiming.

And without the anti-federalists, we wouldn't even have the Bill of Rights, so how can one of their leading advocates be considered irrelevent?

Because you're wrong on your first point and conflating two issues on your second. Your question was about the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. Jefferson was not one of them, so his opinions have nothing to do with the "original intent." It's equivalent to talking about Wendell Wilkie's speeches when asking about the intent of the drafters of the Democratic Party Platform of 1940; even if they anticipated what his arguments would be, their intent and his intent are not the same thing.

Your original question was about the "original intent" of the First Amendment. The First Amendment was originally written by James Madison, who was as far from being an Anti-Federalist as you could get in 1787-90. (He was not precisely active in opposing the ratification of the Constitution of which he was the most influential designer. Madison even wrote more of the Federalist Papers than Hamilton did, including several of the more famous issues. He took a long step away from his original position during the Adams presidency, but that was several years later. We're discussing "original intent," not "subsequent intent.") It was rewritten by Fisher Ames, again a Federalist. The only way you get to an Anti-Federalist in this document is from one of the sources Madison utilized, the Virginia Declaration of Rights which George Mason wrote in 1776. Mason actually was an Anti-Federalist, having walked out of the Constitutional Convention. That connection does not make Madison an Anti-Federalist, any more than Lafayette is an Anti-Federalist based on his reliance upon Mason's work in drafting the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Besides, your claim was not that Anti-Federalists were important to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (which was partially true), but that Jefferson's writings represent the "original intent" of the drafters of the Bill of Rights, which is patently false because he was not one of them. Influencing a drafter and being a drafter are not the same thing.

so your claim that he was a leader of the opposition party in those conventions is fatuous.

Your question was about the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. Jefferson was not one of them, so his opinions have nothing to do with the "original intent."

If you're going to split hairs on who was and was not influential in the framing the Constitution, I ask that you allow the courtesy of actually referring to my statements accurately. I never said Jefferson was one of the framers of the Constitution, I said he was an influence on them. As for "original intent" I did not say the "original intent" of the framers, but of the founding fathers. Are you going to tell me that the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president was not a "founding father."

Now, to say he wasn't a leading figure among the anti-federalist movement is simply ridiculous. Washington went to great pains to convince Jefferson to support the new Constitution or at least not oppose it. And you still conveniently ignore the fact that he was the first anti-federalist elected president.

I find it incredible that you want everyone whose writings were circulated at the time the Constitution was being written except for the man who popularized the phrase "separation of church and state." Pretty convenient, huh?

This is a test

It didn't work, Jeff. I tried putting "www.nitcentral.com" in the quotes, and "This is a test" in the text section, and while the "This is a test" text posted, the link doesn't work.

Placing the cursor over the link doesn't even show that url at the bottom left of the browser page.

Instead, it shows: http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/www.nitcentral.com. How the url to Peter's site shows up there, when that url was not in the formatted link, I don't know.

Please advise. :-)

THIS IS A TEST OF THE EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM. AGAIN, THIS IS ONLY A TEST.

But What if the commercial was just for the church, without any veiled pro-gay or anti-anything message? It was simply an equally non-offensive ad for the church.

Would this blog entry even have been made?

Or would it have been just another example the Christian Right trying to force their views upon us?

It's just like school, anyone remember their World History book where there was paragraph upon paragraph about EVERY religion in the world and one short sentance on Christinanity.

I'm not saying there should be more on Christianity, but there seem to be tolerance for EVERY religion BUT Christianity. I'm also not say Falwell (sp?) and the like aren't assholes, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander...

Luigi,

You need to put in the http:// at the start of the link you're creating, otherwise it assumes the link starts with the URL you're posting the link on (i.e., here).

Gorginfoogle wrote...
You need to put in the http:// at the start of the link you're creating

What he said, he beat me to it by a minute or two. =)

Karen wrote...
I replied the way I did because you mentioned you were a pacifist. I wanted you to know that, unlike the US right now, military service does not have to include war.

True, but war/violence is its primary function. If we didn't have those, there wouldn't be much need for a military. As I said, while I'm a pacifist, at heart, I also recognize that militaries are necessary in today's world. I just don't want to be a part of it. The way I see it, bureaucracies are necessary in today's world to, but I don't want to be part of that either. =)

And in other news...

"The Supreme Court of Canada says the federal government can change the definition of marriage, giving gays and lesbians the legal right to marry."

It's not a complete victory yet, our parliament still has to create a bill and vote on it, but we're now one step closer! =)

And as a side note to the latter comment of mine, I have to wonder about the mental state of any of those involved in situations like the Iraqi prison abuse.
I mean, seriously, for all the training, our soldiers should not be capable of such acts - either independently or under orders. It really makes me question the integrity of how our soldiers are trained.

Actually, I think that the Iraq prison scandal was in inevitable result of the policies in place: too little preparation (didn't consider the need for numbers of interrogators), too little supervision due to too few personnel in the field and the current Administrations disdain for intellectuals and professors (who've know for 40 years from the Zimbardo prison experiment on down that this sorta things is appallingly likely).

Training had little to do with it; it was the structural nature of troop deployment and oversight. Use the same personnel in a different situation (more frequent oversight, clearer instructions, less interference from "intelligence" officers) and you wouldn't have any problems.

but there seem to be tolerance for EVERY religion BUT Christianity.

Well, it's the Christians trying to force their views upon everybody else.

Case in point: the Bush Administration is pushing the Supreme Court to rule in favor of allowing the Ten Commanedments to be displayed on government property.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Granted, I know little of the religious symbols outside of Christianity, but do you think they'd push for, say, a Buddha to be displayed on government property too? I rather doubt it.

Actually, I think that the Iraq prison scandal was in inevitable result of the policies in place: too little preparation (didn't consider the need for numbers of interrogators), too little supervision due to too few personnel in the field and the current Administrations disdain for intellectuals and professors (who've know for 40 years from the Zimbardo prison experiment on down that this sorta things is appallingly likely).

I noticed that you don't mention any need for there to be a "command from on high" to abuse/torture the prisoners. After checking out a website on the Zimbardo experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/), I could very easily see this problem happening without any actual command from those in Washington to torture the prisoners. Your other points make it clear they are not without excuse since other parameters they set in place facilitated some environmental factors that led to the abuse.

My question, Roger, is this: Is it possible, in your opinion, that the abuse could have happened without any actual order from Washington to torture the prisoners? That policy set up the environment -- and Washington should have known better -- but that it is possible that the abuse was not by command from a true higher up?

As other facts about the abusers come out, I would not consider some of them of high moral character to begin with. The experiment suggests that it under the right circumstances, even the best could stoop to torture. But what if we did not have the best guarding the prisoners, at least not in some documented cases.

Jim in Iowa

Is it possible, in your opinion, that the abuse could have happened without any actual order from Washington to torture the prisoners?

IMO, I believe it is possible, but I still believe that heads should roll from those in charge of these soldiers, all the way back to the Pentagon and White House.

It's called Chain of Command, and those above and responsible for those below, regardless.

Bush started this little war, and, not surprisingly, he refuses to make anybody accountable beyond those soldiers directly involved.

And with stories now that the Marines were harassing members of the military in other capacities (Defense Intelligence Agency was mentioned in one story I read) and trying to get them to NOT report the abuse. Well, actions speak louder than words - and nobody has taken any actions against the leadership.

The Zimbardo experiment is a classic, everyone should follow Jim's link and check it out. If you ever get an opportunity to see a video of it, do so. Sadly, I don't know any ways to do this other than take a psychology course, so enroll in your local university today! :)

My personal feeling on Abu Ghraib is that even if there were no direct orders to commit the prisoner abuse, the military culture over there is likely one that promotes this kind of treatment. It doesn't take a lot of research to see that a basic step in conducting a war is to dehumanize the enemy. When you have a total institution such as a military dominating your life, things that would seem reprehensible to many people could, in fact, seem quite normal. I would be surprised if there wasn't at least implicit approval from command in Iraq, if not direct orders.

It should also be noted that this is not an exclusively American occurrence.

My question, Roger, is this: Is it possible, in your opinion, that the abuse could have happened without any actual order from Washington to torture the prisoners? That policy set up the environment -- and Washington should have known better -- but that it is possible that the abuse was not by command from a true higher up?

Yes, I think it's possible. It may have been even probable in this case...but that doesn't absolve the Administration from blame and responsibility for this case (talk about undercutting your own political goals--in my book, if you go to Iraq, you had better damn well do it right).

There's plenty of blame to go around on this. The individual abusers involved most certainly should get their share...but the administration has to take responsibility for their share as well (and I'm not so sure that they think they have any).

I have a relative who was a guard at a military base and then at a local, county jail. Even though he had strong moral beliefs, I could see how that environment would degrade both the prisoner and the prison guard. And that was in a far more structured situation than Iraq.

I would hope the military and others would learn from this, but given human nature, I am not so sure they will.

Jim in Iowa

i would posit that not only is the zimbardo experiment applicable to Abu Ghraib and other prisons, but also the Milgram experiment.

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

Milgram Experiment

in this case, the soldiers, yielding to the perceived authority of the Military Intelligence personnel/civilain contractors, would therefore become increasingly tractable to committing worse and worse acts of cruelty upon the prisoners.

Jim, sad to say, if we (humans) haven't learned our lessons about cruelty to prisoners over the last 5000 years, we aren't about to now.

The last 4 years have really made me wonder why schools even bother to teach history? I was told all along the way that one of the points about history was to learn from the mistakes made in the past, to avoid repeating them. Guess there were a whole lotta folks absent on those days....

Jim, sad to say, if we (humans) haven't learned our lessons about cruelty to prisoners over the last 5000 years, we aren't about to now.

Not many on this site like my view, but I think it is a result of sinful human nature. There is hope, and things can change, but it comes from a supernatural source. But since that is a religious point of view, I guess it can't be true . . .

Jim in Iowa

Craig says:
"IMO, I believe it is possible, but I still believe that heads should roll from those in charge of these soldiers, all the way back to the Pentagon and White House."

"It's called Chain of Command, and those above and responsible for those below, regardless."

By that reasoning, FDR should have had his head on a platter. I have a photo, which I found while researching a chapter of a book on teaching about propaganda, that shows Roosevelt with a letter opener fashioned from the leg bone of a dead Japanese soldier, sent to him by GIs.

I believe it was said that FDR disapproved of the practice of defiling the dead but it is significant that the photo got out (I think it was published in LIFE without any hint of censure in the comments).

You can also find on the net actual photos of American soldiers slaughtering unarmed SS guards at one of the death camps. A clear violation of pretty much every convention but one I would hardly have given FDR the boot over.

>>Jim, sad to say, if we (humans) haven't learned our lessons about cruelty to prisoners over the last 5000 years, we aren't about to now.

>Not many on this site like my view, but I think it is a result of sinful human nature. There is hope, and things can change, but it comes from a supernatural source. But since that is a religious point of view, I guess it can't be true . . .

I son't know that it can't be true, but it certainly won't ever be realized unless prayer is assisted by a change in human behavior. Too many who ascribe to the former, neglect to challenge themselves with the later.

Fred

A clear violation of pretty much every convention but one I would hardly have given FDR the boot over.

No, but FDR didn't try and convince the world that we have the right to ignore the Geneva Conventions either, as Bush as done.

Has ANYBODY other than the individual soldiers been tried for anything? or negligence in their duties?

Which just goes to show that, behind closed doors, the Bush Administration just doesn't care. They already don't care about the Geneva Conventions, knowing that would we intended to do to some of these prisoners (guilty or otherwise) would violate those rules of war.

"Has ANYBODY other than the individual soldiers been tried for anything? or negligence in their duties?"

You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried. Have you that evidence?

Now, doesn't the fact that the soldiers in WW2 who mutilated dead bodies and sent the pieces to the president were never even reprimanded for this deed mean that FDR was also not terribly concerned with the Geneva Conventions? Perhaps even LESS concerned than you believe Bush to be?

Jim, I hope that some higher power comes down and starts enlightening humans. Would really be nice.

What concerns me are when people I know (and who don't participate on PAD's Blog and Board...there's a name for a pub is ever I heard one) who are very spiritual start supporting the preemptive military action in Iraq. Their church issued a political aid/guide for the elections, and it stated essentially that the "turn the other cheek" thing was just for individuals, and that gov't was still armed with the sword of justice. So essentially it was OK for the gov't to go out and kill people in the name of Justice. Even innocents.

but before I get too caught up in all that, it's the way they talk about actions that they know will result in the deaths of other peole. Some guilty, a lot more innocent. As a person of faith myself, I'm terribly torn over the desire to act to protect myself and my loved ones, and the abhorrent feeling I get when I know that innocent people are dieing in the name of American safety right now.

I see very little of that in some very Christian people, and it makes we think that some of the Flock have really wandered away from the Shepherd.

While the leg bone letter opener is down-right creepy, WW2 was also a completely different time, hell, you could even say it was a different world from what we have today.

Plus, FDR had just one a war that America DIDN'T START, And he pulled this country OUT of a depression. Unlike GWShrub who launched a war of agression against a country that was no threat to American soil and is on the verge of triggering another depression...

I think comparing these two incidents may be apples to oranges. In the heat of battle or the immediate aftermath, things do happen in the field that nobody in the top of the chain of command has any control over. But a prison is supposedly a more controlled environment. Whether they specifically ordered the abuse or not, Bush and Cheney clearly set a tone that Geneva conventions were "quaint" and the traditional rules of dealing with prisoners of war did not apply.

Now, we can split hairs all day on whether all of the prisoners held in Abu Graib and GetMo fit the definition of POWs, but common decency and humanity should have prevailed.

I am going to reiterate that responsibility on the part of the higher ups does not refer to merely "ordering abuse and torture." I fault them entirely for the lack of oversight, the lack of preparedness and the lack of personnel that was needed to police a country that was invaded.

It's something that would demand a lower lovel of repercussions, but I believe some sort of consequences are appropriate because the results were both a) unnecessary and b) foreseeable.

You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried.

So, in your opinion, commanders are no longer responsible for the actions of their soldiers?

That ignorance is excusable in the face of human rights violations?

Man, wouldn't they have loved that excuse at something like the Nuremburg Trials.

I [don't] know that it can't be true, but it certainly won't ever be realized unless prayer is assisted by a change in human behavior. Too many who ascribe to the former, neglect to challenge themselves with the later.

I would agree. As John Kerry was ironically fond of quoting, "Faith without works is dead." Or as Jesus said in Matthew 7, it doesn't matter if you "call" him Lord if you don't take care of the sick, the naked, and yes, the prisoner (and it does not say it does not apply to the worst of prisoners). I don't believe works can "save" someone, but saying you have "faith" is useless if it doesn't change how you treat others.

I am going to reiterate that responsibility on the part of the higher ups does not refer to merely "ordering abuse and torture." I fault them entirely for the lack of oversight, the lack of preparedness and the lack of personnel that was needed to police a country that was invaded.

I would agree. It is always easy to see things in hindsight, but in regards to the prison, there were things that clearly should have been done better.

Jim in Iowa

As John Kerry was ironically fond of quoting, "Faith without works is dead."

Now, why do you call that ironic? I know how much many republicans love to portray democrats as militant anti-christian atheists, but Kerry has always been open about his faith and his spirituality. He may not agree with some of your interpretations of scripture, but that does not mean that his religious beliefs are any less sincere.

Gee, today we've had references to both the Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram's research on conformity...

Why are all the best psychological experiments the ones that would be considered grossly unethical today? :)

but there seem to be tolerance for EVERY religion BUT Christianity.

"Well, it's the Christians trying to force their views upon everybody else.

Case in point: the Bush Administration is pushing the Supreme Court to rule in favor of allowing the Ten Commanedments to be displayed on government property.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?"

It certainly makes me wonder at what point the Ten Commandments became the property of Christianity, what with the fact that the Commandments were handed to a Jew to be shared with other Jews.

But I agree, I'm tired of hearing the wheeze about how the poor, tragic Christians aren't being tolerated. I mean, my God, they're running the damned country and the government shuts down on their major holidays, which is more than can be said for any other religion around. What more do they want? So between that and the simple fact that no one can touch the Christian right when it comes to historic intolerance for other creeds, persuasions and beliefs, I don't know what the hell this "O, we poor Christians, no one loves us, boo hoo" business is about.

PAD

Now, why do you call that ironic?

Specifically, because during one of the debates he basically said that while he was against abortion personally, he supported a woman's right to choose. For some on this site, that is not a problem. I pesonally see it as ironic and an example of where someone's beliefs are meaningless if they don't have an impact on how he votes. Not trying to resurrect the debate on the issue(s), just explaining why I pesonally found it ironic.

Jim in Iowa

PAD,

I have a question, and apologize because it is personal. Are you under more stress than normal? I am not trying to be funny, I am just wondering. You appear to be more on edge, and I am not sure the elections alone explain it.

While we may disagree on quite a few things, I respect you and would hope you are able to enjoy life and the current holiday season. I certainly hope you keep writing for a long time since you bring enjoyment into my own life, whether through New Frontiers or through Madrox, etc.

You can answer via email (the one I list is real), or on this site, or not at all. If everything is fine, then just ignore this. I was just wondering.

Jim in Iowa

You know, you could make a strong case for the idea that no man should ever make a judgement on the abortion issue, because in most ways it's a strictly feminine issue.

As a male, I believe that the only real option is to support a woman's right to choose.

Note: Don't take that to mean that I don't support father's rights, because I think that they should have a say in the matter, but by and large it's a feminine issue.

Jeff,

I would agree that if it could be shown that the unborn child is not "alive" or "human" anymore than an appendix is alive or human, your point would be true. Until then, I personally believe that the unborn child's rights trump either the mother or the father.

Kerry, in an interview, specifically said that he believed life began at conception. So he said he accepted my premise, that the unborn child is more than just a lump of tissue. That is why I find his position inconsistent. For those who don't agree with my premise, I can very much understand why they would hold the same position as you do.

Jim in Iowa

Jim,

I know I argue fine points some times, but I don't think I'm splitting hairs here.

(moderator) "Q: Some Catholic archbishops said that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you because you support a woman's right to choose an abortion and unlimited stem-cell research. What is your reaction to that? "

(Senator Kerry) "A: I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many. I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith. I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor. That's why I support that. I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade. "

Source: Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ Oct 13, 2004

There's another quote from Kerry about Supreme Court Judges, and how he wouldn't have appointed anyone likely to overturn rights (Roe v Wade) previously found to be Constitutional rights.

Not sure if that changes your mind on whether you find Kerry's statements ironic, and I share your aversion to bringing this topic up again. But I do feel that if you're going to attribute statements to someone (like Al Gore inventing the internet) you may as well get the quote from the horse's mouth. Err, no pun intended.....

Check out http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2004/12/07/nativityscene/
which features Madame Tussaud's (London) celebrity Nativity scene featuring the Beckhams as Mary and Joseph; W, Tony Blair, and Prince Phillip as the Wise Men; Samuel Jackson, Hugh Grant, and Graham Norton as shepherds; and Kylie Minogue as the Angel of the Lord.

I wonder how well something like this would go over on this side of the pond. Not very, I'd wager.

Sasha,

More than a few voices of discount with that display over there, according to last night's NBC news report.

Fred

Oh, fine, lemme go on.

I don't see it as inconsistant with my religious views to find abortion to be murder, but at the same time, not try to force others to reach that decision. To be honest, I don't really know all that the "sanctity of life" entails. What I do know is that, given the way our science is going, we may honestly be able to say, someday, that each and every living cell from our body could one day become a full grown living human being. Cloning, and now stem cell research, could take us there.

So, given the fuzzy future for human reproduction, I really don't know where to draw the abortion line. None at all? Only in medically required cases, or in the case of rape? Never past 8 weeks? I really don't know.

I think the point of Kerry's position is that our Constitution guarantees certain rights, and as long as the right to privacy includes control over our bodies, he's not going to support any act, by the government, that would infringe on that right. He's going to support Roe v. Wade.

And RvW did not guarantee an inalienable right to privacy for a woman concerning abortion. There's actually very strong language in RvW that sets out how the state could regulate abortion. In fact, with careful wording, the state could pretty much ban all abortions other than those medically necessary for the health of the mother. They might even be able to ban abortions in the case of rape or incest, if they wanted to.

Kingbobb,

I disagree with his logic. This is not just a matter of faith, such as saying there is a "Trinity" or that the Bible is the Word of God. This is dealing with actual social behavior in the real world.

He is right that I cannot force someone to believe the Bible is true, or that the Bible says life begins at conception, etc. And I would never try to do so by legal means. But from a moral standpoint, I have a problem with saying that what would be a life or death action is simply a matter of personal faith.

Case in point (which, I am sure, will get me into trouble! :-0 ): Some faiths believe that a blood transfusion is wrong, against God's will, etc. What do you do when a child will die without a blood transfusion? Whatever your answer, this is similar to the dilemna about abortion. The position has true, immediate, real world, life and death implications.

As I added in a second post, Kerry was quoted in an interview as saying he believes life begins at conception. If that is true, then it does not make sense to me that he would say it is just a matter of "faith," especially when you are dealing with an innocent, helpless life.

Obviously he has thought this through and come to a different conclusion. I don't understand it, but I know many on this site don't understand my positions! But from my perspective, Kerry's actions do not match what he claims to believe (namely, that life begins at conception).

Jim in Iowa

A few things to consider.

Kerry feels that abortion is wrong. However, Kerry also knows that millions of Americans are not of the same religion as him, and don't necessarily share those same views. Kerry doesn't feel that he can legislate his religious views onto others, therefore he is anti-abrtion yet pro-choice. I see no conflict here. Just because you personally believe something based on a religious context doesn't allow for you to legislate that for others. If it did, I could draft a law requiring all citizens to clothe themselves in giant hankerchiefs to await the coming of the great green arkleseizure.

Also, The rights of the actual must always trump the rights of the potential.

Im sorry, but I'll always fight for the rights of the mother to control her own body over the rights of her potential child.

If you want to tell, let's say, a woman who needs a heart transplant who is also 3 days pregnant that the rights of the mass of cells within her, not yet 50 cells, that the blastocyst's rights trump her right to get the heart and live, you go ahead.

I remain staunchly pro-choice.

In fact, with careful wording, the state could pretty much ban all abortions other than those medically necessary for the health of the mother. They might even be able to ban abortions in the case of rape or incest, if they wanted to.

In practice, this has not been the case. A lot of laws have been struck down for reasons other than the health of the mother. Take partial birth abortion. There was NO medical evidence that a partial birth abortion was ever necessary to save the life of a mother. The court even acknowledged this fact and still ruled the law unconstitutional.

Jim in Iowa

If you want to tell, let's say, a woman who needs a heart transplant who is also 3 days pregnant that the rights of the mass of cells within her, not yet 50 cells, that the blastocyst's rights trump her right to get the heart and live, you go ahead.

Virtually anyone who is pro-life also believes that the life of the mother comes first if you have to make an actual choice between the two. That is a very well established fact.

Just because you personally believe something based on a religious context doesn't allow for you to legislate that for others. If it did, I could draft a law requiring all citizens to clothe themselves in giant hankerchiefs to await the coming of the great green arkleseizure.

As noted above, you are comparing apples and oranges. If the ONLY reason I was pro-life was because of the Bible, then you would have a point. But there are people who are pro-life based on medical/scientific issues. As my blood transfusion example illustrated, there are times when religious beliefs and actual, physical harm to another person intersect. If my religion said it was ok to have sex with a 3 year old girl, you would have every right to stop me and remove the child from my custody. If the science of the day said that a certain race (black people) were less than human, and BOTH my religious beliefs and the reason and science of other logical people disagreed and said that they were equally human, I sure better act on my beliefs and protect the life and welfare of a black person.

When it comes to abortion and the point where life begins, there are a lot of difficult questions that science has not yet answered fully. I think science leans towards my side, you may think it leans towards yours. Until there is a truly definitive conclusion, I will continue to err on the side of preserving what I believe to be an actual life.

Jim in Iowa

Jim,

I can understand how you could see Kerry's stance as inconsistant. Personally, I've always felt that abortion is one of those issues where both sides are right and both sides are wrong, so in a way I sympathize with Kerry's position. I strongly believe that if we as a society did a better job at teaching young women to respect their bodies, that would do a lot more to reducing the number of abortions performed in this country than criminalizing it ever would.

As a preemptive strike, let me just say that I believe that this is the job of families, teachers, and clergy, not MTV or ABC. Parents will never be able to control all of the external messages that their kids are going to be exposed to, but they can influence how their child reacts to those messages.

However, abortion is only one issue out of many that are facing this nation. Some people may consider it to be the only issue of importance, but I suspect that when Kerry spoke about "good works", he probably referred to things like helping the poor and the sick.

Jim, I might have missed the language on the PBB ban. But from what I did read, it was struck down because the law was absolute: no abortions at all past a certain point. It didn't just ban PBBs, but all abortions after X days. And it did so while allowing no other considerations. To borrow your blood transfusion example (which, by the way, I think highlights the dilemma in a less-inflamatory way than abortion does), it would be the equivilent of congress passing a law banning blood transfusions for children under the age of 2. It's rather arbitrary.

Take other forms of killing. Murder is not only a biblical sin, but also one of the worst crimes an individual can commit. If we view murder as an intentional killing (as opposed to manslaughter), then killing is self defense is still murder. If our laws and legal system did not allow for a legal defense to murder committed in self defense, our prisons would be even more crowded than they are today, and some of those people sitting in cells/on death row would be considered victims by our standards.

in this case, the actual life is the mothers. the blastocyst? potential life. less than 50 cells, no brain yet, no heart yet, neither sentient or sapient. yes, given time, can become a baby.

secondly, Partial birth abortion? for one, its a misnomer. from
Religous Tolerance

"These are generally called:

"D&X" procedures, an abbreviation of "dilate and extract," or "Intact D&E," or "Intrauterine Cranial Decompression" procedures.
They are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public.

The term "Partial Birth Abortion" was recently created by pro-life groups when the procedure became actively discussed at a political and religious level."

the reason most D&X procedures are performed:

"3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.
- The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
- The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
- The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus."

with those conditions, The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy: a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or a D&X procedure.

there are some physicians who violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed, but these are Rogue MD's, not the norm.

from the site: "Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.

There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in the United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care. The U.S. is the only developed country on Earth that does not have a federal universal health care program. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver."

as to what you said '"Take partial birth abortion. There was NO medical evidence that a partial birth abortion was ever necessary to save the life of a mother. The court even acknowledged this fact and still ruled the law unconstitutional."' ---

"A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision." Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12."

I will go back and dig up info on the partial birth abortion ban. I never once heard that it banned all abortions after a certain limit of days, only that it banned a particular method of abortion.

When the bill was before congress, and at the court hearing where the judge decided it was unconstitutional, my understanding is that not a single medical person was willing to go on record as saying it was a necessary procedure to save the life of a mother. From what you wrote, I am guessing they will say it is not "necessary" as in not the only, but that it is preferrable. I will be interested to read more on that.

Thanks for the info. We can now resume regular programming. . .

Jim in Iowa

Gorginfoogle: Luigi, You need to put in the http:// at the start of the link you're creating, otherwise it assumes the link starts with the URL you're posting the link on (i.e., here).
Luigi Novi: Okay, here it goes:

This is a test

Eureka! It finally worked! Thank you, Gorginfoogle! (And you took Jeff!)

[begin non-sequitor]

As some of you know, I spent a lot of time online for about ... eesh, fifteen years ... doing commentary on the various Trek series.

Heh, I used to read those religiously. Have you been watching ENTERPRISE at all? The recent Vulcan trilogy was one of the best arcs I've seen on a STAR TREK series in ages.

I agree with you about ENTERPRISE. This season is turning out so far to be the best season of Trek since DEEP SPACE NINE went off the air. The producers have found the best way to handle Scott Bakula, have him talk as little as possible.

If you're going to split hairs on who was and was not influential in the framing the Constitution, I ask that you allow the courtesy of actually referring to my statements accurately.

OK, let's quote your original statement directly, and see if I'm misrepresenting your position. You wrote: "Then the teacher can point to the establishment clause and explain why our Founder Fathers didn't want to establish a theocracy, show them Jefferson's letters and explain how, based on the doctrine of "original intent" that Scalia loves so much (as long as it conforms to his conservative agenda) resulted in over 200 years of legal precedent protecting our religious institutions from becoming tools of the state." And I responded that the doctrine of "original intent" should not be applied to Jefferson with regard to the Constitution, because "original intent" applies to the meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by those who wrote and ratified it. I exclude Jefferson from this for several reasons, basically that he neither wrote, nor took a role (pro or con) in the ratification of, the document. His public commentary did not begin until he returned from France in 1789 to become Secretary of State, at which time he threw his support behind the movement for a Bill of Rights. Jefferson was present for the Bill of Rights period, but still had nothing to do with its drafting, which is one reason why I still exclude him. (The other reason why I exclude the example you cited appears below.) Now, how did I misunderestimate your position? (I did make the assumption that the Jefferson letter(s) you cited was the "wall of separation between church and state" one, but I think that was a correct assumption.)

I never said Jefferson was one of the framers of the Constitution, I said he was an influence on them. As for "original intent" I did not say the "original intent" of the framers, but of the founding fathers.

No, actually you didn't specify. And whether you said it or not, that's a very fuzzy intent you're proposing. How do you find the intent of an entire generation? The "founding fathers" were not a homogenous movement once you get past the single issue of secession from the United Kingdom. (And if you want to be really picky, the answer to your next question is that the accepted definition of "founding fathers" does specifically refer to the Constitutional Convention, though frankly I disagree with the two dictionaries I found that use that definition. I think accepted usage of "founding father" refers to the entire founding generation, or at least the revolutionaries therein.)

Are you going to tell me that the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president was not a "founding father."

Nope. (See above.) Daniel Shays was a founding father too, and he didn't have anything to do with the Constitution, apart from scaring people into writing it. What's your point?

Now, to say he wasn't a leading figure among the anti-federalist movement is simply ridiculous. Washington went to great pains to convince Jefferson to support the new Constitution or at least not oppose it. And you still conveniently ignore the fact that he was the first anti-federalist elected president.

I don't ignore that fact, I deny it. Jefferson wasn't an Anti-Federalist. I've said multiple times in this thread that I suspect he would have opposed the Constitution had he been available, based my understanding of his ideology, but he was not among the party opposing the ratification of the Constitution, which is the definition of an Anti-Federalist. Indeed, Madison claimed during the ratification period that Jefferson actually supported the Constitution, which if he was fully accurate in that statement means Jefferson was a Federalist (with regard to the Constitution if not a member of the party that later adopted that name). Madison certainly had a voluminous correspondence with Jefferson trying to win his support, but as far as I know we only have Madison's declaration of victory to show that he won Jefferson over. But in any event, you're wrong. Your assumption that the Democratic-Republicans and the Anti-Federalists were the same group of people is also faulty. Lest you forget, James Madison was the second Democratic-Republican elected President. Do you think he was an Anti-Federalist too?

I find it incredible that you want everyone whose writings were circulated at the time the Constitution was being written except for the man who popularized the phrase "separation of church and state." Pretty convenient, huh?

No, pretty historical. I'd also like to know where you got the idea that I "want everyone whose writings were circulated at the time" from my position that only the contemporaneous writings of the drafters of the Constitution are authoritative for "original intent" arguments. (Seriously, and you accuse me of misrepresenting your position? Dude.) I believe that writings of other people are useful in original intent arguments only for discovering word usage, like what "specious" meant in the Eighteenth Century. (Trivia: "Specious" meant "attractive" in the 1700s, and only came to refer to things like your argument much later.) Looking to Anti-Federalist writings to find the "original intent" behind the Constitution is like asking Pontius Pilate or the merchants in the temple what Jesus meant by the parable of the prodigal son: asking the opposition is Not a Reliable source of information. Perhaps my Wilkie comparison earlier was too obscure. Let me try something more recent. Using Anti-Federalist literature to discern what the Federalists had in mind is like asking Chalabi what Saddam Hussein was up to.

You also have a timing problem. The "separation of church and state" and wall metaphor were from an 1802 open letter from a Democratic-Republican President to a Federalist church. Fifteen years of partisan politics separated that letter from the adoption of the Constitution, 11 years from the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Was that letter an honest statement of the understanding of the founding generation spanning two decades, or was it a partisan statement from a President who wanted dissenting ministers to stay the heck out of his upcoming midterm election? If you think it was the former, I seem to remember some crack about selling bridges from earlier in this thread. Jefferson was the founder most genuinely hostile to civic religion, but let's recognize propaganda for what it is instead of assuming that he spoke for his entire generation in that letter. And if you don't think the politics of the 1790s (particularly the Adams administration) affected the founders' political beliefs or public statements, compare Madison's Virginia Resolution of 1798 to anything he wrote in the 1780s. For that matter, Madison changed his mind about the need to have a Bill of Rights at all, giving him two mutually exclusive original intents. (Can you tell I'm not really a big fan of "original intent" arguments?)

Whatever, David. You want to declare one of the most influential political figures in American history "irrelevant," be my guest. It's obvious you're just deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying anyway.

Whatever, David. You want to declare one of the most influential political figures in American history "irrelevant," be my guest.

For this purpose, I will. (Not that I need your permission.) He is irrelevant to the particular issue you were discussing. So are Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and George W. Bush, each of whom wrote as much of the First Amendment as Thomas Jefferson did.

It's obvious you're just deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying anyway.

Specifically, how am I misrepresenting what you're saying?

PAD - It certainly makes me wonder at what point the Ten Commandments became the property of Christianity, what with the fact that the Commandments were handed to a Jew to be shared with other Jews.

That's the Old Testament, we're fairly cool with that and go along for the ride. Its the whole "Jesus Thing" where the split occurs. The Ten Commandments work for both Christians and Jews. Jesus don't.

adam schwartz said Also, The rights of the actual must always trump the rights of the potential. Im sorry, but I'll always fight for the rights of the mother to control her own body over the rights of her potential child.

Didn't the mother make a conscious choice to have unprotected sex? I feel if the mother makes this choice, then she has to live with the consequences of that choice.

What are we teaching our kids nowadays? That it's ok to make any mistake you want, a little operation will take care of it.

And so it begins ...

"BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Less than seven months after same-sex couples began tying the knot in Massachusetts, the state is seeing its first gay divorces."

novafan says: "Didn't the mother make a conscious choice to have unprotected sex? I feel if the mother makes this choice, then she has to live with the consequences of that choice."

what about the people who had protected sex, and the protection failed? theres always that risk.

what about the woman, again, who wanted to get pregnant but also waiting for a transplant?

what of the victims of rape?

and yes, gay people are getting divorced. See, gay couples are, amazingly, just like other couples. many of them work out, some of them dont.

the fact that in massachusetts they are now able to legally cleave the relationships they legally entered into is a good thing. Since these marriages are, for the most part, civil and not religious marriages, that means theyre not covenant marriages, and that allows them to be considered under the auspices of no-fault divorce.

I fail to see how couples exercising a legal right available to them is a bad thing for society. this simply means that they, like heterosexual couples, can have their marriages dissolved and their possessions that they accumulate together divided by the courts, just like everyone else.

adam schwartz said what about the people who had protected sex, and the protection failed? theres always that risk.

If you're willing to take the risk by having premarital sex period, then you need to be aware of any consequences. That's a cop out.

and what about the woman, again, who wanted to get pregnant but also waiting for a transplant?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

and what of the victims of rape?

You can't say no abortions allowed. If the woman is raped, or there is a danger to the woman's life, then an abortion should be considered.

see, interesting thing about that, you just said that some fetuses automatically have more of a right to life than others.

the slippery slope cuts both ways here.

if you're gonna say that some abortions should be allowed, you can't say others shouldn't.

it's an all or nothing proposition here.

ban all abortions, make it a crime to abort, and then you have to investigate every single miscarriage as a manslaughter charge.

or, you can allow abortions, as it is now, under the varied extant circumstances.

If you aren't one of the genetic donors, then whether a woman has an abortion or not is none of your fucking business.
PERIOD

Bladestar said If you aren't one of the genetic donors, then whether a woman has an abortion or not is none of your fucking business.
PERIOD

Ok, you're not in the government, so when the President and a majority of Congress says we're going in to kick Saddam's ass. It's none of your freaking business. You aren't a part of the government are you?

Can I get a Touche?

So the Douche wants a touche?

Not in your lifetime.

The government is supposed to do the will of the people, ALL the people, not just the rich and the religious fanatics...

No, Nova, you can't.

You see, the Gummint isn't some monolithic entity, separate from the people it governs - in this country, at least, the Government is the people. That's why we hold these election things every few years - it's one of the ways we can make our displeasure known.

On the other hand, I had no say whatsoever in the couple across the way getting married. I have no say in whether or not they'll ever have children, and I'll have no say in whether or not they get divorced. I'm not part of that couple. I am part of this country.

I may disapprove of the couple across the way getting an abortion. I may not. If I'm a hardline Catholic, I might even disapprove of their use of contraceptives so they'll never be faced with the situation. However, in no event is the matter any concern of mine, because they're not my family. In a very real sense, the Gummint is. (Sure, sometimes they're like that strange uncle - you know, the one who always brings rum cake with more rum than cake in it to the potluck and Mom and Dad look at him funny - but still, they're family.)

Can I get a Touche?

No, it wasn't really a good analogy.

"Ok, you're not in the government, so when the President and a majority of Congress says we're going in to kick Saddam's ass. It's none of your freaking business. You aren't a part of the government are you?

Can I get a Touche?"

Uh, isn't the government comprised of people who represent us? Don't we give the government money to do such things?

Monkeys.

Jonathan (the other one) said I'm not part of that couple. I am part of this country.

The fact that you are a part of this country means you should have a say in whether or not someone has an abortion. If you believe that conception creates life and an abortion kills that life, you have an obligation being a part of our society to say that's wrong and something should be done about it to protect a life that can not protect itself.

The couple getting married and/or divorced doesn't prevent a life that has already started to form from conception, from being allowed the chance to live. An abortion is what prevents that life from being born and an abortion should never be taken lightly.

So the Douche wants a touche?

By Bladestar's standards, this was both clever and unusually polite.

The government is supposed to do the will of the people, ALL the people, not just the rich and the religious fanatics...

Yes. Of course, the will of the people has been trending conservative for roughly the last generation. I hate to break it to you. Wait, no I don't, I'm still gloating.

Bladestar said vThe government is supposed to do the will of the people, ALL the people, not just the rich and the religious fanatics...

I can just see the government representing Bladestar.

With Bladestar representing us instead of Bush...

"Saddam you can go f%$k yourself, you fascist pig. Saddam responds with, my sanctions are over now and here's a newly developed nuclear weapon you can shove up your arse you capitalist pig."

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Nope, Saddam would've been quietly and covertly assassinated back when he invaded Kuwait, and Kuwait would owe us BIG TIME for the favor...

Sending americans to die in acountry that was no threat to the US was stupid, just what I expect from someone like bush

I say:

"You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried."

Craig says:

"So, in your opinion, commanders are no longer responsible for the actions of their soldiers?"

No, I said that "You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried."

That ignorance is excusable in the face of human rights violations?

No, I said that "You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried."

Man, wouldn't they have loved that excuse at something like the Nuremburg Trials.

Given that they had compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVED to be tried, I don't see why they would have.

In regards to the "Will & Grace" point in this post:

Speaking as a straight guy with a a few very different gay and lesbian friends, I've always found a lot of other straight folks' attitudes about gays pretty pathetic. Maybe it's just me, but a good number of straights that I know tend to refer to gays and lesbians as "sick" or what have you, but never miss shows like "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." They tend to remind me of white folks who frequented Harlem nightclubs in the 20s: they're fine with a minority being an entertaining dancing fool, but not fine with sharing a table with them. The main reason for this, in my opinion, is our culture and our own personal upbringing. Most gay guys and lesbian girls that I know are by no means "flaming," or obvious, nor do they necessarily have good taste. Most of the gay guys I know are just like every other straight guy friends I have, except that they want to have sex with men. Same with the lesbians that I know. To hell with it, whatever puts a smile on your face, in my opinion. Most of the time, I "out-gay" my gay friends. For example: I cook better than any other guy that I know; for that matter, I dress better than most guys I know; the only guys I know who are more fashion conscious are straight. Go figure. My point: Gay guys and lesbian gals put their underwear on one leg at a time just like everyone else. Granted, you might respond to different kinds of folks in porn films, but that's no reason to deny people spiritual enlightenment and happiness (or the lack thereof). Oddly enough, most gays and lesbians I know are pretty religous; much more so than I am not.

I would just like to take this moment to both affirm my support for gays, and to equally fervently support any measure made against Will & Grace, as that show is so painfully unfunny, it seems to actively suck the happiness out of all other shows near its programming block.

No, I said that "You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried."

So, as long as Bush denies he wanted anybody tortured while at the same time WANTING us to ignore the Geneva Conventions, he's free to go.

That's good to know. I wouldn't want him starting a war with somebody who didn't have any WMD or anything. Oh, wait.

The main reason for this, in my opinion, is our culture and our own personal upbringing.

Well, whether it's race, sex, or sexual preference, this country proves time and again that it is not a melting pot, but a cauldron of oils.

Just wanted to clear up a few misconceptions upthread. I am interested enough in discussing my religion and this topic, but not particularly interested in engaging in the, um, brawl-ish behavior currently going on.

I am a member of the United Church of Christ (UCC), Congregationalist. First, we are extremely different from Mormons (AKA Church of Latter-Day Saints, etc.); we are not at all like Mormons. We're a fairly mainstream Protestant denomination. We believe in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and have no supplementary texts (such as the Book of Mormon or what-have-you). Mormons believe that under some circumstances God refuses to forgive people, and this is completely contrary to all UCC doctrine. Also, we do not endorse polygamy, polygyny, or any other things that are particularly outré.

The United Church of Christ, overall, has made a decision that this denomination, overall, is accepting of GLBT people. However, UCC Congregational is incredibly strongly based on member input, voting, and delegations. Each congregation has the right to decide for itself whether or not it will become "open and affirming" (i.e. whether or not it is comfortable with GLBT people in the congregation, comfortable performing GLBT marriages, capable of finding counselors comfortable with discussing GLBT issues, and so on). Every minister has the right to decide for him- or herself whether he or she is comfortable performing GLBT marriages.

We are not a "hate the sin, love the sinner" type of church. Well, more accurately, we are; I think most churches are. But here's the clincher: the UCC denomination doesn't believe that GLBT people are inherently sinful, or sinful for being attracted to, or having sex with, people of the same sex. We judge them as people like anyone else. If a gay man happens to be promiscuous, it's no worse or better than if a straight man happens to be promiscuous. If a gay woman who has been in a committed relationship, or one of our faux-marriages, wants a divorce from her partner, it's no worse or better than if a straight woman wants a divorce. If a bisexual person has premarital sex, it's no worse or better than if a straight person has premarital sex.

Get the picture? For the UCC, it just isn't a sin if your partner happens to be the same sex as you are. We aren't here to judge. Remember that thing about the plank and the mote?

Also, due to UCC Congregationalist's overwhelming use of delegates and direct votes, many congregations have chosen not to be "open and affirming." And that's fine: the desired ability for disagreement is one of the reasons why the UCC wanted such direct representation. Almost all decisions are made at the local level. Many people within the UCC disagree with some of the UCC's overall stances; out of all the UCC people I've met, I don't know one who staunchly agrees with everything the church overall has decided.

There are plenty of conservatives within the UCC. You are more than welcome to join if you're pro-life, anti-gay-rights, or whatever else, and you won't suffer much in the way of formal or informal "conversion" from the church's officials. Of course, hate speech is not acceptable, but that's about the only limitation. I know that right now, my UCC congregation is about 90% people who consider themselves Republican. Many are pro-life, although that isn't the UCC's official stance. In February, our congregation is due to vote on whether or not to decide we are "open and affirming," and I am not at all sure which way the vote will go.

That's what I think is the beauty of the UCC.

IMHO (and here I'll switch from the party line to my own opinions), the UCC is about as close as you can get to really republican beliefs. The Bush kind? Hell no. Socially conservative? Nope. But really republican, in which the government is as small as possible, and people vote as locally as possible on the issues that matter most to them. The people's will is what drives local churches, and right on up, through delegations and conferences up to the official positions of the church overall.

If there are any questions you'd like answered about the UCC Congregational, I'll do my best to answer them. I haven't been sent out by my pastor or anything; rather, I've been following PAD's blog for awhile (big Apropos fan). And when I saw the story about the ad for the first time, I was as surprised as anyone; I hadn't known that was coming. But after it was mentioned here, well, I feel the need to correct some of the misunderstandings.

Liana Goldenquill said In February, our congregation is due to vote on whether or not to decide we are "open and affirming," and I am not at all sure which way the vote will go. That's what I think is the beauty of the UCC.

That's just great. As society changes for good or ill, the UCC will change their beliefs accordingly regardless of what the Bible says.

How tragic, I hear that some churches are anti-slavery despite what the bible says. The horror, the horror.

Jon said How tragic, I hear that some churches are anti-slavery despite what the bible says. The horror, the horror.

The Bible does give instructions on how slaves should be treated, since it was prevalent in that era, but it doesn't come out and say that slavery is the will of God.

I wonder if the liberals would challenge a vote cast at a UCC if it didn't go their way. :0)

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html

The Bible does give instructions on how slaves should be treated, since it was prevalent in that era, but it doesn't come out and say that slavery is the will of God.

Bzzzzzzz!!!!!

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Heh, I started catching up on this at the bottom...saw a congregation was going to vote on the UCC? I thought "why is a church going to accept a provision of the Universal Commercial Code..." Oh....then I thought "stupide lawyer dork..."

Hey, can we have more Bladestar v. Novafan? Like, a whole thread with just them going back and forth on each other? That'd be good entertainment....

"proactive".... "conservative"

Do you even own a dictionary?

"as long as Bush denies he wanted anybody tortured while at the same time WANTING us to ignore the Geneva Conventions, he's free to go."

What do the Geneva Conventions say regarding terrorists and other militantly hostile folk whom are not uniformed soldiers...?

Not only are they not protected by the Geneva Conventions... they rely only only on human mercy to protect them. Human decency or shite on them!

Oh well. If the POTUS were micro-managing in Iraq that never would have happened. If the POTUS was managing the war that closely I would have voted for someone else.

kingbobb said Hey, can we have more Bladestar v. Novafan? Like, a whole thread with just them going back and forth on each other? That'd be good entertainment....

Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I actually like conversing with Bladestar. You know what he's about from the first get go and don't have to worry about him stabbing you in the back like you do with some people.

Den said Bzzzzzzz!!!!!

The slavery tolerated by the Scriptures must be understood in its historical context. Old Testament laws regulating slavery are troublesome by modern standards, but in their historical context they provided a degree of social recognition and legal protection to slaves that was advanced for its time ( Exodus 21:20-27 ; Leviticus 25:44-46 ).

In ancient times, slavery existed in every part of the world. Slaves had no legal status or rights, and they were treated as the property of their owners. Even Plato and Aristotle looked upon slaves as inferior beings. As inhumane as such slavery was, we must keep in mind that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine. It was to the people of this harsh age that the Bible was first written.

In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population was comprised of slaves. If the writers of the New Testament had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable. To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order. 1 Consequently, the New Testament acknowledged slavery’s existence, instructing both Christian masters and slaves in the way they should behave ( Ephesians 6:5-9 ; Colossians 3:2 ; 4:1 ; 1 Timothy 6:2 ; Philemon 1:10-21 ). At the same time, it openly declared the spiritual equality of all people ( Galatians 3:28 ; 1 Corinthians 7:20-24 ; Colossians 3:11 ). 2

The gospel first had the practical effect of doing away with slavery within the community of the early church. 3 It also carried within it the seeds of the eventual complete abolition of slavery in the Western world.

The fact that the Bible never expressly condemned the institution of slavery has been wrongfully used as a rationale for its continuance. In the American South prior to the Civil War, many nominal Christians wrongly interpreted the Bible’s approach to slavery and used their misunderstanding to justify economic interests. The terrible use of African slave labor continued in spite of those who argued from the Scriptures for the equality of all races. 4

Only under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln did an American government bring an end to the nightmare of slavery that had long blighted the American conscience. The cost was incalculable. Nowhere in the world has more "brothers’ blood" been shed over the issue of slavery than in America. (Over 600,000 soldiers were killed in the Civil War.) As President Lincoln said:

Fondly do we hope— fervently do we pray— that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled up by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

The writer of the "Battle Hymn Of The Republic," popularized during the Civil War, expressed the views of millions who participated in the suffering of that era when she wrote:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord, He has trampled out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored, He has loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible, swift sword, His truth is marching on.

Today the Christian message of the spiritual equality of all men under God has spread throughout the world, and it is rapidly becoming the standard by which the human values of all nations are measured.

Written by: Dan Vander Lugt

What do the Geneva Conventions say regarding terrorists and other militantly hostile folk whom are not uniformed soldiers...?

So, if the cops want to start torturing a murder suspect, because he's not in a uniform or anything, that's ok too?

We declared war on terror. So, it sounds like we should give them the protections of the Convention.
But then, if we don't give it to our enemies, we shouldn't start complaining when our soldiers are dragged through the streets, should we?

Feh...

If the "scriptures" were meant to be truly the word of "God" and a tool of the oppressors, they'd be writeen in plain, straight-forward language that not even a lawyer could twist...

Even more proff that religion is a sham (or that god is an asshole)...