Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

[Guest guest]

>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the hospital should be required to sustain

her, but I don't see why other people shouldn't have the right to

willingly support her. >>>>>>>>>>>>

I hesitatingly agree with you as long as the same people support her

financially as well -- put-their-money-where-their-mouth-is so to speak.

I know that if I were were even CLOSE to being in a similar situation as Ms.

Shiavo, I would want to be allowed to die. My husband knows this although I

haven't told my parents -- didn't think I had to... ~Robin

[Guest guest]

> Well he wasn't particularly interested in her wishes when he

> prohibited her from taking Italian lessons. He checked her mileage to

> enforce it too. I didn't get the impression that her wish was his

> command.

So then what's his motivation? He's just an asshole? And so is every

judge who's heard this case and every credible doctor? They're all just

murdering assholes? I imagine he regrets not letting her take Italian

lessons; I imagine he regrets a lot of things that seemed important at

the time but really weren't.

>> Do we really want the government THIS involved

>> in our personal lives? Would you want your parents and the government

>> stepping into a decision made between you and your husband?

>

> I don't really see how someone should become property of their spouse

> upon marriage, to the point that no one else should be able to provide

> for them in a situation like this. What evidence do you have that

> this was an agreement between the two?

I have no evidence but over ten years of intense litigation every

single judge has decided that indeed there was an agreement between

Terri and . Unless you're willing to entertain a massive

judicial conspiracy for some obscure reason (maybe Terri knew who

really shot JFK?) I don't see where the argument is.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

> If there's no evidence, how could the courts rule such?

I'm saying apparently there was, because they have.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

>I don't know what the law holds in this case, but the Bible is quite

>clear that the bond of marriage is broken by adultery. is, by

>Christian standards, no longer Terri's husband.

>

>

Okay, but what is the status of Terri's soul? Is it residing in her

body, or has the medical intervention left her in some sort of limbo?

With all due respect, these questions are being discussed in religious

communities around the globe. I would not be so bold as to judge

Shiavo's situation based on media hype. Why all the sudden

interest anyway? These things happen everyday all over the globe.

And what about lethal injection? I know the Bible says " Thou shall not

kill. " This must apply to all and not just those the politically

correct judge as innocent, right?

>Well I'm all for honoring legal contracts without the subjective value

judgments of the state affecting their validity... but many people are

>married for bad reasons and stay married because of psychological

>abuse, etc.

>

>Chris

>

Well, that's good. I'm all for my lawmakers making measured decisions

and acting for the benefit of all, not the emotional appeal of one.

You're a history buff, don't you think that our legislative and

executive feds are reacting rather than acting?

Yes, people sometimes do stay in bad situations. Also, people

jeopardize their own lives through bad behaviors like eating disorders,

smoking, suicide, and other means.

An aside. I had known someone in college who spent five days in a coma

after a motorcycle accident. We were in a few semesters of calculus

together, and we rode the river trail to the beach often together.

Having come back from such an experience, he never did ride motorbikes

again. But then, he was fortunate to return. Hindsight is 20/20.

All will die, and all fall short.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Masterjohn [mailto:chrismasterjohn@...]

> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:46:02 -0800, Lynn Siprelle

> <lynn@...> wrote:

> > So you're saying that 20 judges, a dozen doctors, and almost every

> > employee of the hospitals, nursing homes and hospice she's been in

> > for over a decade are participating in a cover-up. To what end? To

> > whose benefit? 's? Who is he to these people that

> they would do

> > this for him? Why did no one get so worked up over Sun

> Hudson, who was

> > only

> > 6 months old and actually could have made it? Because he was from a

> > poor black family? The hospital removed his respirator because his

> > mother couldn't pay and he suffocated within minutes earlier this

> > month. (And who signed the bill allowing this? Gov. Bush in

> > 1999.)

>

> OMG! I never heard of this. What a hypocritical creep.

You must be suffering a relapse. <grin>

How is it hypocritical to believe that doctors should not be forced to

administer care to terminally ill patients, and that taxpayers should not be

forced to pay for it, but that those who have the means and desire to

support someone should have the opportunity to do so if no one else wants

to?

Here's a left-wing blog with the other side of the story and an apology for

jumping to conclusions:

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/schiavo_/2005/03/schiavo_futile_care_a

nd_money.php

[Guest guest]

>

>

>As the case mentioned a few posts ago, it depends on your state. In Texas,

>the doctor has the legal right to make the call by laws written by the

>state.

>

I am a Texan, and my lawyer would beg to differ with you, if you mean a

doctor can usurp a contract, be it written or verbal. Please provide

the laws you refer to, so that I can examine them more closely. I am

pretty darn sure that my attorney knows what he's talking about when we

sign documents that are binding that no third party doctor can disrupt

my intent. Are you an attorney?

Deanna, with the wills in her possession and more libertarian rights

than most states

[Guest guest]

> I know that if I were were even CLOSE to being in a similar situation as

> Ms.

> Shiavo, I would want to be allowed to die. My husband knows this although

> I

> haven't told my parents -- didn't think I had to... ~Robin

>

>

As the case mentioned a few posts ago, it depends on your state. In Texas,

the doctor has the legal right to make the call by laws written by the

state. I would prefer my husband also to make the call because I know he

would never do what Mr. Shiavo is doing and would make better decisions on

doctors and who he listened to than my parents. But again, this case is not

about removal of life support equipment, it's about extermination. I don't

want to vilify him but there is a problem in the law acknowledging him as

husband and excluding the parents wishes. They were married two years when

she went down. They have not lived as husband and wife for 14 years. He

has a common law wife and two children. He is that woman's husband, you

cannot serve two wives fairly. If you were in her state and your husband

was in Mr. Shiavo's with another woman and children, would you still want

him dictating your care and life?

> It seems a tragedy that even a small percentage of medical insurance

> payments go to artificially keep people alive for years when so many young

> children are without insurance and young families have go without

> preventative healthcare due to high insurance rates.

She was awarded $700,000 malpractice which according to Mr. Shiavo, is now

gone. I find it difficult to believe the award did not include medical bills

for however long she required care it. He got $300,000 which he spent on an

education (an expensive one) and it is reportedly gone. The " life support "

she got was food and water - that actually is not very expensive. She has

not had MRIs, therapy, CAT scans etc. Where did that money go? Could that

have something to do with the termination orders?

[Guest guest]

> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:46:02 -0800, Lynn Siprelle <lynn@...>

> wrote:

>

>> Why did no one get so worked up over Sun Hudson, who was only

>> 6 months old and actually could have made it? Because he was from a

>> poor black family? The hospital removed his respirator because his

>> mother couldn't pay and he suffocated within minutes earlier this

>> month. (And who signed the bill allowing this? Gov. Bush in

>> 1999.)

>

> OMG! I never heard of this. What a hypocritical creep.

>

> Chris

Jon on The Daily Show this week, did a bleeped out primordial scream

while banging his head on the desk about this hypocrisy.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Question for the Christians who support continued feeding tube:

When, if ever, does " life-support " become an obstacle to Heaven? I'd like

someone to explain to me why, if you envision such a beautiful afterlife as

Heaven, you would, in effect, want to deny a suffering woman the natural

chance to free her soul from her ailing body so it can rise up to Heaven? Is

she a non-Christian or something? What am I missing? I guess I just don't

get how all that breaks down so I'd love it if someone could explain..

~Robin

[Guest guest]

The " life support "

she got was food and water - that actually is not very expensive. She has

not had MRIs, therapy, CAT scans etc. Where did that money go? Could that

have something to do with the termination orders? _

Whoa! That is just too much and I'm finally out of this one.. , it is

quite obvious that you have never had to support a person for any length of

time in a hospital setting. ~Robin

[Guest guest]

There was no written evidence, only his word. Whether they had an agreement

or did not, I suspect the Mr. Shiavo truly believes he is doing the right

thing. That does not mean he is. He is a nurse trained by the med system

which is corrupt as can be and so screwed in their thinking and schooling by

drug companies.

I suspect the judges as well believe they are doing the right thing. That

too does not mean they are. There is a problem in his right as her husband

when he has another common law wife which there is no law to address. It's

a catch that has revealed itself in this situation. The courts respected

his legal status only. They took his word as to her wishes. They followed

the law because in a lawyer's mind, the law and " right " are the same.

The biggest fallacy is in confusing food and water with life support

equipment. It is a major severe flaw in thinking. Another problem is in

confusing denial of food and water with being the same as stopping life

support equipment and allowing a natural death to occur. That too is a

severe flaw in thinking. To deny food and water is to cause death, not

allow it naturally. What has actually been done is to set precedent for

euthanising by starvation and dehydration. That is very serious for our

society.

Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>> If there's no evidence, how could the courts rule such?

>

> I'm saying apparently there was, because they have.

>

> Lynn S.

>

> ------

> Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

> http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

> http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

They have been showing the woman on TV in all the stuff on Terry whose

infant son was removed by life support by the doctor. In the meantime, I

will have to search to get the law for you. I'll do that later if that is

okay.

Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>>

>>

>>As the case mentioned a few posts ago, it depends on your state. In

>>Texas,

>>the doctor has the legal right to make the call by laws written by the

>>state.

>>

> I am a Texan, and my lawyer would beg to differ with you, if you mean a

> doctor can usurp a contract, be it written or verbal. Please provide

> the laws you refer to, so that I can examine them more closely. I am

> pretty darn sure that my attorney knows what he's talking about when we

> sign documents that are binding that no third party doctor can disrupt

> my intent. Are you an attorney?

>

>

> Deanna, with the wills in her possession and more libertarian rights

> than most states

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Just the facts (according to NYT) man.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/national/26families.html

March 26, 2005

Behind Life-and-Death Fight, a Rift That Began Years Ago

*By ABBY GOODNOUGH

<http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL & v1=ABBY%20GOODNOUGH & fdq=1996010\

1 & td=sysdate & sort=newest & ac=ABBY%20GOODNOUGH & inline=nyt-per>

*

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., March 25 - It is almost beyond belief, given the

sea of distance between them now, that Terri Schiavo's husband and

parents once shared a home, a life, a goal.

But for years - when Ms. Schiavo walked and talked among them and after

her catastrophic collapse - the headstrong young man and his

traditionalist in-laws were, by all accounts, friendly.

As the brain-damaged Ms. Schiavo lay dying in a hospice and her husband

and parents continued to the end their battle over her fate, the rancor

built and a transfixed nation wondered how a 12-year-old fight - even

one that everyone agrees began over money - ever became so bad,

culminating in daily court fights and decisions.

The hurled accusations persist: adulterer, opportunists, murderer,

liars. Everyone on the street has taken sides, guessing at the

motivations of Schiavo and the Schindlers but never knowing for

sure.

It is easy for most people to assume that blinding love for their

daughter drives the parents, who have begged Mr. Schiavo to give them

his wife and walk away. But his motives are harder to fathom. Is it

stubbornness that drives him, or fervor to commit fully to the other

woman in his life, a girlfriend of eight years with whom he has two

children? Does he want Ms. Schiavo to die because she is a burden, or

because, as he says time and again, he promised her not to keep her

alive by artificial means?

The truth may always be out of reach. But the history of Mr. Schiavo and

the Schindlers, gleaned from court papers, interviews and their

statements over the years, offers at least some insight into a war of

clashing values, personalities and hopes.

Theirs is a battle over power, money and a woman they all claimed to

love more than anything, born of perceived betrayal that grew more

painful with each attack.

Even now, their visits to her deathbed are carefully orchestrated so as

not to coincide, and they cannot agree on what to do with her remains

after she dies.

" It's not a family issue anymore, " Ms. Schiavo's younger brother, Bobby

Schindler, said, adding that it had been years since the Schindlers

considered Mr. Schiavo anything but a legal opponent. " All we've ever

asked is that he give Terri back to us. "

To Mr. Schiavo and his family, it has all been highly personal.

" We are not mean people, " his brother said in an interview on

Friday. " But when you start throwing stones like that, and have

absolutely no respect for anybody else, it's hard to even go there. "

They met in the Philadelphia suburbs, where Ms. Schiavo and

Schiavo spent their childhoods and married in 1984, barely past

adolescence. The couple relied on the generosity of her parents,

and Schindler, first living in their basement in Pennsylvania, then

moving to a condominium here that Mr. Schindler bought when he sold his

heavy equipment business.

The Schindlers followed the couple to this sunny coastal city, and

though they did not see Mr. Schiavo often - he was working long hours at

beachside restaurants - they had no problem with him. He called them Mom

and Dad. They paid their daughter and son in-law's rent.

The couple wanted to have a baby, according to court papers, but failed

to conceive, even after consulting a fertility doctor. By then, Ms.

Schiavo, who is 5 foot 3 and had weighed more than 200 pounds in high

school, weighed 110. Her brother and sister now say that she was

starting to feel unhappy in her marriage. In an interview, Bobby

Schindler said Ms. Schiavo had confided in him at a restaurant one night.

" She brought me over to the bathroom and broke down in tears, " he said.

" She said her marriage was falling apart, but she didn't have the guts

to divorce him. I was shocked. "

In recent years, the Schindlers have also described Mr. Schiavo as a

controlling husband who would keep track of the mileage on his wife's

car, lash out at her for spending money and hound her to stay thin. They

have said that the couple fought in the months before Ms. Schiavo's

collapse and that Mr. Schiavo was, perhaps, harming his wife.

Mr. Schiavo's brother said he found that unfeasible. " Mike was

three times her size, " Schiavo, who lives in Sarasota, said in an

interview in 2003. " If he was abusing her, there would be some sign of

something. She would have taken her two cats and gone to her parents'. "

Whatever the relationships were, they changed profoundly in February

1990, when Mr. Schiavo says he awoke to a thud in the dead of night and

found his wife passed out on the floor. Together, the Schindlers and Mr.

Schiavo learned that Ms. Schiavo's heart had stopped and that she had

suffered drastic brain damage before the paramedics arrived. Doctors say

a potassium deficiency, possibly caused by an eating disorder, led to

her collapse.

The parents and son-in-law promised to see Ms. Schiavo, just 26,

recover. The Schiavos and Schindlers moved in, sharing a house in St.

sburg Beach as they devoted themselves to Ms. Schiavo's care. In

June 1990, Mr. Schiavo was appointed his wife's guardian, and months

later, he took her to California for an experimental, ultimately

unsuccessful, treatment to stimulate her brain.

Ms. Schiavo was later placed in a nursing home in Largo, Fla., where Mr.

Schiavo was strict with and sometimes hostile toward the staff, court

transcripts show.

" His demanding concern for her well-being and meticulous care by the

nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as 'a

nursing home administrator's nightmare,' " wrote Jay Wolfson, a

court-appointed independent guardian for Ms. Schiavo who had no say in

her case but researched it in 2003.

Mr. Schiavo even went to nursing school with the goal, his brothers say,

of better caring for his wife.

He filed a malpractice suit against the obstetrician who had overseen

Ms. Schiavo's fertility therapy, contending that the potassium

deficiency should have been detected. In January 1993, the couple was

awarded $750,000 in economic damages for her and $300,000 for loss of

companionship for him.

A month later, on St. Valentine's Day, both sides say, a fight over the

award signaled the beginning of their estrangement. The way Mr. Schiavo

has described it, he was visiting his wife when the Schindlers walked in

and Mr. Schindler asked how much money he would receive from Mr.

Schiavo's part of the malpractice settlement.

The Schindlers say the fight was about what the treatment their

daughter's money would go toward, with their advocating rigorous therapy

and Mr. Schiavo wanting basic care.

The rift quickly deepened. Mr. Schiavo blocked his in-laws' access to

his wife's medical records. In July 1993, the Schindlers briefly tried

to remove Mr. Schiavo as her guardian. Schiavo said his brother

was deeply offended by what he saw as a crass effort by Mr. Schindler to

claim some of the settlement money.

As the fight played out, Mr. Schiavo's hopes for recovery apparently

evaporated. In 1994, court records show, he decided not to have Ms.

Schiavo treated for a urinary tract infection, a move prompted, he later

testified, by her doctor's advice.

" I think he finally saw the reality of it, " Schiavo said.

Ultimately, Ms. Schiavo's nursing home challenged the order, and he

canceled it, along with a " do not resuscitate " order he imposed, Mr.

Wolfson said.

But there was no reversing the ill will.

Only after his mother's death in 1997 did Mr. Schiavo tell his in-laws

that on several occasions his wife had said she would not want to be

kept alive artificially. The timing of the disclosure- after he had won

the malpractice money and begun dating Jodi Centonze, with whom he would

have two children - made the Schindlers deeply suspicious, they say.

They continue to insist that their daughter, who they say tried to

administer CPR to the family dog when it was dying, would never choose

to have her life cut short.

" My sister and I were very close, and we never talked about this stuff, "

Bobby Schindler said. " I mean, who would at 20 years old, 25? "

In 1998, when Mr. Schiavo asked a court's permission to remove his

wife's feeding tube, the Schindlers challenged, leading to a trial. That

is when and Schiavo and their sister in-law Joan Schiavo

testified that Ms. Schiavo had told them never to prolong her life

artificially.

Schiavo testified that after his grandmother was on life support

at the end of her life, Ms. Schiavo had told him: " If I ever go like

that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. "

Judge Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court found the testimony

constituted " clear and convincing " evidence of Ms. Schiavo's wishes, and

her feeding tube was removed in April 2001. It was reconnected days

later, after a former girlfriend of Mr. Schiavo called a radio station

to say he had told her he had no idea whether his wife would have wanted

life-prolonging measures.

That led to new testimony, but it did not change Judge Greer's mind,

partly because the girlfriend recanted.

The Schindlers stepped up their publicity campaign that year,

videotaping their daughter and distributing the tapes to television

stations. That infuriated Mr. Schiavo, Schiavo said, because his

self-conscious wife would have been mortified.

" She was very, very particular about the way she looked, very proud when

she walked out the door, " Schiavo said on Friday. " She would be so

upset to have the world seeing her that way, and knew that. "

Mr. Schiavo's anger intensified as the Schindlers went increasingly

public, winning support from religious groups, news media outlets and,

ultimately, Gov. Jeb Bush. At one point, Mr. Schiavo banned the

Schindlers from seeing his wife, saying aides at her hospice had found

what appeared to be needle marks on her arm after one of their visits.

A police report found no evidence of wrongdoing, and their visiting

rights resumed three months later.

Mr. Schiavo's demeanor, prickly and forceful, did not gain him much

sympathy.

As the case has attracted national publicity, Mr. Schiavo has become the

subject of such intense, widespread hatred that he and his family

regularly receive death threats. His brother , who lives in

Pennsylvania, said he had received enough such threats this week to send

off his children. On Friday, the F.B.I. said it arrested a man in North

Carolina for sending an e-mail message that offered a $250,000 bounty

for Schiavo's death.

By contrast, the Schindlers - he affable and jokey, she quiet and

melancholic - worked hard to win hearts and minds.

Schiavo said he felt sorry for Mrs. Schindler, who he said was

always close to her daughter, but not for Mr. Schindler, who he said

thrived on the attention. If it were not for the father, he added, " this

could have been resolved a long time ago. "

" Terri would still have whatever dignity she had left, " Mr. Schiavo

said, " and everything would be peaceful. "

Instead, Mr. Schiavo has even rejected the Schindlers' request that

their daughter be buried in Florida instead of cremated, which they

object to as Catholics. He also refused their request to let Ms. Schiavo

die in their home instead of at the hospice.

Mr. Schiavo's lawyer told reporters this week that the cremated remains

would be buried at the Schiavo family plot outside Philadelphia, far

from the parents who fought so intensely to win her back. Whether they

can or will visit her gravesite could be the next subject of dispute.

/Lynn Waddell and Dennis Blank contributed reporting from Pinellas

County, Fla., for this article./

[Guest guest]

There have been multimillion dollar offers to pay for Terry's care as well

as monetary offers to her husband to let go of his rights. It is not an

issue of taxpayer money. People do have the right to do what they want with

their own money.

I can appreciate that medical care costs. I certainly pay my insurance

premiums which are outragous by themself. But you are putting Terry as a

person in a hospital on life support equipment requiring critical care. She

is not - she is in a hospice and has received very minimal care in

comparison - they do not cost near the same. Her life support is food via a

plastic tube. It is not that expensive.

RE: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

> The " life support "

> she got was food and water - that actually is not very expensive. She has

> not had MRIs, therapy, CAT scans etc. Where did that money go? Could

> that

> have something to do with the termination orders? _

>

> Whoa! That is just too much and I'm finally out of this one.. , it is

> quite obvious that you have never had to support a person for any length

> of

> time in a hospital setting. ~Robin

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>> If there's no evidence, how could the courts rule such?

>>

>> I'm saying apparently there was, because they have.

>

> Right, that's meaningless.

Court decisions--appealed and re-appealed and reviewed and re-reviewed

and re-re-appealed--are meaningless? How then are we to live in a

secular world?

I will tell you what my primary problem with all this is, and that's

the political grandstanding, especially since Tom DeLay pulled the plug

on his own father in 1988 (tomorrow's LA Times). I can only imagine

what a painful thing that must have been for him, and no one interfered

in his family's deliberations. That the Schindlers have been

manipulated by the unscrupulous into this circus is astonishing,

reprehensible and deeply deeply saddening.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

I don't know that there is an afterlife so I'm may not be the best to answer

your question about denying a person Heaven. I also am not supportive of

keeping people alive on life support equipment indefinitely and don't know

any Christians who are either. I rather believe that it is wrong to commit

murder and a society that justifies it for anything other than self defense

is in big trouble. In most situations with life support where this issue

comes up, people are actually already dead but are only being sustained by

mechanical equipment that is forcing a heart to pump or lungs to breath. If

there seems to be chance of recovery, you certainly vote on the side of

life. There would be a point you would have to consider that you were

playing God by not allowing him to take what he already has so chosen. But

this is not Terry's situation, she only needs the same as you or I, food and

water. She is brain damaged, not brain dead. There is a big difference. I

see us stepping into an area that says people who are damaged or handicapped

can be killed.

RE: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

> Question for the Christians who support continued feeding tube:

> When, if ever, does " life-support " become an obstacle to Heaven? I'd like

> someone to explain to me why, if you envision such a beautiful afterlife

> as

> Heaven, you would, in effect, want to deny a suffering woman the natural

> chance to free her soul from her ailing body so it can rise up to Heaven?

> Is

> she a non-Christian or something? What am I missing? I guess I just don't

> get how all that breaks down so I'd love it if someone could explain..

> ~Robin

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> <Clip the christian bible wrath crap>

> This is not a christian country and the bible is not law here. Leave the

> wrath in your church.

>

Sorry I don't have a church. Could you explain one thing though, if it is

not a Christian country, how come Bush got elected?

[Guest guest]

> <Clip the christian bible wrath crap>

> This is not a christian country and the bible is not law here. Leave the

> wrath in your church.

>

" Sorry I don't have a church. Could you explain one thing though, if it is

not a Christian country, how come Bush got elected? "

Well, it is not supposed to be officially a Christian country...but,

unfortunately, many millions of Christians see no inherent problem in

screwing over poor people, or murdering a hundred thousand Iraqis.

[Guest guest]

>> Could you explain one thing though, if it is

not a Christian country, how come Bush got elected?

You think that only Christians voted for Bush? What about all the Christians

voted for someone other than Bush? What about the fact that Bush AND his

opponent are both Christian? What would the election of Kerry have said

about the religion of this country?

For that matter, do you think if the majority of voters in a country are of

a certain religion, that makes that country also that religion? Even if the

people who founded the country explicity stated it was NOT a nation based on

that religion?

This is a nation of many people of many different beliefs, the majority of

which identify as being Christian. The percentage of those who identify as

Christian drops each year, and is in fact today at its lowest levels ever.

Would that number need to drop below 50 percent (it's currently in the 70s)

for you to not say this is a " Christian nation, " or would it depend on how

they voted?

Christie

[Guest guest]

> You think that only Christians voted for Bush? What about all the

> Christians

> voted for someone other than Bush?

I don't know the distribution of numbers but considering that Bush is a

fundamentalist Christian and the fact that he was elected says to me that

there for sure must be a lot of fundamentalists, nto to mention Christians.

But then come to think of it, he probably got a number of votes from the

devil worshipers who loved his war.

>What about the fact that Bush AND his opponent are both Christian?

That would support saying this country is a Christian country.

What would the election of Kerry have said

> about the religion of this country?

Kerry's election would have supported that the country was not a Christian

nation, but he wasn't elected. Kerry claims to be Catholic and goes to

Church but his views and ideas on some significant issues are not in

agreement with the Church. Thus Christians would typically not tend to

identify with him as a Christian, although some would.

> For that matter, do you think if the majority of voters in a country are

> of

> a certain religion, that makes that country also that religion?

Yes, I think that is a very reasonable generalization that can be made, and

it is a common one made. Not everyone in the Arab countries are Muslim but

the majorities are in those nations and thus are generally considered Muslin

nations. The Muslin's certainly consider the US as a Christian nation, and

Israel as a Jewish nation even though there are Muslim's living in Israel.

Even if the

> people who founded the country explicity stated it was NOT a nation based

> on

> that religion?

Well where did our founders explicity state that it was not a Christian

nation? I thought they just wrote it to be separation of Church and State.

Please tell me. I thought our founders were as a majority, extremely

religious and not very tolerant of people who were not. I mean Catholic

missionaries had been some of the first here trying to convert Indians to

Christianity. A considerable number of the colonists had come here seeking

religious freedom - their right to practise Christianity as they believed,

Protestant Reformation stuff. In England, the King had taken over running

the church (there's bloody and persecuting Quakers etc. In Europe, the

Catholic Church and the monarchy's were essentially one - the aristocracy

were the priests. Wasn't it in France that mass murdering of protestants

spurred immigration? The colonists wanted freedom to believe as they

chose - that is not saying that there were no atheists, I'm sure a number

were or in challenge of establishment (goes with the youth) but for sure,

all the churches were Christian churches and most all the people were

Chritians .

Studying the early history, each colony had its own particular protestant

Church - some had State churches Memory tells me that land was the only

one tolerant of different protestant churches in its state. The Quakers in

New England were the least tolerant of anyone not of their church. The first

Great Awakening which just preceded the revolution was a massive evangelical

revival that spurred rebellion against the established churches in exchange

of new ideas and churches, it had significant numbers in its wave. It

affected the revolution.

> This is a nation of many people of many different beliefs, the majority of

> which identify as being Christian. The percentage of those who identify as

> Christian drops each year, and is in fact today at its lowest levels ever.

> Would that number need to drop below 50 percent (it's currently in the

> 70s)

> for you to not say this is a " Christian nation, " or would it depend on how

> they voted?

If the majority is not Christian, I would wonder that they would tend to

support a Christian candidate. I would think it difficult and less likely

since beliefs would be different, there would be lack of identification,

etc. If 70% are Christian, why would you say this is not a Christian

nation? I'm just curious. If there are 70%, then there is a good ways to go

before they are out of your hair.

> Christie

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

Bush got elected BECAUSE the election system in Florida, a pivioal state was

computer driven with NO paper trail. The company that programmed the

software is a good friend of Jeb Bush's....Go figure. (No wonder was

smiling like a cat who swallowed the canary.)

This was frequently puiblicized in the BBC here in the UK.

Don't many Americans know this????

Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>>> Could you explain one thing though, if it is

> not a Christian country, how come Bush got elected?

>

> You think that only Christians voted for Bush? What about all the

> Christians

> voted for someone other than Bush? What about the fact that Bush AND his

> opponent are both Christian? What would the election of Kerry have

> said

> about the religion of this country?

>

> For that matter, do you think if the majority of voters in a country are

> of

> a certain religion, that makes that country also that religion? Even if

> the

> people who founded the country explicity stated it was NOT a nation based

> on

> that religion?

>

> This is a nation of many people of many different beliefs, the majority of

> which identify as being Christian. The percentage of those who identify as

> Christian drops each year, and is in fact today at its lowest levels ever.

> Would that number need to drop below 50 percent (it's currently in the

> 70s)

> for you to not say this is a " Christian nation, " or would it depend on how

> they voted?

>

> Christie

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

> There would be a point you would have to consider that you were

>playing God by not allowing him to take what he already has so chosen. But

>this is not Terry's situation, she only needs the same as you or I, food and

>water. She is brain damaged, not brain dead. There is a big difference. I

>see us stepping into an area that says people who are damaged or handicapped

>can be killed.

, have you ever actually FED a person in this state? I have. It involves a

tube being

placed thru their nose and down into their stomach. If the tube gets displaced,

it has

to be re-placed using an xray machine. Only certain formulas can be used. Or, it

requires

in IV (which can only be placed by a nurse, and is prone to infection) and

certain very

sterilized packs you have to buy at rather large expense. Or, sometimes, a

gastro

tube that is surgically placed into their stomach directly, which is very

convenient,

but I don't think that applies in this case.

Also, you have to turn the person to avoid bed sores. A full grown person weighs

a lot. And keep them clean. Most people can't do that ... it requires a nurse.

You are

basically dealing with a dead weight that can breath. The emotional weight of it

is horrid. Every single person I know who HAS done it first hand, came out of

the

experience with a DNR (handed to everyone they know: DO NOT ALLOW this

to happen to me!).

It is NOT the same as say, feeding a person who is rather " out of it " some nice

broth out of a spoon. This is a whole new deal that got invented recently ...

keeping a body alive far longer than every possible. Shoot, they can keep

cells alive for YEARS in a petri dish, and bodies alive too. So how do you

decide

when and if a " body " is a " person " ? That is what we, as a group, are trying to

figure out.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> I thought our founders were as a majority, extremely

>religious and not very tolerant of people who were not.

During that time frame, EVERYONE was " religious " but our

founding fathers were rather the rarity in that they were

less so than most. Ben lin especially, who was key

in our independence. He was a " freethinker " and extremely

critical of the Fundamentalists of his day.

ALL of them agreed, however, that the religion of the

" person in charge " should not affect the whole country.

In their day, the issue was whether the King was Catholic

or Protestant. Today, the King might be Muslim or Shinto or

Bright. The thing is, do you want the religion of the " guy

in charge " to affect your personal life? You may say " yes "

now, if you agree with this particular guy. But what

about when the next one comes along? What if she is Shinto?

Or Muslim? Or Bright? Do you want to set the precedent?

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> ALL of them agreed, however, that the religion of the

> " person in charge " should not affect the whole country.

> In their day, the issue was whether the King was Catholic

> or Protestant. Today, the King might be Muslim or Shinto or

> Bright. The thing is, do you want the religion of the " guy

> in charge " to affect your personal life? You may say " yes "

> now, if you agree with this particular guy. But what

> about when the next one comes along? What if she is Shinto?

> Or Muslim? Or Bright? Do you want to set the precedent?

Heidi, I think you are confusing history here and pulling what you like, to

support what you like Lets first clarify the words religion and church.

The " religion " Christianity, is made up of various " churches " including

Catholicism, Presbeterism, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc. The constitution

says " separation of church and state " - it says absolutely nothing about

separation of religion. Our revolution was against England and a King who

was head of the government AND head of the church, one and the same

organization. Anglicanism was the official Church of the State which meant

if you were not Anglican, you were in trouble. People were persecuted and

actually killed in Europe for believing differently than what the

monarchists decided for their country. So they migrated to the colonies so

that their churches COULD EXIST. This is about the protestant Reformation.

our " founding fathers " wanted these Christian churches TO EXIST- not the

opposite.

The Constitution was about unifying the then 13 states and creating a

federal government with some powers. Bear in mind there was opposition to

this Constitution - the anti federalists. That Constitution had to be

ratified by each state. They could not pull this off if they had picked one

particular church to be the state church because each state tended to have

different churches predominanting. Plus that was one of the major peeves

against King . Plus the country had just gone through the First Great

Awakening - evangelical movement challenging some of the american church

authorities with new churches developing. They wrote separation of church

and state into the constitution meaning the federal government would be a

separate entity of any of the organized church governments. There was no

intention that the Churches would not exist, there was no intention that a

President wouldn't be a Christian or anything but a Christian, or never

bring his beliefs into public display while he was in office. Rather the

intention was to ENSURE ALL the various Christian CHURCHES could exist and

the federal gov would not be aligned to one particular one, and thus get a

different one from existing. It was protecting the churches so they COULD

EXIST.

[Guest guest]

>Well where did our founders explicity state that it was not a Christian

>nation? I thought they just wrote it to be separation of Church and State.

>Please tell me. I thought our founders were as a majority, extremely

>religious and not very tolerant of people who were not.

>

Many founding fathers were deists. Here's some great quotes from them

against the notion that we are a Christian nation. See more at the

site, but this should be enough from our former presidents and other

shapers of our nation. My personal favorite is Jefferson. He

wrote about the illogic of the Trinity as well.

http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm

" The United States of America should have a foundation free from the

influence of clergy. "

- Washington

The Constitution of the United States

Article VI, Section 3: " ...no religious test shall ever be required as a

qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. "

First Amendment: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion... "

Washington

Washington to Tench Tilghman, (March 24, 1784):

" I am a good deal in want of a House Joiner and Bricklayer, (who really

understand their profession) and you would do me a favor by purchasing

one of each, for me. I would not confine you to Palatines. If they are

good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be

Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an Sect, or they may be Atheists. "

From a letter to Cushing (October 19, 1756):

" Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the

point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds,

if there were no religion in it.' "

A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America, 1787-88:

" The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example

of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men

are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice,

imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as

an era in their history. ... It will never be pretended that any persons

employed in that service [forming the U.S. government] had interviews

with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more

than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or

agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were

contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. ...Thirteen

governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural

authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or

mystery... are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind "

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of

Washington and signed into law by .

" The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the

Christian religion. "

, letter to Jefferson, (July 16, 1814):

" Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has

prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the

monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may

endure for centuries before he expires. "

Jefferson

Letter to his nephew, Carr, August 10, 1787

" Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds

are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her

tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the

existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of

the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. "

Jefferson to , August 14, 1800

" The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, & ingrafted into

the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against

the civil and religious rights of man. They are still so in many

countries & even in some of these United States. Even in 1783, we

doubted the stability of our recent measures for reducing them to the

footing of other useful callings. It now appears that our means were

effectual. "

Letter to Dr. Rush, September 23, 1800

" [The clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be

exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I

have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form

of tyranny over the mind of man "

Jefferson, March 4, 1801, First Inaugural Address

" And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious

intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet

gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as

wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. "

Jefferson, letter to Dowse, April 19, 1803

" I will never, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or

admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. "

Jefferson to Kercheval, January 19, 1810

" But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the

Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who

professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for

enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State. "

Letter to von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

" History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people

maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of

ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will

always avail themselves for their own purpose. "

Letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

" In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to

liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses

in return for protection to his own "

Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, January 10, 1816

" You judge truly that I am not afraid of the priests. They have tried

upon me all their various batteries, of pious whining, hypocritical

canting, lying & slandering, without being able to give me one moment of

pain. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the

Saints of the West, and I have found no difference of character, but of

more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance of

those on whom their interested duperies were to be plaid off. Their sway

in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares

there to develope itself. If it does, they excite against it the public

opinion which they command, & by little, but incessant and teasing

persecutions, drive it from among them. Their present emigrations to the

Western country are real flights from persecution, religious &

political, but the abandonment of the country by those who wish to enjoy

freedom of opinion leaves the despotism over the residue more intense,

more oppressive. They are now looking to the flesh pots of the South and

aiming at foothold there by their missionary teachers. They have lately

come forward boldly with their plan to establish " a qualified religious

instructor over every thousand souls in the US. " And they seem to

consider none as qualified but their own sect. "

Jefferson to , May 5, 1817

" I had believed that [Connecticut was] the last retreat of monkish

darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which

had carried the other States a century ahead of them. ... I join you,

therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is

at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to

disgrace the American history and character. If by religion we are to

understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your

exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of

all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.'

Letter to , April 11, 1823

" One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States

will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day

will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as

His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of

the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. "

Jefferson's Autobiography

" [A]n amendment was proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that [the

preamble] should read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the

holy author of our religion'; the insertion was rejected by a great

majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of

its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan,

the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination "

Madison

Letter to Bradford, April 1, 1774:

" Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for

every noble enterprise "

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Section 7, 1785:

" During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of

Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in

all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility

in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. "

Ibid, Section 8:

" What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil

Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual

tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have

been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance

have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people.

Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an

established Clergy convenient auxiliaries "

Madison, introducing the Bill of Rights at the First Federal

Congress, Congressional Register, June 8, 1789:

" [The] civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious

belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor

shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or on any

pretext infringed. "

Madison, Detached Memoranda, believed to have been written circa 1817.

" The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable

violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The

tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of

worship against the members whose creeds and consciences forbid a

participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects,

this is the case with that of Roman Catholics and Quakers who have

always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a

Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his

religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift

the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that

religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have

a right to govern the minor. "

Madison, letter to Walsh, March 2, 1819

" The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated

hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions

with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality

of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly

increased by the total separation of the Church from the State. "

Madison, letter to Livingston, July 10, 1822:

" I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the

immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it

does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always

been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation,

that the deviation from it took place in Cong[ress], when they appointed

Chaplains, to be paid from the Nat[ional] Treasury. It would have been a

much better proof to their Constituents of their pious feeling if the

members had contributed for the purpose, a pittance from their own

pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that

can now be done, may be to apply to the Const[itution] the maxim of the

law, de minimis non curat. "

lin

From lin's autobiography:

" Scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having

doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated

in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself "

" ...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they

wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for

the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to

me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a

thorough Deist. "

lin, The Writings of lin: London, 1757 - 1775

" If we look back into history for the character of present sects in

Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been

persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians

thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on

one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed

persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans:

these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice

themselves both here and in New England. "