Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

[Guest guest]

I do not understand your point. Jefferson was opposed to ratification

of the Constitution and giving the federal gov much power over anything. He

was a leader of the antifederalists, they were a scattered unorganized group

of individuals and very much a minority - the only thing they achieved was

in getting the Bill of Rights added, it wasn't there before. They still

opposed the Constitution but it was ratified by each and every state anyway

(i.e. majority). Jefferson actually was a slave owner (another of his

contentions against the Constitution) so are you trying to use him as an

example of " what " exactly - a good guy?

This was the cusp of the Age of Enlightment - an age of reason based on

faith, not an age of faith based on reason. all kinds of old institutions

and beliefs were being challenged. As I mentioned, the Great Awakening - an

evangelical movement had just preceded. The fact Jefferson moved through

various intellectual phases as well with the flow of his time does not

support your atheist position that this country was or is not a Christian

country or it was the intention of our founding fathers that religion not

exist, even be mentioned by a politician. You are pulling things to believe

what you want, and not representing what was.

Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>

>>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. "

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>The fact Jefferson moved through

>various intellectual phases as well with the flow of his time does not

>support your atheist position that this country was or is not a Christian

>country or it was the intention of our founding fathers that religion not

>exist, even be mentioned by a politician. You are pulling things to believe

>what you want, and not representing what was.

>

I am not an atheist. You were the one who selectively mentioned

specifically the CHRISTIAN religion (picking and choosing as you have

accused Heidi and me of doing). The FF wanted any, all or none to be

the choice of the people. That is why they wrote about not respecting

the establishment of a particular religion in the US Constitution.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

You are making my point Deanna and disproving your own that we were not and

are not a Christian nation.

The founding fathers sought separation of church and state which meant the

church government would be separate institutions from the political

government. In other words, the President of the United States would not be

Head of an Offical State Church. That had next to nothing to do with them

all being atheists but rather reflected the fact that they were

predominantly Christians of varying church denominations and beliefs. You

are misunderstanding where these guys were at.

Do you not notice they are not intellectually challanging Hinduism or Islam?

They went through a period of intellectual challenge to their own religion -

Christianity. They did not protect native American religions. They did not

provide protection to Mormans or tribal beliefs of the African slaves. They

did not recognize these as religions because there was only one. What they

recognized were Jews who believed in the same God and Catholics who believed

in the same God. THat's it.

Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>

>>The fact Jefferson moved through

>>various intellectual phases as well with the flow of his time does not

>>support your atheist position that this country was or is not a Christian

>>country or it was the intention of our founding fathers that religion not

>>exist, even be mentioned by a politician. You are pulling things to

>>believe

>>what you want, and not representing what was.

>>

> I am not an atheist. You were the one who selectively mentioned

> specifically the CHRISTIAN religion (picking and choosing as you have

> accused Heidi and me of doing). The FF wanted any, all or none to be

> the choice of the people. That is why they wrote about not respecting

> the establishment of a particular religion in the US Constitution.

>

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

> From: [mailto:mhysmith@...]

>

> 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.

The Constitution says nothing about " separation of church and state. " What

it actually says is, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

The phrase " wall of separation between church and state " was coined by

Jefferson, who as far as I know had nothing to do with the

Constitution.

> 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.

Not only did they predominate, but I believe that several of the colonies

had official state churches at the time.

> Plus that was one of the major peeves against King .

I don't know about that, but I do know that of the dozens of complaints

against III mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, none had

anything to do with religion.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

[Guest guest]

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

> nation?

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

Christian religion. " This sentence is part of a treaty approved by the US

Congress in 1796. Unanimously passed. Authored by founding father

, our second president.

I do not define " a Christian nation " or a " Muslim nation " on the basis of

the professed faith of the people who live in the country. If a country is a

theocracy, as is, say, Iran, then yes, I would say that it was a Muslim

nation. If a nation is not a theocracy, then I do not define it as a

" Christian " or " Buddhist " or " Muslim " nation. And no matter how many

Christians there are in the United States, as long as their religion is not

the law of the land, this is not a theocracy.

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

> support a Christian candidate

I'm not a Christian but nearly every candidate I've ever voted for has been.

This is logically insupportable.

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

> nation?

Because this is not a theocracy.

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

> before they are out of your hair.

Martyr complex showing? Why would I want Christians out of my hair? As long

as religion, any religion, does not become the law of the land, I believe in

religious tolerance.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

>> That had next to nothing to do with them

all being atheists <<

Who said anything about them being ATHEISTS? Where did you get that?

Or do you divide the world up into Christians and atheists, as some

fundamentalists do?

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

>> 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.

<<

Interesting. By that logic, we are indeed a Christian nation. We're also a

white nation, since the last census found that over 75 percent of Americans

say they are white and no other race. Do you consider the US a white nation?

I mean, let's face it. We've never had a president who wasn't white. We keep

electing white presidents. Is this a white nation?

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

>> On a side note, as to the Treaty of Tripoli... it was a treaty, iirc,

with a Muslim nation. It can't be validly used as a true

representation of the authors' beliefs. It was a politically

motivated document. <<

But that isn't how I used it. I used it as a response to this:

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

> nation?

That is one place.

And it passed unanimously - can you imagine such a thing passing today at

all, let alone unanimously, with a Muslim nation? I understand your point

that public documents might be more about expediency than genuine belief,

but nonetheless.... this is in my view relevant to the issue at hand, which

is the role of Christianity in the political workings of the US today, and

how it was envisioned in the past.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

,

>You are making my point Deanna and disproving your own that we were not and

>are not a Christian nation.

>

I presented evidence that the nation was not founded, nor is it a

Christian nation, including this:

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. "

Please provide evidence to your claim that we are and were a Christian

nation; something beyond the fluffing up of the feathers of ego.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

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

> From: Christie [mailto:christiekeith@...]

>

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

> > Christian nation?

>

> " The Government of the United States is not in any sense

> founded on the Christian religion. " This sentence is part of

> a treaty approved by the US Congress in 1796. Unanimously

> passed. Authored by founding father , our second president.

But you recognize, don't you, that there's a valid and important distinction

between a government and the nation which it governs? That is, it's not at

all contradictory to say both that a nation is Christian and that its

government " is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. " When

someone says that the United States is a Christian nation, I take it to mean

that the people and culture are predominantly Christian, which is true.

[Guest guest]

> But you recognize, don't you, that there's a valid and important

distinction

> between a government and the nation which it governs?

Sure, ... which is why I very carefully first asked to explain

what she meant before I commented. I commented on HER definition as given by

HER.

I don't mind being disagreed with or challenged, but I've now been hit by

both you and for things I did not in fact do or say. Now, pay

attention boys. <G>

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

I am sorry Deanna, the only fluffing is your own and you are seeing what you

want to believe. I have already stated the federal government was built as

a governing body independent of the Christian church (or use the term

religion if you want) just as Washington states in your sentence. But the

intent in so doing was to protect religious freedom for protestant

Christians and to get the Constitution ratified, not because they all were

atheists. That is where you have twisted it. This was not in the Articles

of the Confederation, it was not in the intial Constitution. It got added

because of minority demand for it led by Jefferson. Most all were

Christians and tolerant of only Judeo and Christian churches. Catholics

actually experienced a lot of discrimination. These colonists schools and

colleges were Christian - what they studied was Christian ideologies or

sufficiently compatible to them. If you study geneology, you have to go to

the Christian Churches because they were the record keepers of the

communities. You are not looking board spectrum at all the factors within

that society at the time. And there is simply no way you can see anything

but a Christian nation. What you are trying to do is like me going to Saudia

Arabia and trying to make a case that it is not a Muslim nation, or going to

Israel and trying to prove it is not a Jewish nation. And it is really

silly.

Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

> ,

>

>>You are making my point Deanna and disproving your own that we were not

>>and

>>are not a Christian nation.

>>

> I presented evidence that the nation was not founded, nor is it a

> Christian nation, including this:

>

> 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. "

>

> Please provide evidence to your claim that we are and were a Christian

> nation; something beyond the fluffing up of the feathers of ego.

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Interesting. By that logic, we are indeed a Christian nation. We're also a

>white nation, since the last census found that over 75 percent of Americans

>say they are white and no other race. Do you consider the US a white nation?

>

>I mean, let's face it. We've never had a president who wasn't white. We keep

>electing white presidents. Is this a white nation?

Actually, this must be a MALE nation too, since so few females end up

in power. So shoot, being one of the 52% or so of the female non-members

I'll just shut up and let the guys do their thing.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>Thanks for one of the more sensible posts in this thread. But I have

>to pick a nit:

>> So ... who pays? The same GOP that wants this has also nixed every

>> type of improvement in the health care system.

>

>This statement presupposes that increasing government inputs will

>improve the health care system. While I'm not in agreement with the GOP

>on things like stem cell research, I don't see them as worse than any

>other party. I'd like to keep politics out of health care. After all,

>there's bipartisan agreement on how to handle the " dangers " of raw milk.

>

>But you're right, " who pays " is a major problem. But I don't see it as

>the problem that will be settled upon; in fact, I suspect that

>euthanasia will be part of the solution to the Social Security crisis.

I don't even pretend to know what the " fix " is for the health care

system, but I do know it won't come from the " for profit " entities.

For obvious reasons. The Glutenator in me says that HUGE part of the

issue is the food allergy one, and shoot, if we fix that, a lot of issues

will go away.

But the idea that " business " should provide health insurance is

just silly. More than half the businesses are very small, and just

can't afford it ... esp. as the rates change depending on, if, say,

2 of your 5 employees are over 50. Or one has AIDS. The government

can help a LOT just by providing a bigger " pool " . I'm not against

private health care accounts either. I just wish this whole thing would

be based on LOGIC not politics.

Euthanasia is a huge issue, and it's worse now because there are

so many options. Science CAN keep bodies alive for weeks (and they

do, to harvest organs) even when it's pretty clear the " person " is dead.

Our history isn't a great guide: in the past, babies were routinely " exposed "

and the elderly abandoned and left to starve, which isn't part of the past

I particularly want to revisit. I think we are going to the OTHER extreme

though, preserving life when we probably shouldn't.

I have no idea what the truth is in this particular case. I HAVE

had to deal with it on a personal level, and may have to deal with it

with my own Mom, who has very specific ideas about what she wants

and has put me in charge more or less. So far though, the cases I've had

to deal with were far more obvious.

Personally, I hope I " go out " like my great-great-granddad, who died

coming home from a party. He was drunk, fell off a bridge as he

walked home, at 96.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

" .let the guys do their thing. " . Kind of like Terri Shiavo has done. She's

shut up and letting the guy do his thing. Her guy has been doing his

" thing " not that long after she found herself helpless, in the care of

strangers, totally and completely relying on the judgment, moralities and

ethics of her guy. He became an adulterer, the proof being the two children

he has sired. He compromised their marriage vows, if that still means

anything these days. But maybe that's right up there with every other moral

issue in this country - there are to be no moral absolutes. Terri has been

represented by a man who took a vow of " until death do us part " , in a very

traditional " religious " ceremony, and turned it into " until someone else can

give me what I need " . If this were a business situation, it would legally

be called " Conflict of Interest " . The " husband " has conflicted interests.

Shiavo has turned his wife into what women dread - a piece of

property, to be disposed of at will when it becomes too much work, is no

longer useful, and has no value. And while Terry has become today's cause

celebre, people on boards are busy typing about " politics " , and " religion "

and King , keeping themselves occupied and busy while a woman dies -

dies at the hand of an adulterer. Surely, if Terri were able to open her

mouth and speak, she wouldn't say to him, " until death do we part " . She

would have asked for a divorce many years ago. What a shame.

Sharon, NH

>Interesting. By that logic, we are indeed a Christian nation. We're also a

>white nation, since the last census found that over 75 percent of Americans

>say they are white and no other race. Do you consider the US a white

nation?

>

>I mean, let's face it. We've never had a president who wasn't white. We

keep

>electing white presidents. Is this a white nation?

Actually, this must be a MALE nation too, since so few females end up

in power. So shoot, being one of the 52% or so of the female non-members

I'll just shut up and let the guys do their thing.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

The term popular regarding this nation when I was younger and the National

Organization of Women was being formed to fight for more equality was WASP,

which represented White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male. In other words, it was

the land of opportunity if you possessed all of those qualities.

Kennedy was the first Catholic ever elected President and that was an

issue in the campaign. Protestant dislike of Catholics roots back to the

Protestant Reformation that spurred so many to leave Europe for America to

get away from Catholicism which was the Church of most aristocracies.

[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.

Ok ... sounds like you and I are saying the same thing though. As soon

as " Anglicanism " is the " official religion " (for whatever reason) all the

Catholics are in trouble. And vice versa.

The situation we are in now is that the current folks in power

are very much wanting to make their religious beliefs part of

the system of law. Which has always happened to some degree ...

but mostly on issues that a majority of the population agree

with (like, you shouldn't shoot people). When it comes to stem

cell research, when " life " begins and ends ... the stance that

is being taken is clearly a religious one from a group that does

NOT constitute a majority at all.

The fact is, we are a heterogenous society. If a Muslim guy

got into power and said all us women should start wearing

headscarves, people would scream. But he would thing

it was downright evil that we show our bare heads ... same

as you regard Terri's situation as evil.

My main point though, was the whole hypocrisy of the

situation. We have a political party in this country that

has NO ethical problems killing women and children,

torturing suspects, running ghost prisons, selling

weapons, cutting programs to provide medical care

to the poor, cutting access to birth control, using

the death penalty (even when we know some of

the folks are innocent), spreading spent uranium

throughout someone else's country, spreading

mercury emissions in ours, destroying the environment ...

but hey, they get REALLY upset about one brain-damaged

woman whose original injuries seem to have been

self-inflicted.

I'm sorry, but if the word " Christian " means anything,

Christians should be upset about the real and

permanent harm we are doing to thousands and

millions of people, not arguing over one woman

or whether gay folks can get married. The Christian

church today acts like the Pharisees did in Jesus'

day ... it's about money and power and nitpicking,

not about humanity, love, caring.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>I just hate the economics and metaphysics of health insurance. I see

>the 3rd party payer as being responsible for rising costs, by

>insulating the producer of health care from the consumer. That's

>going to be true with either single-payer or the current system,

>except that single-payer, being a monopoly, will be able to impose

>price controls that will lead to restricted supply of health care

>(look at Canada). Business-funded health care is a very recent thing

>(it was a way around wage controls during WWII).

The " private accounts " idea isn't a bad one. We NEED some way

to pay for these humongous care bills for stuff like auto accidents,

but also some motivation to save money. If I socked away the money

I pay in health care costs, so I have a " fund " , then I'd only tend to

dip into it when really needed, so there'd be less paperwork. But,

I want the family to be covered in case of some biggie.

As for restricted access ... the Canadians I know don't feel that way.

I went up there to go to a clinic and it was nice ... fast service,

really, really good docs. Not as spiffy as my local clinic, but a number

of folks here go up there to get medical care. There may be waiting

lists for some procedures, but shoot, there are waiting lists here too.

> I think we are going to the OTHER extreme

>>though, preserving life when we probably shouldn't.

>

>Why not, if the relatives don't have to pay for it? there's

>insurance, government, fat malpractice settlements...

Well, exactly. If the state pays for someone to be on

life support forever, it's easier not to make a decision. But

that just can't go on forever, there's not enough money.

I also think that in this whole issue we are dodging the IDEA

of death. If were me, slowly dying, I'd MUCH rather have a nice

big dose of morphine (or keep me on morphine the whole

time I'm dying). Morphine is great stuff.

>The new Mrs. Quick got a living will with the pre-nup and regular

>will, and wants me to do the same. But right now we're leaning

>towards medical power of attorney. I can't see locking into one kind

>of response, when I don't know what the future will hold. For me,

>whether to live is a matter of sentience and hope. Without either of

>those, there's no point.

I think the power of attorney is a good idea. Every situation is

different. Every time I face this sort of thing, I end up thinking

something different than I did when the whole process started.

>

>Not quite as good as the proverbial " shot by a jealous husband " but a

>very close runner-up.

Hee hee.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

No doubt there are decent men (and woman) who are loyal and decent in manner

and deed, in EVERY way, fulfilling " until death do we part " . I'm sorry this

concept seems so foreign to you.

I think what would have been preferred, had he truly been fulfilling his

duties as her " guardian " , is to grant her a divorce when he committed

adultery, turning the responsibility over to her parents. I could then

have given him credit for truly being a man of conviction in that he was

determined to best represent her interests. Because he compromised himself

in a Conflict of Interest (think marriage as a business relationship if you

can't wrap your mind around morality as a counterpoint position), all other

decisions were jaded by apparent conflict.

Sharon, NH

>he has sired. He compromised their marriage vows, if that still means

>anything these days.

Would you rather that Mr. Schiavo continue conjugal relations with

his wife? Isn't that part of being a loyal husband?

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

Term limits: one term in office, one term in jail.-- Wolfe.

[Guest guest]

>> From: " Sharon son " <sharon@...>

>>

>> " .let the guys do their thing. " . Kind of like Terri Shiavo has done.

>>She's

>>shut up and letting the guy do his thing.

One article here said Mr. Schiavo's brother felt Terri's father the

determiner of where this went. Maybe Terri just married a man her father's

match and it took her illness to bring it out. Happens all the time.

Unfortunately, I also see both Terry and her Mom likely fitting into the

martyr or subservient roles to their spouses. Terri's voice through most of

her life, was likely trained to only say what was wanted to be heard.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

-

>Yep, and that's not because they are " Eeevul corporations " It's

>because the whole model is flawed. When your profits come from people

>being sick, you don't want to prevent them from getting sick.

That's pretty much a fundamental flaw of the profit system. I'm in favor

of private property and some sort of capitalism, but you have to look very

carefully at the incentives any system provides, and capitalism

incentivizes sickness care. I'm not suggesting any solutions here -- I

don't know that there are any obvious ones.

-

[Guest guest]

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

> From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

> -

> >Yep, and that's not because they are " Eeevul corporations "

> It's because

> >the whole model is flawed. When your profits come from people being

> >sick, you don't want to prevent them from getting sick.

>

> That's pretty much a fundamental flaw of the profit system.

> I'm in favor of private property and some sort of capitalism,

> but you have to look very carefully at the incentives any

> system provides, and capitalism incentivizes sickness care.

> I'm not suggesting any solutions here -- I don't know that

> there are any obvious ones.

This may be a problem, but it's not a problem specific to the profit system.

In fact, government intervention in the medical system is arguably a

contributing factor. If all " legitimate " doctors are doing more or less the

same thing, then they all benefit if we keep getting sick. But the market

doesn't work that way. Suppose you have a better idea--an idea that would

make all those doctors obsolete. Sure, it's bad for them, but it's good for

you--you'll make a bundle--and in a free market, they can't stop you. But

this isn't a free market, and they can stop you. The AMA is a

government-backed cartel, and government-backed cartels are not an inherent

feature of the profit system.

Honestly, I find this line of thinking utterly bizarre. Sure, if I'm the

only game in town, I'm better off giving you a temporary solution so you'll

be back for more next week. But if I'm not the only game in town, and my

customers aren't completely blind, how can this strategy possibly work?

Yeah, I'd like to keep on milking my customers, but why would they be

willing to go along with it?

There are numerous examples throughout history of entire industries

shrinking dramatically or disappearing entirely when something better came

along. These didn't always happen because the top firms in these industries

decided it was time for a change. They usually like things as they are.

Changes frequently come from outsiders who don't have vested interests in

the status quo, and from consumers who like the new way better.

[Guest guest]

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

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

>

> As for restricted access ... the Canadians I know don't feel that way.

> I went up there to go to a clinic and it was nice ... fast

> service, really, really good docs. Not as spiffy as my local

> clinic, but a number of folks here go up there to get medical

> care.

I'm confused. If the government pays for health care in Canada, then why are

Americans allowed to go to Canadian clinics? Do you mean that you went to a

private clinic in Canada?

[Guest guest]

-

>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.

That's exactly the problem with your entire argument -- you find all sorts

of things difficult to believe, but you're not interested in checking on

the facts and find out what's actually happening.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>The right-to-die movement (which I agree with

>BTW, though not in this case) has been set back 30 years.

I'm not sure that the damage has been *that* bad -- after all, something

like 86% of the country agrees with Schiavo, though that's never

stopped fundamentalists and the media before -- but I'm curious why you

support the right-to-die movement but not this case. I haven't followed

the case closely at all (I'm too busy with work to read much news at all;

even keeping up with email is almost impossible) but I have a hard time

believing that court after court would agree that Terri and had an

agreement about this situation if there was no evidence of it whatsoever,

and it seems like it's beyond debate that she's in a PVS, could never, ever

revive, and no longer has any of the faculties required for awareness,

consciousness, etc. The situation with her family is messy, of course, but

since you're complaining that this case will make it so that we'll all need

living wills with all the 'i's dotted and 't's crossed in the future, why

would you have preferred that the right-to-die movement pick a case in

which there was a living will with all the 'i's dotted and 't's crossed in

the first place?

-