yayyyyyy God

[SaggyBalls]

I'm curious though whether the 'fundamental right to raise their children without interference by the State' is a valid defense in that state where there is documented child abuse, for example.

And who gets to define what constitutes 'child abuse'? You see where I am going with this, I'm sure ..

That's part of the 'slippery slope'

How can the state correctly assess a family's beliefs? It's one thing to have an understanding of their rules and practices, but to find 'abuse' in situations like this could potentially demand rigorous assessment of a family's entire lifestyles.

If there's separation of Church and State, how does this get properly assessed?

Sad that this kind of thing needs to happen, but it probably needs to happen. While the reason vs. religion argument would get waged over and over, the people that would learn of the situation and shape their lives from it may have far more potential impact than saving a few kids.

And if it's about saving kids, where does abortion come into this - or is that not as important in this since it's a decisive action rather than a passive one?

Is this a pro-life issue or an anti-religious one, because if it's anti-religious rather than being about protecting the rights of life then it's just as petty as one may think faith-healing is in the eyes of a child that would otherwise want to live.

[d_rawk]

If there's separation of Church and State, how does this get properly assessed?

Well, that's the thing. We have legal rights, that have been won over time. Those rights demand the protection that they entail. Seperaration of church and state actually isn't relevant in this regard - the source of the law could be church, it could be state, it could be state informed by church.

In our situation, because of the way things have developed historically, it is mostly state informally persuaded by church. But that is trivia, and largely immaterial, in the end.

And if it's about saving kids, where does abortion come into this - or is that not as important in this since it's a decisive action rather than a passive one?

No, because someone unborn does not have the legal rights of a born person under the law. If you want to change this, there are countless organizations that would love to have you on board. The point is not allowing someone who has already achieved the status of a right to life (as a child is, under the law) to have that wrestled away from them by someone who asserts that their ownership of that individual should supercede it. It feels to me as though you are walking backwards in time.

[SaggyBalls]

I'm not walking anywhere, D.

To be fair, nobody has asserted that this is an issue of 'ownership' of a person, merely parenting.

[d_rawk]

To be fair, nobody has asserted that this is an issue of 'ownership' of a person, merely parenting.

True. I'm just trying to think this through with you. I don't really have an established opinion here, so I'm experimenting to try to see what works.

I believe (but am not entirely certain) that personhood is extended to children. I can't see what would trump the rights of personhood besides outright ownership. It is situations like this that make me wish StoneMtn still played on the board more frequently.

[SaggyBalls]

Said by:

To be fair, nobody has asserted that this is an issue of 'ownership' of a person, merely parenting.

True. I'm just trying to think this through with you. I don't really have an established opinion here, so I'm experimenting to try to see what works.

I believe (but am not entirely certain) that personhood is extended to children. I can't see what would trump the rights of personhood besides outright ownership. It is situations like this that make me wish StoneMtn still played on the board more frequently.

AWESOME!

I think you're one of the very few people that would even consider that approach - which although entirely unfortunate and disengaging - is probably better in the long run.

After all, what the fuck is there to [color:red]debate

Well, what is there that is entirely pressing and important?

Entirely unfortunate situation though and any want for 'discussion' stems from the fact that I'd hate for it to all snowball on us.

So I suppose it might be useful to look at the bigger picture to really get any significant answers and insights in a discussion like this.

Wish I could have all the answers but I'm also glad that I don't...blissful ignorance? well almost. I suppose that recognizing that there could be pitfalls isn't really ignorant...

...but blindly brushing aside the issue of a dead child

...or blindly thinking it's entirely neglect

The news clip wasn't much of a story to really be able to make a solid decision on.

So what do we have?

the issue of a family's right to tend to itself and bring itself up freely

the issue of neglect and abuse

the issue of religious freedoms

the issue of societal norms and how people feel the need to homogenize, especially in times of great sadness

knee jerk reactions

highly publicized cases and how politicians so quickly latch onto these causes (has it happened yet on this one?)

I'm sure there are far more...that could work themselves out of each one of THESE issues.

[SaggyBalls]

" It is situations like this that make me wish StoneMtn still played on the board more frequently."

I think if he were online as much as he was he'd probably be neglecting his family.

I don't think he's a faith healer...well I know i felt healed whenever I visited him in Whistler...slightly faith-related, but it doesn't really apply here.

[Kanada Kev]

Good discussion guys, kept it going. Seriously. If I took the time to get my thoughts down in words that would be understandable I would be neglecting my family too

I am not a big 'faith-healing' kinda guy, but I do respect it as individual choice. And I think it has its place, and from what I've seen there is medical benefit to deep belief and the peace of feeling 'at one' (to reuse an already terribly overused cliche) with the universe. But we've also seen, demonstrably, that while prayer for self is effective, prayer for other people is generally rather ineffective.

Here's the thing: children have rights. They have different responsibility to their rights than do adults, but they do have legally defined and recognized rights. The role of the state, if it has any role, is to protect the citizenry from abuses of what they are legally entitled to and to guarantee provision for what they are. I am not convinced that the parents' beliefs, in this case, warrant the side-stepping of the child's right to life or the medical care necessary for the sustaining of that life.

Well put. I agree with you. Adults should be able to choose their own medical path. Children need to be protected from danger though. This can be exemplified in the case that started all this, along with a doctor who makes irresponsible medical decisions for a child.

[d_rawk]

AWESOME!

I think you're one of the very few people that would even consider that approach - which although entirely unfortunate and disengaging - is probably better in the long run.

After all, what the fuÇk is there to debate

Well, what is there that is entirely pressing and important?

You've gone and confused me again. :laugh:

I'm not sure what is unfortunate and disengaging about it .. you presented one perspective, I felt that I didn't entirely agree with it, I tried to distill/formulate/articulate/what-have-you my initial thoughts but acknowledged that I didn't feel I'd had the time to think it through as far as I'd like to have before committing to a position. I'm not at all trying to disengage and am happy to keep batting this around and to the maintain the position that I've taken on the issue (which isn't a disingenuous one - I don't feel fully confident with it, but it represents what I feel to be correct so far)

There is tension in that I do feel that parents ought to be able to retain prerogative in the area of the upbringing of their children even if they hold beliefs or exercise behavior that is culturally unpopular (but, and this is a big caveat, not if it is unlawful). So there is a bit of a tightrope, and that is what I understand you to be pointing to.

I don't think he's a faith healer...well I know i felt healed whenever I visited him in Whistler...slightly faith-related, but it doesn't really apply here.

Hah

[d_rawk]

nevermind, I think I get what you meant now ..

[edit to add:] Funny thing, this medium.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

i'm not always the most effective communicator...

I am happy that you are looking to discuss rather than just say how messed up prople are cause of their blind faith.

Just cause you commit to a position doesn't mean you can't divorce it.

but discussion's probably a lot safer than debate.

[SaggyBalls]

[Thorgnor]

make up sex?

[SaggyBalls]

Not if it feels forced.

[d_rawk]

[phishtaper]

so, is Santa actually God?

[SaggyBalls]

come on...eat the apple.

[d_rawk]

Go Jesus, it's your birfday. Go Jesus, it's your birfday. Woot, woot!

(Well, probably not, but it's like when you can't quite remember when you started dating. Pick a spot on the calendar, call it your anniversary, and stick to it.)

Happy holidays all!

[SmoothedShredder]

so, is Santa actually God?

Naw, he's a Laplander shaman who would harvest, process, and deliver the amanita muscaria mushrooms to locals for some holiday cheer and psychedelia. Their Yurt doors would often be snowed over by this time, so he'd have to get in through the roof. Drying the colourful mushrooms on the pine trees before he put them in the sack is where the "Christmas tree decorations" we call came from (I don't recall many pine tree's around Jesus' stomping grounds so I fail to see any connection to him), and yeah, his red and white suit comes from shamans dressing up like their medicine (red and white mushroom), and the reindeer and sleigh... well there were no SUV's in Norway in the 800's. The flying thing... probably had something to do with the mushrooms.

Only fable I've heard which kind of makes sense...

[Kanada Kev]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKTRE4BL2FE20081222

Pope likens "saving" gays to saving the rainforest

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound."

The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."

He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected."

(Reporting by Phil Stewart)

Edited December 23, 2008 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

"Only fable I've heard which kind of makes sense... "

that story makes that fable make sense.

I like it.

[SaggyBalls]

"The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."

He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected." "

Respecting and Obeying are two entirely different concepts.

Poor old man. I feel kinda sorry for the guy.

[Guest Low Roller]

He's right you know.

So what the heck is this thread about anyways? It's 35 pages so far and shows no inclination of fading. There is no way that I am reading 35 pages of posts.

Are we:

a) Bashing God

Praising God

c) Questioning the existence of God

d) Questioning his sanity for creating Celine Dion

Edited December 23, 2008 by Low Roller

[Kanada Kev]

e) all of the above +++++

[SaggyBalls]

"Questioning his sanity for creating Celine Dion"

Is the personification of God not one of the highest forms of blasphemy?

Does God have sanity?

This would presume that God has a mind or a conscience.

I think this is more like a thread about people than God. Don't let the title distract you like the word God distracts most people.

Seems to me that this is a thread about making sense of how entirely baffled we are and how we notice how others are both baffled and how we feel they're misunderstanding so much existence as we see it from an outsider's view.

What the hell is this thread about?

I don't know if i know anymore.

[Kanada Kev]

yeah, OK

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081226/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_peru_christmas_baby

Peruvian Jesus born to Virgin Mary on Christmas

Fri Dec 26, 1:06 pm ET

LIMA (Reuters) – Virgin Mary, a 20-year-old Peruvian woman, gave birth to a baby boy on Christmas day and named him Jesus, Peru's state news agency said on Friday.

The baby's father, Adolfo Jorge Huamani, 24, is a carpenter. Religious Peruvians compared him to Joseph the Carpenter in the Bible.

"Two thousand years later the story of Bethlehem is relived," read the headline about the birth in El Comercio, the main newspaper in Peru, a predominantly Catholic country.

The mother, Virgen Maria Huarcaya, delivered the 7.7 pound (3.5 kg) boy, Jesus Emanuel, in the early hours of Christmas at the central maternity hospital in Lima, the capital.

"A few days ago we had decided to name my son after a professional soccer player," the father said. "But thanks to a happy coincidence this is how things ended up."

(Reporting by Terry Wade; Editing by Vicki Allen)