Very OT - Fahrenheit 9/11

I have another question about end of life choices. And money. Who should
bear the financial burden if a doctor insists on "saving a life", if the
result is impoverishment for the family and a man (or woman) with severely
limited quality of life?

I'm not taking a big stand on this, because instances that are opposite can
be sited. Sooz's Kevin is an excellent example of why a life should be
maintained in the face of almost impossible medical conditions. And on the
other hand there are probably more examples to be found of people poisoned
with bitterness, living on the edges of society and maybe selling drugs to
manage some kind of income with a damaged and painful body, because the
medical costs have devastated them financially, etc. Or maybe an elder who
has died and after paying medical costs, the spouse becomes an unwanted
burden, or a ward of the state.

I don't know a reasonable "policy". Only individual choice with the risks
that go with choice.

Tina


"Kathy N-V" wrote in message
. giganews.com...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:44:27 -0400, roxan wrote
(in message ):

Having just gone through seeing my dad died a difficult death and having
him
beg me for euthanasia, I would have given him it in a heart beat if it
was
allowed. This is a choice we should all be allowed to do it we want to.

Roxan, I am so sorry that your Dad suffered so. Was his request
precipitated by unendurable pain? I know that we were able to help
my MIL in the last weeks of her life by easing her pain, with the
help of the hospice people.

There is a time for everything, a time to live and a time to die and
honoring it is the highest form of knowing ourselves. I only hope when
my
time comes it will be legal in my state. While there are many lesson to
be
learned in the dying process there is a time when suffering and no
quality
of life is the only thing left. If I could have eased my dad passing I
would
have done it with no guilt and with joy that he didn't have to suffer
any
longer.

Which is why I'm so supportive of hospice. They do not speed the
dying process, they just do nothing to slow it. Unlike doctors, they
do not view death as a defeat to be fought at all costs. Their
entire goal is to make the person comfortable and their passing
peaceful and painless.

I am definitely on the fence when it comes to Euthanasia. My concern
is that it would morph from a decision made by an individual for
reasons of his own to a decision made by others. A person with a
limited life span who decides that checking out is a better choice
than sticking around is one thing - a person whose family (or the
state) decides would be "better off dead" is another thing
altoghether.

At one time, in another administration, I wouldn't have been
concerned that the state would involve themselves in such a decision.
But with the incredible erosion of personal liberties that I've
observed in this administration, I think it's a real danger that some
government official would someday make the decision of who doesn't
deserve to live any longer.

I'd hate to have someone's lifespan influenced by the cost of caring
for them. It's not such a bold leap to consider that if the
government could make the decision for an individual, the government
could be influenced by an insurance company. Heaven knows that
corporations have been in bed with government for a long, long time.

As for the United States being a Christian nation or not, I need only
cite the example of the theocracies in the Middle East. Invariably,
a state religion allows zealots to gain power, which curtails the
freedoms of everyone, under the concept that the will of God demands
it. I greatly prefer the separation of church and state, which allows
the people to choose for themselves.

Kathy N-V

Well, and it makes sense too. If you can't afford medical treatment, you
probably can't afford living costs either -- but especially both. This is
simply a fact of life in America. We are not a very friendly nation to our
disadvantaged.

Tina


"vj" wrote in message
...
vj found this in rec.crafts.beads, from Kathy N-V
:

]I'd hate to have someone's lifespan influenced by the cost of caring
]for them.

unfortunately, that happens a LOT. already. start with all the people
who go without health care because they don't have insurance. doctors
deny transplants and dialysis to people all the time - especially if
the patient has Alzheimer's or is elderly.

]It's not such a bold leap to consider that if the
]government could make the decision for an individual, the government
]could be influenced by an insurance company. Heaven knows that
]corporations have been in bed with government for a long, long time.

and that, is just terrifying!


-----------
@vicki [SnuggleWench]
(Books) http://www.booksnbytes.com
newest creations: http://www.vickijean.com/new.html
-----------
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Seems to me that most people here like Christianity. And most identify with
it to some degree. But I don't think much of anyone wants to be told how to
think, especially without being part of the discussion about what those
beliefs entail.

Tina


"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote ...
........
I don't understand why there is so much bias against Christians in our
culture, especially on this board. The very root of Christianity is free
choice... God is not going to force anyone to serve Him or believe in Him,
and any Christian who tries to coerce belief has no basic understanding of
scripture. Christians are no threat to anyone. What harm is there in
following the teachings of Jesus and trying to live a loving, moral life?

You know, Protestantism is a relatively new development in Christianity. I
wonder what some of these Christians would say of the older term, Catholic,
were used to describe the basis of American spirituality. I suspect that
many would be as up in arms, as the multi-denominational believers who don't
what to be labeled Christian or required to follow the beliefs some people
call label as Christian. And certainly there is no consensus on what
"Christian" or "Christian behaviour means.

Tina


"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...
Okay, you want primary source material.

The Treaty of Tripoli was apparently not explicit enough for you when
it
said "not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion", this was
signed by George Washington on 11-4-1796, ratified by 2/3 of the Senate
(which if a majority believed it was founded on the Christian religion
could
have had this minor phrase removed) on 6-7-1797, and signed into law by
John
Adams on 6-10-1797. All these people were there when the USA was formed.
Also none of the quotes you gave have the words "Jesus", "Christ" or
"Christianity". Please note that most of mine do.

As far as Christian basis for US law, here is Thomas Jefferson's take on
that:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was
introduced
by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to
time
by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna
Charta,
which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took
place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not
introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian
king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of
the
last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which
the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period,
supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have
existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the
common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt
Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the
settlement
of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system
of
religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet
Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the
common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we
may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on
earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common
law."
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814)

As to Jefferson's opinion on Christianity in his own words:

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 classified with the
fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may
hope
that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will
do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive
and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors.
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to John Adams; Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

"If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the
falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark,
Luke,
and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations,
and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the
latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that
he was an impostor"
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to John Adams; Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

How about Thomas Paine (author of "Common Sense"):

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman
Church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant
Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church.
- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more
derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to
reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called
Christianity.
- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Or would you like John Adams:

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere
in
the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines
and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.
- John Adams

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of
the
abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross.
Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
- John Adams (Letter to Thomas Jefferson)

This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it.
- John Adams (Letter to Thomas Jefferson 5/5/1817)

Or how about that crafty politician Benjamin Franklin:

Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the
substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lecture. It happened that they
produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the
writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be
refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In
a
word, I soon became a thorough Deist
- Benjamin Franklin (Autobiography, p. 66).

A little later, but the spirit carries on with Abraham Lincoln:

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession"
- Abraham Lincoln (Letter of W. Perkins).

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and
the human origin of the Scriptures have become clearer and stronger with
advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln (Letter to Judge Wakefield, 1862)

These are words out of the pens of the founding fathers, with references
so you can look them up for yourself. I have more if you would like. I
am
not putting words or interpretations in peoples mouths.
You obviously do not understand Deism, which rejected the divinity of
Jesus (or Krshna or any other historical figure). Just because Jefferson
or
Washington or any other person mentions "God" or a "Creator" does not mean
that person agrees with Christianity on the nature or dogma regarding that
God or Creator. Abraham and Zoraster and others were preaching monotheism
long before Jesus. I know of no reference of Jefferson that says he
believed in the Bible, except possibly for some historical information. I
have seen someone say he referred to it as a "dunghill", but I have yet to
find the source on that so I can't verify it.

While there isn't a Fundamentalist Church or Evangelical Church of any
size (I'm sure there are ones with those names somewhere), in the late
1700's there were Catholicism, Anglican, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and
Calvinism and maybe some others of little following or consequence at the
time. Charles Wesley didn't preach his first sermon until 1739 and there
was a Methodist Church founded in America in the 1780's (I find conflicts
in
the actual dates). None of these are what I would call "fundamentalist"
or
"evangelical". Roger Williams founded a Baptist Church in 1638 (maybe
that
is a fundamentalist church in the modern sense, but I doubt it was at the
time). It wasn't until 1830 (long after the American Revolution), that
the
Campbell brother separated the Church of Christ from the Disciples. This
was accompanied by other movements which are now usually referred to as
"fundamentalist" or "evangelical".

As I said before, I am not hostile to Christianity and feel there is no
harm in Jesus' teachings or for that matter Siddhartha's (Buddha),
Mohammed's or whatever. They all say pretty much the same thing. And I
never said that there were no Christians in the Continental Congress, But
if
they were so strong in their Christianity and wanted the USA to be a
Christian nation, then why is there no mention of Jesus Christ in either
the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? There is only a passing
mention of a Creator in the Declaration, which Jefferson clearly did not
mean to be the Christian notion. Again the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated
and ratified with in the first two years after the Declaration EXPLICITLY
REJECTS the idea of the USA being founded on Christianity.
One reason the founding fathers rejected Christianity was because the
King and Church used Christianity as a method of keeping kings in power.
It
was called "Divine Right of Rule" and to reject it meant to reject
Christianity as it was taught in the 1700's. You are the one engaging in
revisionist history my friend, and I realize it is not your fault. I
looked hard into this when I first realized that it was true and am still
looking into it. But the notion of the US as a Christian country actually
started in the mid 1800's in an era of Christian revivalism. It surprised
me too.
It is not that there is so much bias against Christianity as much as
Christianity has so much bias against those that think differently. And
since the majority of Americans seems to at least pay lip service to a
Christian faith, there is a tendency to impose that idea and tradition on
non-Christians. For example Rosh Hashanah is not a national holiday,
Christmas is. If a prayer is said in school or a government sponsored
event, it is a Christian one. Since the revival of the mid 1800s, it has
only been in the last 50 years or so that alternative views could get an
open forum. What Christians view as hostility is people saying, "No, that
is not what I believe and you are not going to force me to act like that
is
what I believe".

--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message k.net...
"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...
Actually Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine and John Adams were
Deists.
They were definitely not Christian. Washington went to church, but
there
are no reports of him taking communion, so it looks like it may have
been
more of an appearance thing. There were strong Christians in the
Continental Congress, but not fundamentalists or evangelicals as we
think
of
since those churches had not been founded yet.

I'm not sure what definition you're giving to "Christian"... it seems
pretty
narrow. All of the above considered themselves believers.... all you
need
to
do is read anything they wrote and you'll see frequent and often
impassioned
references to the God of the Bible. And actually there is no church
called
the Fundamentalist Church or even the Evangelical Church.... so I'm not
sure
what you mean by "had not been founded yet".

The early settlers of the US had diverse practices and interpretations
to
be
sure, as is true of the church today, but they were all based on the
Bible,
even the Deists, who believed God made things as reported in the Bible
and
pretty much left us to our own devices. They certainly could not be
classified as buddhists, hindus, or pagans!

I don't understand why there is so much bias against Christians in our
culture, especially on this board. The very root of Christianity is free
choice... God is not going to force anyone to serve Him or believe in
Him,
and any Christian who tries to coerce belief has no basic understanding
of
scripture. Christians are no threat to anyone. What harm is there in
following the teachings of Jesus and trying to live a loving, moral
life?

It really bothers me that revisionist history is insisting that the
founders
of our country were not Christians. Please read the actual things that
they
wrote, not somebody's opinion of what they wrote! They all agreed that
they
did not want or need a NATIONAL church or one promoted by the
government.
But they never advocated that religion should be absent from public or
private life.

Here is an exerpt from Washington's 1st Thanksgiving address:

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and
supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to
pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether
in
public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties
properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to
all
the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and
constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to
protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have
shown
kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and
concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and
virtue,
and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant
unto
all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be
best."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~ammem_czp3::

Washington also made a very interesting comment in his charge to the now
infamous Benedict Arnold who was on a mission to Canada in 1775: "I also
give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of the
Religion of the Country and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy, and a true
Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with Compassion upon their Errors
without insulting them. While we are contending for our own Liberty, we
should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others,
ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and
to
him only in this Case, they are answerable."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~ammem_czp3::
If you want to read more of what Washington wrote, the Library of
Congress
has 65,000 documents online.

Thomas Jefferson in his 2nd Inaugural Address said this:
"I shall need the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, Who led our
for
efathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in
a
country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; Who has
covered our infancy with His providence, and our riper years with His
wisdom
and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in
supplications,
that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their
councils,
and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do shall result in your
good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of
all
nations."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...rowse?id=Deity

Need I go on?
--
Karleen Page/Vibrant Jewels
Vibrant Jewels Online Bead & Jewelry Store
http://www.vibrantjewels.com/jewelry/welcome.htm
JustBead Auctions
http://www.justbeads.com/search/ql.cfm?s=21770

I watched almost no TV coverage of 9-11. I didn't trust the
sensationalization and emotional manipulation of the TV coverage. However I
have read in depth books. I doubt if I'll see this movie either, but then I
don't watch other movies either. It's funny how often big popular movies
become dull before they even have a chance to get to video. But I like
challenge and controversy, so I'll probably see the video.

Tina


"Dr. Sooz" wrote in message
...
Actually, and I don't mean this snotty, but I wouldn't see it if someone
gave me a million bucks. I know what happened on 9/11.

Well....you're assuming you know what this movie's about, Starlia. That's
only
a small part of it. Of course you know that. But the movie wouldn't need
to
be made if that were all it was about -- we all watched enough TV to choke
a
horse back then.
~~
Sooz

vj wrote:

just like [i think it was Louis' suggestion?] try replacing "under
God" in the pledge with "under Allah" and listen to them scream!

Heh. They scream if you leave "under God" (i.e., use the original form)
out all together. The Congress recently got their collective shorts in
a wad when Rep. Nancy Pelosi recited the Original Pledge on the floor of
the House.

Sheesh!

Arondelle
--
================================================== =========
To email me, empty the pond with a net
Shop eBay with me: http://snipurl.com/3usr
Visit Arondelle's Dream Worlds at: http://www.arondelle.com
Read my Blog: http://www.angelfire.com/blog/arondelle/index.html

It wasn't my idea to replace "God" with "Allah" in the pledge, but I
think that is great.
Just think, if we started the school day (and other events that
Christians want) with prayer to acknowledge everyone's faith (and we would
have to have at least two Christian prayers since in their technical dogma,
the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ do not recognize any other
denomination), would we have time enough left over to have class or play a
ball game or whatever?
I know at the school where my wife teaches, beside various brands of
Christianity, there is at least Islam, Buddhism, Baha'i, agnosticism and
atheism.

--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"vj" wrote in message
...
vj found this in rec.crafts.beads, from "Christina Peterson"
:

]I
]wonder what some of these Christians would say of the older term,
Catholic,
]were used to describe the basis of American spirituality. I suspect that
]many would be as up in arms, as the multi-denominational believers who
don't
]what to be labeled Christian or required to follow the beliefs some
people
]call label as Christian.

very good, Tina!
just like [i think it was Louis' suggestion?] try replacing "under
God" in the pledge with "under Allah" and listen to them scream!


-----------
@vicki [SnuggleWench]
(Books) http://www.booksnbytes.com
newest creations: http://www.vickijean.com/new.html
-----------
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

I know at the school where my wife teaches, beside various brands of
Christianity, there is at least Islam, Buddhism, Baha'i, agnosticism and
atheism.

My daughter's high school (I still shudder to say that) took a voluntary
survey of the students this spring. The largest groups were Mormon and
Catholic, but there were also Jews, a few Muslims, several varieties of
Protestant, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists and Wiccans. She gets harassed
sometimes, mostly by Mormons, but in general she has a wide variety of
friends (religion-wise) and the all seem to be tolerant of each other. It's
nice to see it happen.

KarenK

The only reason I included Catholic was because I saw something on the
news about a year ago that said Pope John Paul had made a statement saying
something like "a Christian Church is better than no church, but still the
only true church was the Catholic one". But I could have misunderstood.
Having been raised CofC, I guarantee you that is how their doctrine is.
We even got a mass mailing pamphlet a couple of years ago from the CofC
(long after I ever went - but that is another story) attacking the Baptists.
In the southern US, the only practical difference between the Baptists and
the CofC is the Baptists have a better soundtrack (around here the CofC
doesn't allow musical instruments). And there is an animosity from the CofC
toward Catholics. If you ever want to get a CofC's goat, refer to them as a
"Campbellite".

--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"Kathy N-V" wrote in message
. giganews.com...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 8:35:35 -0400, Louis Cage wrote
(in message ):

since in their technical dogma,
the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ do not recognize any other
denomination)

This is no longer true. The Roman Catholic Church has reconciled
with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and accepts the Protestant church.
An Eastern Orthodox Patriarch is considered just as much a clergyman
as a Roman Catholic priest. (they could perform one another's
functions in a pinch)

The various Protestant denominations are a little further away, but
not much. It is said that someday, all these faiths will worship
under one roof. (Since it was the Pope that said this, I assume he
means a Catholic roof, but I'm not sure that everyone's in agreement)

However, some of the more conservative or evangelical Protestant
denominations do not consider Catholicism a Christian faith -
pointing to the veneration of saints, use of holy water, and other
ceremonies not strictly laid out in the Bible. The Catholic Church
counters that it has over 2,000 years of oral and written tradition
as well as the Bible, and it would be wrong to throw those customs
away. (Judaism has the same combination of written and oral
tradition to supplement their holy books)

This anti-Catholic tradition is alive and well. I recently saw a web
page which claims the Pope wears a red cape because he is secretly
emulating Satan. It was full of other "proof" of the theory that
Catholicism = Devil worship. I found it highly amusing, especially
since I hadn't heard the term "Papists" in years.

No idea about the Church of Christ - it was quite popular here in
Boston for a while, but seems to have slipped into the background.
They may indeed believe that they alone are going to the afterlife.

All this argument over minutae amuses me. Since God is merciful and
all powerful, He would know what is in a person's heart. Only God
would know if that person was a true believer, and if that person
deserved Heaven. If all that is the case, the rest is details.
Fussing over the form of a worship service or the meaning of
communion is a human thing, not a godly thing. All that is necessary
is a belief in God (the triumvarate God in my faith) and living a
life that talks the talk and walks the walk.

It's that simple and that incredibly difficult. Heaven would be
awfully empty if it were only for perfect people.

Kathy N-V

Such as creating a subclass of breederwomen with no choice in the
matter....

Who will stick wire or bleach up their vaginas in order to self-abort. Nice
alternative, and one that increases exponentially with abortion not being
legal.

The thing about the abortion debate that no one ever says is this: Many
religions don't consider the soul attached until after birth, so declaring
abortion murder is denying the separation of church and state -- it is a
mostly-Christian concept. It is cramming Christianity into law. It is against
the Constitution.

Roe vs. Wade as "relegat[ing] [a] type of human to a subclass without equal
rights" is interpreted through the Christian religion. It is not a given for
every religion in the USA. It should be legally approached as such.
~~
Sooz