Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (12333)	4/25/2001 12:42:45 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 82486

If indeed there are documented instances of her intentionally withholding available and efficacious pain medications which a patient was requesting (some don't want the pain medications for various reasons) that would indeed give me serious pause, Thank you. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it? Karen

To: The Philosopher who wrote (12333)	4/25/2001 1:14:02 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Since you deny God utterly, there is no point in discussing with you such concepts as Divine intention, or the redemptive power of suffering, or sacred vows, or other principles which informed her life. Let's just accept that they were as deep and as sincere as your beliefs. We will just have to wait for the hereafter to see which of you was the misguided one. And what exactly will you see if there isn't a hereafter? I understand that as a child you suffered for your atheist beliefs. I'm sorry about that. Truly. It was wrong. But I'm sorry that it didn't make you more, rather than less, open to cherishing diversity of belief and respecting the beliefs of those whose beliefs differ from yours. Right. You're pretty good about pushing "tolerance" for your particular beliefs, but cherishing diversity seems perhaps a bit of an alien concept to you.. As in Message 15667640 I also object to two characterists of certain (not by any means all) athiests. First is denial of history; basic denial that we were founded as a Christian nation, and basic denial that that has had a lot to do with shaping the nature of our society, both for good and for bad. (Though usually they're happy to acknowledge the bad.) Second is to try to force religion out of public life, and make public life atheist. The whole origin, intent, purpose, etc. of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment are too complex to get into here, but it's clear that they were never meant to be used in the way they are used today. Highly disputable, that paragraph. Once more for old times sake: nytimes.com I am happy to let atheists and agnostics (and the non-religious or whatever other term you wish to use) believe and practice what they want, as long as they let me believe and practice what I want. But who, exactly, is telling you you can't believe and practice what you want? Looks to me that you are happy to let atheists and agnostics believe and practice what they want, as long as the atheists and agnostics accept your "Christian Nation" formulation and corequisite religious displays in government related activities. Because getting rid of religious displays in government related activities is "atheistic" and therefore unAmerican, or something. So the Christian Nation set gets to tell, and non believers shouldn't ask what's going on here. Seems that Madison and Jefferson might have disagreed there, but what could they have known about " origin, intent, purpose, etc"?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (12333)	4/27/2001 1:34:58 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

owed to uphold the teachings and practices of the church. It would have been a violation of her most sacred vows--a most serious sin--for her to have approved of birth control. But this is why I have said repeatedly that you have to view decisions in their context. Basically, expecting her to support birth control was expecting her to be disobedient to her most sacred vows. If an organization you belong requires you to practice evil, is it not your responsibility to disassociate yourself from it and then oppose it? Otherwise, "I was only following orders" is a valid defense. "Context" simply does not cut it here. Germany had been screwed by Britain and France after WWI. Does that justify Hitler?