DanKroh

BTW, I want to give a big thank you to everyone who is willing to discuss this issue in such a civil way. It really is helping me to understand the other position, by going beyond the rhetoric and vitriol that usually blocks out any actual enchange of ideas.

In all the flurry over abortion, I missed this in your post, Beavah, and would like to address it: "Aye, there's the rub. Society cannot survive if any individual can freely "trump" the law and the community with personal belief. Prohibit murder? But I personally believe that I should kill old people who are in pain (Kevorkian), or young people who are permanently handicapped. You're infringing on my belief. Prohibit polygamy? But I'm an ex-Saudi prince who believes that I have a right to 20 wives to serve me at my whim. Prohibit theft? But I believe stealing from the other tribe/group/class i

OGE, not it doesn't, that's why I didn't say that it fit your definition. But Beavah's definition didn't include that criteria. But what about those embryoes left over after IVF, OGE? Where do they fit in? Gern also brings up some other practical issues, if you want to protect the life/rights of a fetus, how far do you go? Do they get life insurance? Are they entitled to citizenship; if life begins at conception, then your country of citizenship should be where you were conceived, not where you were born, right? Obviously anyone causing harm to the fetus would be culpable for prosecu

Gern asks: "...on the topic of miscarriages, how many funerals are held for prenatal miscarriages? Sure, families who want the child grieve, but never have I heard of a funeral held for a miscarriage. Never seen a headstone in a cemetary either for the prenatal." I have. From a sad personal experience, I have known people who have had funerals for a miscarried baby, but in this case, it was after a late miscarriage (mid-second trimester) when the fetus is actually delivered, but not viable outside the mother. Interestingly, at least in MA, "death certificates" are issued in the case

Beavah says: "Science and genetics. From that point, provide food, shelter, and oxygen, and the organism takes care of itself. And there's no denying it's human." So by your definition, a tumor is a human life (not your intention but that's how it reads). It comes from a human, it takes in nutrients and oxygen, and takes up space (shelter) in a human body. Why is a day-old zygote deserving of respect, but we remove and discard tumors (even benign ones, so can't use the life-threatening argument). What is it that makes the zygote different? Yes, it is alive, but so are many other things th

OGE says:"Women seeking to have an abortion talk about not wanting to have this baby, they say they dont want to raise the baby, they arent ready to care for another human. They never say, or I havent heard them say that I want to remove this mass of tissue before it becomes a human." My take on that is that women speak in terms of a baby because that is what will happen if they do nothing, not so much because they think of what is inside of them currently as a baby. So, from OGE's answer, it is the potential that determines the start of life. Ok, that's an interesting position. So d

OGE, Islam considers homosexuality a crime, and in Muslim countries, is often punished with death by stoning, hanging, or beating. Edited to add: However, keep in mind that in those same countries, a woman leaving her home without being covered head to toe might face the same punishment....(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Rooster, thank you for giving me credit on the biblical interpretation. Yes, I do not believe that is a correct interpretation of that verse, but I have heard of Christians that do. So I will take that as a "yes, that is would be ok because the will of the majority goes, even if it means dissolving someone's marriage." Wow. You did bring up the point that the Constitution is there to protect certain rights. But you and I disagree on the interpretation of the First Amendment. I do believe that codifying Christian morality into law violates my first amendment rights if that law is in c

Rooster says: "I dont believe that your example is valid.... Your hypothetical would force non-religious individuals to join a faith so to be married." Actually, I knew my hypothetical was unconsitutional when I proposed it, but I was hoping you would answer the question instead of arguing its validity. But ok, then lets leave off the part about "sanctified by God". If the majority decided that infertile people shouldn't be married because of the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply", would that be ok?

I am a psychologist, and have my own practice specializing in gender identity and uality (which explains my strong opinions about certain subjects ). That's what I do for a living, but what I live for is being a single parent to two wonderful boys. Sometimes it's a toss up which one actually my full-time job.... Edited to add: I'm not sure why the filter removed the three letter word meaning "intimate relations" from the word after "gender identity", since I know I've used that word here before without it being censored...(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

OK, the posts have gotten all out of order because of the timestamp glitch, so forgive me if it seems I am addressing things out of order. Ed-once it is born, a baby is independent of it's mother. It's not independent of *people*, but someone else can take care of it besides it's mother. Before birth, no one else can carry the child but the mother. I think abortion is, if not entirely, strongly a religious issue because religion is one of the benchmarks that people use to recognize when "life begins". It is certainly a religious issue for Catholics, and many other Christians, whose c

We discussed freely giving vs. earning respect on another thread here a couple of months ago. I agree that respect is something that is given, not earned. But it can also be lost. I am saddened to admit that I have lost respect for some of the Scouters who regularly post here, and I'm sure that those same Scouters probably do not hold me in high esteem because of my beliefs and opinions. However, even when someone has lost my respect, I do still try to treat them with civility. Not being perfect, I'm know I do sometimes fail at that, but I will strive to do my best. But I would

Funscout writes: "First let me make it clear that I do not believe that the U.S. should be a nation of ONLY Christians." No, actually, I didn't think you did believe that. Very few people (outside of a few extreme fundamentalists) want us to be a nation of only Christians. But a lot more of those people have no problem codifying Christian morality into our laws, even when those morals conflict with the morals of other religions. So who gets to say which we follow? The majority, who are Christians? Well, then we are back to a nation controlled by Christianity, and the name for that is

I agree that I have no problem with "Christian Nation" in the way you mean it, Trev. But I think some people use the phrase to mean a nation *controlled* by Christian principles. Someone in another thread asserted that they were not trying to force me to be Christian. But if you force me to follow Christian morality by codifying it into our laws, are you not doing the same thing?

funscout writes: "As has been pointed out, Christians look at death differently than non-Christians.... How sad for those people who do not look forward to being reunited with their departed loved ones." I'm not sure if you meant to imply that all non-Christians do not believe in an afterlife, but many non-Christians DO look forward to being reunited with their departed loved ones. Just their version of Heaven and the afterlife may not be the same as yours. Or they might believe in reincarnation and that they will meet the departed again here on Earth in their next life. I know that TirNa

Thank you, Kahuna, for your thoughtful reply. It is interesting to see the viewpoint of other non-Christians. The only problem I have with the idea of us being a "Christian nation" is that it seems to be a slippery slope that could lead us closer to being a theocracy. If we say that we are a nation based on Christian principles, who gets to decide which of those Christian principles gets incorporated into our laws? At what point of making Christian morality into law have we gone too far? When abortion is illegal? When homosexuality is a criminal offense? When birth control is illegal

In another thread, funscout writes: "This is just one of MANY examples throughout the book that show that the United States was founded on Christian principles. It was such an eye-opener for me, as my public shcool education contained none of the religious history that is so important to our nation." There is an opinion held by many that the U.S. is a Christian nation, that it was founded on Christian principles. What evidence is there to support the idea that the founders of this nation *wanted* Christian principles to be it's bedrock? There is no mention of Jesus or God the Constit

BrentAllen says: " I'm always amazed at how many atheists and non-Judeo-Christians read the Bible and quote verses." How are we supposed to know that we *don't* believe something unless we learn about it first? It's not a matter of feeling smart or superior, just common sense, in my personal experience. What I find amazing are people who condemn a religion or a viewpoint when they don't really know anything about it! Edited to add: Personally, I plan on partying in TirNaNog when my time here is done.... (This message has been edited by DanKroh)

The only time I would see it as appropriate for a "parent" to be along on a campout is if the scout in question has some sort of disability that requires the scout to have extra help that an adult leader may not have the time and/or skill to assist with. I believe I am a case in point. My son has high-functioning autism. I go along on campouts with him because I don't expect the adult leaders to know how to handle the peculiarities of his condition. However, I try to take as much of a "hands-off" approach as I can, and only intervene when necessary. Since I'm the Cubmaster for one of the

Wow, I missed a lot, but I have one last reply for Rooster. Rooster said: "Sounds like youre taking this a little personally. Let me assure you, I know many learned people as well and they do not share your view. And interestingly, I doubt you would give them much credence. So why even go there try arguing the points presented." Can't say I take anything said by an anonymous voice on the Internet "personally". However, I do object to having my words twisted and implications made that I said something I didn't, or that I'm "avoiding" a debate because someone decided to bring up point

Rooster, as far as I can see, you are the one going off on red herrings. I opined as to the motivation of the adoption of the national motto. You disagreed with that opinion. I could provide you with links to many essays by learned people who assert the same thing, but I doubt you would give them credence. Whether you believed this was an "official" motto of Judaism and Christianity never really crossed my mind, but it seemed unfair to drag Jews into your argument when they would, in reality, want to have nothing to do with putting "God" on our money. (And, btw, it's not just Orthodox Jew

Well, Rooster, keep trying.... The second half of my comment, that it becoming the "national motto" being a response to "Godless Communists" is completely my personal opinion, although it is an opinion shared by many others who write on the subject. Your "story" may also be a popular one, but it's the first time I've seen it. And while many Jews may indeed feel that they trust God, they would not promote writing "God" on something as "vulgar" (in the sense of being common and handled by many, not profane) as currency. Edited to add, because I found the quote: In fact, Presiden

Actually, Rooster, my post didn't say anything about when it was printed on money (coin or paper), I said it became the "national motto" in the 1950's. From the U.S. Treasury web site: "A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States." Yes, please, let's do get the story right....

Two comments on this article come to mind: 1. "In God We Trust" has only been a "national motto" (along with "under God" in the pledge) since the 1950's, and was a response to the "Godless Communists". 2. Personally, I'd rather not have a man convicted of 3 felony counts which were overturned on a technicality as a spokesperson for my "values-based" organization. I especially like how the article glosses over that by saying that he "gained notoriety during the Reagan era". Notoriety, indeed!(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Brent, I also do not consider such condescension to be kind and courteous either, but that's just me, I guess. MY point was that making such an implied comparison was unkind and unwarranted. And backpedaling to say "oh, it was intentionally absurd" doesn't excuse it in my book. And how is making a complaint about a park director threatening to shoot a dog a complaint about BSA policy? (which is not to say that Kudu has never made a complaint to his district/council about BSA policy, since I have no knowledge of this one way or the other). He is certainly vociferous here about certain thin