Alexandra

PRECISELY. :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

Sure, climate change over time could be a natural phenomenon. But something HAS changed that was never present through all of human history: our ability to pollute. Thnk about how much humans have done to pollute the air, though, in the last 150-200 years that we didn't do in all the eons preceding current times. It's mind-boggling to consider how much the population has exploded, what impact the industrial revolution and the automobile have had on the atmosphere. I think it's naive to imagine such relentless and immense output of pollutants into our thin shell of protective atmosphere HASN'T had an enormous impact.

Gadgetlady, I'm not saying one cannot be, in turns, both rational and religious. But they cannot be both at the same time. One must take either a rational or religious view of something. The important qualifer in my statement is to the extent. However, this explains why I don't believe any ordained minister is qualified to hold public office. Either he or she is a good ordained minister -- that is, his/her highest obligation is to his deity -- OR he or she will be a good public servant, whose highest obligation is to serve the public. In someone like GWB, we've seen the folly of electing someone who openly disdains the will of the people in favor of the will of a higher power. His faith has overridden his reason (if he ever had any to begin with). I know you think there is such a thing as "creation science" and that that completely undermines my statement. But by its very nature, creation science posits some sort of supernatural creator, and that is not a rational assumption or claim. It is a "well, there's no other explanation that satisfies me, so I'll just assume someone designed nature" claim. That is not rational. There is no evidence FOR a creator, no evidence FOR intelligent design. There is just evidence that nature makes sense, has patterns, and works in concert, and there are other explanations for that. Explanations that do stand up to testing. That's reason, not faith, in action. Nothing can be BOTH.

I know it sounded that way, but I don't believe that a knowledge of religion results in a loss of intellect. But the two--rational, intellectual pursuit and observation as compared to an doctrinaire instruction in a particular religion--are incompatible. The place in the mind that is occupied by faith and adherence to a religious doctrine cannot be used to expand one's understanding of the world by reason. Basically, to the extent that a person is religious, he cannot--by definition--be rational. Should we study religion, the traditions, history, and influence thereof? Absolutely, and it's an indispensable part of any well-rounded education. But teaching our children that ONE religion is correct to the exclusion of all others sets up a narrow view of the world based on a mythology that not all of us share. It does no child any favors in terms of preparing them to live in today's world as a fully rational human being, and in many arenas can be a handicap. But withholding all religious instruction from children in no way means they are not being given adequate instruction in being good, responsible citizens. Teaching children how to live an ethical life and how to be good people does not require parents to force-feed the Ten Commandments, the Eight-Fold Path, or any other system's set of parables and behavior prescriptions. The moral code humanity shares basically boils down to "respect others' boundaries, of person, property, and action." It spans all religions and embraces those without any religious framework. Now, if only everyone could observe it and not think of their religion as an excuse to toss that rule out the window, we'd all be a lot better off.

I was raised in a family with no religious tradition. I was interested to discover what my parents went to such lengths to avoid--we never spoke about religion in my home--so I embarked on a course of self-study. Learning about religion is different than being brought up in one. The first lets you observe objectively and explore alternatives; the second teaches you one frame of reference at the expense of all others.

No one here has advocated such a position. Richard Dawkins did in his recent book, The God Delusion. And though I said that I don't disagree, I definitely don't think we should attempt to govern what parents teach their children in their own homes. Freedom is too precious to me and there's no way to travel down that path without infringing on parental rights. It's public education I believe should take a strong stance on the scientific approach. Discussions about which imaginary friend is more powerful have no place in any public classroom. And I'd even go so far as to say that educating children in any specific religious tradition (as in parochial school, yeshiva, madrassa) robs them of the opportunity to fully engage their intellectual capabilities as rational human beings. And that's a shame.

TOM, you'd said you had to "coach" Tina to eat the sundae and that she didn't want to eat it; it sounded as though she didn't actually want it at all and that you did it purposely to prove some sort of point. I didn't have any problem with giving it to someone else, but it sounded as though watching someone else eat it was deliberately intended to be part of the consequences of Brooklyn's not finishing her own meal. Sorry for the misapprehension. And believe me, I know picky does not equal thin!

I don't think you're a bad grandfather, but you may well be remembered as the "mean" one as Brooklyn grows up. As for the sundae, I think it was a little overboard to make someone else eat the sundae with Brooklyn watching. Not letting HER have it makes some sense, and I've done much the same thing myself (though I'm not proud of it). But making her watch someone else enjoy it seems vindictive and unnecessary. In any event, food isn't supposed to be a power struggle or source of unpleasantness (I'm constantly told). It's extremely hard get out of the rut of dessert being always held up as a reward, but it's becoming more and more an unpopular position. I wish I knew how better to manage my kids' picky eating habits!

Who says chocolate is a no-no? If you are a dieter (as I assume we all have been at one time or another) you're well acquainted with the pitfalls of a chocolate habit. But chocolate poses no particular hazard for bandsters--and I for one am glad that's the case!

No, I certainly don't think Richard Dawkins' beliefs trump yours. What I was saying is that society has an interest in its children being raised with some semblance of rational thought as a basis for their education. Do you not agree? Let's just start there.

Yet there are parents all over the world teaching their children things you would find abhorrent, because they believe in them as fact. Dawkins' observation was made at the end of an entire book in which he dissects the reasons he believes God is a delusion. So yes, of course it's fair to say that he has a bias. I'm just pointing out that you do, too.

Yes, Ron. My point was that parents shouldn't really expect carte blanche when it comes to teaching their beliefs to their children. Teaching children to be bigots is counterproductive to civil society. Dawkins' point is that teaching children to believe in a supernatural deity--inculcating them with a belief in a fantasy they know not yet how to challenge--is harmful to both the children and to society. It's a strong statement, but I can't say I disagree.

Yet we feel that madrassahs are wrong for creating yet another generation of Muslims who despise the West and believe anyone not a Muslim to be an infidel not worthy of life. All they are doing is teaching their beliefs to their children, right?

When I had a complete unfill the major difference was a relief of symptoms. It took months, though, for everything to settle down completely and for me to really feel the loss of restriction. Good luck and I hope everything turns out to be OK!!

Yep, often an unfill is the only thing that will fix this problem. I've had it on several occasions. You can try babying your esophagus--going on liquids for like a week--and taking Prevacid or something similar to calm things down, but if those measures don't work you really should have a slight unfill. Believe me, being a little loose is nothing like the agony of having permanent esophageal problems and possibly losing your band. If your band is as tight as your body can handle it (for now), you have to go with that and realize it's better than nothing. Things may change in future, but you really have to listen to your body and treat it well if you want it to stay healthy enough to stay banded.

Thanks for that wonderful summation, sleepyjean!

:) :pound: :pound:

Oh, Lisa, I'm so sorry. It is hard to be an orphan, even as an adult. I lost my father when I was 33 and my mother when I was 36, and even at that age it's still earth-shaking. I hope you, your friend and her family find peace and strength in this difficult time.

Oh, Laurend, how frustrating! Fingers crossed for you that it works out well, and SOON!!

Where in the Bible does it say "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."?

Neither do I, and neither do most of us. I haven't seen that claim made here.

Both of my girls will be getting it when they're old enough. I admit to selfishly being a little glad that we have a couple of years to wait in case there are any wrinkles to be ironed out.

My mother told me the same thing, but it never improved until I had a baby. THAT'S the only cure for cramps. I used to be incapacitated two days a month, but after my first baby was born, bye-bye cramps. It's a pretty drastic move, but if the cramps are THAT bad...

You and Ron share a belief system, yet somehow you manage not to pick fights with people or try to change their minds or tell them they are wrong. What is Ron doing differently?

Why can't we, indeed? I'd like to see you display some of that, please.