WASaBubbleButt

The author's explanation is interesting indeed, yet when you read it without the narrative it is also quite interesting. Time Hath Found Us: Sunday Special: Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter And this is more interesting: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfreereligion.htm

HA! I was raised Catholic too. Funny how our priest left out so much history in church every Sunday!

Well, the sleeve is more invasive, no doubts there. But it is the same number of incisions as a band. It's also done through key hole (lap) surgery. The incisions are exactly the same as with a band. I wanted reversible when I was getting my band, today I am at goal and for the life of me I don't know why I wanted reversible. It makes no sense. The only reason to lose your band is BECAUSE of the band, if it slips or erodes. Other than that you fight tooth and nail to keep your band. I hear lots of people say they have lost their band, nobody has told me they lost their sleeve. ;o)

I don't know that any were atheist but there were some that were deist. Ever read the Treaty of Tripoli?

Well, with a lap band you will need lifetime follow up care. That's why I threw out the option of a sleeve for less money than you'll likely get a band in the US. NO aftercare. It's something I kinda regret not doing. If I had it to do over again I would not get a band. I'd get a sleeve.

Ortiz does not work out of a hospital, he works out of a clinic. That's kind of deceptive to refer to a hospital when it is not done in a hospital. If Worldmedassist is saying that, they are being extremely dishonest. Besides, there is absolutely no reason to go through a 3rd party organization anyway. Hardly anyone does that, it's cheaper not to use those places.

You can get your family to cosign for a loan and get a band in Mexico for $7900 or a sleeve with no after care for $8750. Personally, I'd go for the sleeve. No aftercare issues.

If you are going to Mexico why not go to an actual hospital for two nights for less money - than a clinic for one night and a hotel for the 2nd night for more money?

People are people and there are good ones and bad ones from all beliefs and lack of belief. I don't judge anyone on their beliefs or lack of beliefs, I just want them to keep it away from me. I will support and defend their right to believe, but I will support and defend my right to lack belief.

I think most people make that assumption. Most think of "heaven" as the afterlife and it's a Christian concept. So they assume "no Christian God" must mean no afterlife. Truth is, an afterlife predates Christianity. An afterlife is something that Christianity copied from the religions prior. With that said, in my experience most atheists do not happen to believe in an afterlife but a great many do. HA! Excellent point!

Ohhhh, be careful. Be verrry careful. You get what you pay for in life. The non adjustable band has a very long history and it's not a nice one. Most do not do well. You are going to a doctor that so far nobody has heard of for a band that has a really bad track record for a price that barely covers expenses. Be careful here.

Hear hear! Public schools aren't even doing all that great of a job teaching the basics let alone religion. Can you imagine the uproar if they did teach religion? There are as many version of Christianity as there are Christians looking in the mirror each morning. There is no way a teacher could teach it anyway. Every single person would be protesting that she isn't teaching it the right way. Let's leave school for the basics as you outline and home/church for religion.

Wow... you sure demand a lot! I only asked that he come down, shake my hand, and stay for dinner for a nice conversation. Yet... nada.

Fair enough. Who created your God? Again, who created your God? Must have been an amazing entity. ;o) Faith doesn't mean truth either. Not all atheists have been let down by religion. I think there comes a time when we all ask the hard questions. Some are okay with faith, some are not. Some need much more than a desire to believe something is out there.

Keep in mind, a belief or lack of belief in an afterlife has nothing in the world to do with atheism. Atheism means a lack of a God: Theism: With a God Atheism: Without a God Christians didn't make up the afterlife concept, that existed long before xtianity. Many atheists believe in an afterlife.

Can you prove that? Clearly, you cannot because religion depends on faith. I'm not knocking faith for you, but it isn't for me. I want the cold hard facts and religion does not provide us with that. It depends on believing something written by people we never met that historically had quite an agenda. I don't think the world is such a horrible place to live in. I think it is pretty darn nice. It's pretty, there are lots of nice people, interesting things to do, fascinating things to learn... I think it's a great place. It could be better if people behaved themselves but it really comes down to how you want to look at it. If you want to look at - and focus upon the 5% of slimy people out there doing bad things, so be it. If you want to focus on the 95% of the people out there plugging away, living their lives, and doing the best they can, so be it. This is one aspect of xtianity that I really don't understand. I can't wrap my brain around it. If there is a God, and I lack belief in such, then why not look at all the beautiful things around us. I see xtians write things all the time about how horrible the world is. Maybe for those writing those statements that is true. But it isn't true if you look beyond your own backyard. It's a pretty cool place to be. I guess it is all perspective.

Kirshenbaum! Without a doubt Kirshenbaum gets my vote. A good surgeon and a very ethical man. If not Kirshenbaum then Mexico is an excellent alternative, inpatient hospitalization vs. out patient surgery and only $7900.

I guess if religion was based on fact then believers wouldn't need faith, right?

Nobody is attacking your beliefs, get over it. The hostility isn't making you look like a very nice xtian. The reality is that creationism does not hold up to SCIENCE. That is because it is RELIGION. That is not attacking your religion, that is a fact. Just because the facts don't add up to what you want them to be does not mean anyone is attacking you for explaining the scientific explanation of theory. If you don't like it quit screaming at the messenger, get SCIENCE to change their ways. It isn't going to work but you are free to try. Public schools are not permitted to push religion, it's the law. Creationism is not science, it is religion. If you truly understood science and theory you would understand this. That is not attacking your religion, it's just the way it is.

Perhaps if schools did a better job of teaching science there wouldn't be so much confusion of what scientific theory means vs. religion. Where is Lauren... I think she might have given up on scientific theory threads. I'll have to call her over here. ;o)

No, this is what I was responding to: The question was regarding the ACLU and Illinois and what perks have xtians had vs. non xtians, historically. I responded to the questions asked. Considering the topic was the ACLU and the school in Illinois, my comment on persecution was quite accurate. SOME xtians are throwing a fit over having to follow the same laws that they have forced everyone else to follow. Schools are not in the business of pushing or teaching xtianity, those days are OVER. Creationism is based on religion, scientific theory is not based on religion. See the difference? Today they are teaching science, not religion. If you want your child to learn about your religion then teach him your religion. If you don't wish to do that then I would suggest a religious school vs. a public school. I really do not understand why some xtians are pushing for religion in school. Xtianity is not going to be the majority religion in the US in a few years, not the way others are moving to the US and bringing their own religion and their own cultures with them. If some xtians keep demanding religion in public schools, your future generations might just have religions other than xtianity crammed down their throats. I'll bet you'll be on the side of atheists when that day comes demanding that religion be taken from public schools. Wait until kids are being taught about the Koran or they are dancing naked around a maypole before each test... bet'cha you change your tune then about religion in schools. Careful what you ask for from the gov't, you might just get it and it might not be what you expected.

The two affordable places I am aware of are: Berger in Flagstaff: $200 Aceves in Mexicali: $75 You can go with us if you wish, it is a whole lot closer than TJ. About half the distance and we have fun. ;o) We go as a group. He used to charge an extra $100 for folks he did not band but I believe he has seen the error of his ways. Heh... He's agreed to see AZ and CA folks at the same rate as his patients. He doesn't charge anything, the hospital charges $75 for the radiology equipment and radiologist. Although a radiologist is there running the equipment (Mexican law) the surgeon is doing the fills and check ups w/fluoro. I don't blame you for wanting fluoro. It's comforting to know everything is as it should be. And with Clay... I didn't find him, that time he found me! :frown: He PMed me asking if he could join our lunches. I said sure, all banded and pre-banded folks are welcome. Then I forwarded him the lunch email and he actually thanked me for the LIST! Grrrr... now I send them out as BCCs. No more lists of email addresses, just the date, time, and location of the lunch.

What is YOUR take on the topic? I mean without having to look to the bible to find your opinions.

We disagree. The reason most doctors do not use fluoro is because the equipment is expensive, ultrasound is cheap in comparison. Any clue how many people don't know they have a problem with a dilated pouch or other such issues until it is discovered on fluoro? Lots. It's a great check up and the radiation is exceedingly limited. Better fills are given with fluoro and especially newbies that don't know what feeling they are supposed to have with a good fill. Since better fills are given, fewer of them are needed. BTW, I'm still not happy with you for your deception to me when you tried to make me think you were a patient looking for a band and asked to join our bandster lunches. Then when I believed you and forwarded you the email you thanked me for the list of email addresses. That was amazingly tacky and unprofessional on your part.

Plain... Since you still decline to tell me which ACLU case you are referring to I went looking. This is what I found: Sherman v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 214, No. 07-6048 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2007) >>Sherman v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 214, No. 07-6048 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2007) A U.S. district court in Illinois has issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting a school district from implementing the state’s new mandatory "moment of silence" law. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims that the law is unconstitutionally vague and violates the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses are likely to succeed. The law in question is a 2007 amendment to a 1969 law that permitted schools to observe a brief period of silence for silent prayer or reflection. In 1990, the state legislature amended the law by adding a provision making clear that students may voluntarily initiate prayer so long as it is non-disruptive and, "consistent with the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions, is not sponsored, promoted or endorsed in any manner by the school or any school employee." The 2007 amendment made observation of the "moment of silence" mandatory. Robert Sherman challenged the law in a suit brought on behalf of his daughter, Dawn Sherman, a student at Buffalo Grove High School. The suit names Township High School District 214 (THSD 214) and Dr. Christopher Koch, Illinois State Superintendent of Education, as defendants and argues that the law is void because it is unconstitutionally vague and that it violates the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses. The court started by stating that under the "void-for-vagueness" doctrine "‘a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.’" When, as in this case, the uncertainty of the statute creates an environment that threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, a court subjects the statutes to a more stringent standard of review. A vague law that chills First Amendment rights is void on its face, the court continued even if it may have some legitimate application. The court found that this statute failed to specify: (1) how the period of silence should be implemented; (2) the time of day the period should be observed; (3) how long the period should be; and (4) whether students would be required to sit or stand, or would be permitted to move about the classroom. More important, the statute failed to set out penalties for students who fail to remain silent, teachers who refuse to hold the period of silence, and schools and school districts that refuse to implement the statute in whole or in part. As a result, the court concluded that the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the vagueness claim. This vagueness, in turn, created potential Establishment Clause and Free Exercise of Religion Clause violations, the court held. By directing students to consider prayer as one of two options during the period of silence, the statute appears to convey to students that the period should be use for prayer. This would be a possible violation of the Establishment Clause, the court reasoned. As for the free exercise claim, the vagueness as to permissible activities during the period of silence, such as use of a Muslim prayer rug, a Bible, or chanting, raised concerns of possible free exercise violations. Sherman v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 214, No. 07-6048 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2007) [Editor’s Note: According to the news report below, some state legislators who supported the legislation and some who opposed it agree that removal of the word "prayer" from the statute will spare schools from further litigation. For background on the suit, see the second link. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), struck down an Alabama moment of silence statute as promoting religion after it was amended to specify that voluntary prayer was permitted. In 2001, the Fourth Circuit in Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265 (4th Cir. 2001), upheld Virginia’s moment of silence statute, which specified that prayer was one option.] Chicago Tribune By Jeff Coen NSBA School Law pages on Illinois moment of silence suit<< Plain, you are upset because the ACLU is fighting this. Since nobody is suggesting that prayer cannot be done during school hours, and it cannot be led by teachers, and it cannot be suggested by teachers, what is the problem? Isn't the only thing left to force it down the children's throats? What is the problem with this ACLU case?