marjon9

Sanjaya!!!!

These are some of the toughest questions a society can face, and there are no perfect answers. You ask "on what basis do we get to choose to limit freedoms of some and not others." I think that the best we can do to answer that is to follow the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held, for example, that it is constitutional to confine sexual predators in civil confinement past the time of their sentence on the criminal charge, on the ground that they are mentally ill. Scientific evidence supports the proposition that sexual predators can't change. Hence, the ability to keep them past the conclusion of their sentences. I don't know the current state of the law on this, but the Supreme Court made such rulings in the past. But apparently you can't do the same thing with a murderer/robber, white collar criminal, etc. As a society, I don't think we are prepared to say that anyone who commits a crime goes to prison for life, period, because there is a good chance they can't change. That's just not something we are willing to do. These are not perfect answers, but they are probably the best we can do. To me the bigger issues in criminal justice these days is absurdly long sentences for low level drug dealers, etc. I don't remember the statistics, but for African American males the numbers who end up in jail are just beyond comprehension. Is this because African Americans are evil? Or "natrually" criminals. I don't think there are many who still believe things like that. I think we need to face upt to the fact that part of this has to do with common ills of society, and when society gives no meaningful opportunity to rise out of poverty, and instead just puts a whole generation in prison, something is out of balance. I know, I know, the liberal in me is bubbling to the surface, but what the heck. Once I get on a roll spouting truth for the masses, it's hard to stop.

Yeah, that's the problem with America. We make prisons too comfortable. Life in prison is such a picnic. I see exactly what you mean. And if we just had more capital punishment, everything would be much better. I see your point.

I've been wondering how it's all working out. Sounds like you still have to work out a few details. I'm sorry you have to deal with this. It should work out smoothly, but still, it's a stressful thing. Let us know how it goes.

Yeah, but remember, debates about cats in heat can be very controversial.

I don't know how to raise this issue without offending, which is unfortunate because I don't intend to. But I'm really curious, isn't a closed mind a virtue in many religious contexts? Isn't it more or less the same thing as "faith"? If you have faith, you don't need to think things through for yourself. Indeed, if you do question, and wonder, and think, you are demonstrating a lack of faith. Is that not true? Am I missing something? I'm really curious.

Speaking of Hank Hanegraaff, I took a look at the Wikipedia entry on him. A divisive figure, to say the least. You can find the entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Hanegraaff The thing that was most interesting to me about the Hank Hanegraaff article in Wikipedia is to see just how much division and almost vicious competition there is among various Christian denominations, each accusing the other of being false. So, I wonder how Christians would explain this. If each and every one of the many Christian factions believe their way is the only truth, and all others are "lost," what does that mean? There can only be two possible resolutions to that question. Either one is right and all the others are wrong, or they are all wrong. There is no other possible resolution. So, how is a person supposed to know which is the one and only truth? When a "believer" looks at these issues, how are they reconciled? Even if a person believes in "faith," wouldn't they want to have faith in something that makes sense and reflects love? How is it possible to have "faith" in something that leads to the inescapable conclusion that most of humanity will burn in hell for eternity? Does there ever come a point where it is legitimate to question your belief in something that you accept just because your parents told you it was so? Just wondering. Here is a short clip from the Wikipedia article on Hanegraaff: In the early 1990s Hanegraaff came to international notoriety for his strong criticisms of the Word-Faith teachings of Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn and other prominent Pentecostal and charismatic televangelists. In his 1993 book Christianity in Crisis, Hanegraaff charged the Word-Faith movement with heretical teachings, saying that many of the Word-Faith groups were "cults", and that those who "knowingly" accepted the movement's theology were "clearly embracing a different gospel, which is in reality no gospel at all"

One thing to keep in mind is this: After banding, people often find that they actually *want* different things. People don't just sit around feeling deprived for all the things they can't have. They just start to want different things. I know it is hard to imagine that your taste for beer would actually change, but there is a good chance that could happen. That type of thing happens to a lot of people with the band.

Leatha, I appreciate that, but that "answer" is really not at all satisfying. It's just a circular response blaming people who live in Tibet for not wanting to find god. I guess I am not surprised at this type of answer. It lets Christians off the hook for believing in something that involves so much unfairness and cruelty. I certainly do believe that I am more compassionate than god if god blames people from some far off land for not finding their way to Christianity. Another thing about this answer is particularly offensive. It says that men and women are not condemned to hell based on whether or not they heard of Jesus Christ. Rather they are "justly and fittingly" condemned because they are sinners. I feel so sorry for people who believe that human beings are essentially "sinners." And I feel so sorry for people who believe that your everyday human who is out there living life the best way he or she can "deserves" to be condemned to hell. What a horrific world view. I truly feel sorry for you. Oh, but that's right, I should not feel sorry for you because you, after all, are "saved." I am not sure whether there is a god or not, but if there is one, I could never disrespect him or her enough to believe that god's creations are born "sinners." As a child of god, I would always know that I could never be less than perfect exactly as I am. When I asked my question earlier, I really had expected to hear answers that explained how a person from another land who never heard of Christ would somehow be forgiven. Silly me. Now I know that these people actually "deserve" to go to hell because they failed to find their way to Christianity. I'm really disappointed. It just takes my breath away that my fellow human beings could believe such things. It's even worse than I thought.

Wish I had good news for you, but anything with carbonation is pretty much off limits. Some people do drink a beer or soda here and there, but they are not really supposed to. And six beers is not going to work anyway because your stomach pouch will not be able to hold that much. Especially at first, you'll need to sip liquids little by little. Another thing is, beer is really high in carbs and calories, etc. It's probably not the type of thing that fits well into the bandster lifestyle in general. It might be good to talk to your doctor/nutritionist about this, and see what others here say about it. But once you get banded it will involve some changes in lifestyle, there's no way around it. And the beer drinking is probably one of the first changes that the doctor will recommend.

Thanks for passing that along. It provides a place to start in thinking about the topic. And, as you say, it raises additional questions for me. Such as, if god understand if people haven't gotten the word, what does that mean? I guess it means they don't go to hell, but they also can't go to heaven, so where do they go? And what does it mean if you "haven't gotten the word?" Can you have "heard" of Christianity? What if there is no church within 1000 miles? Anyway, the questions go on and on. But it's interesting to hear the answer you sent along.

Neal, you may not want to get into this because it is personal or whatever. But I do wish someone would explain to me what the "other view" is. If the Bible says what it says, what is the other view? I'm not trying to force you to debate or defend yourself, I'm just curious. But like I say, I don't mind of course if you'd rather not get into it. I just hope a "believer" will some time be willing to explain why my view is not accurate. It's hard to get people to talk about that.

These comments are not meant to be an "attack," but just some questions and issues. To me the issue is not that I need scientific proof. To me the issue is, if the Bible is "true," then 95% of all humans who ever walked the earth are destined to burn in hell for eternity (at least based on certain fundamentalist views of what the Bible means). If the only way to heaven is to accept Christ as your personal savior, and all others are "lost," then I just can't accept something like that under any circumstances. Most of the world's population has never had a realistic opportunity to learn about Christ and accept Christ. Even if someone has "heard" of Christ, if that person grows up in rural Tibet, that person has not had a realistic opportunity to "accept" Christ. How can the punishment for such a person be to burn in hell for eternity? How can anyone believe in a God that would be that cruel, unfair, and arbitrary? If this is who "God" is (which I seriously doubt), then I don't want any part of it. I just don't see how a person can buy into a belief system like that, through "faith" or otherwise, that involves so much pain and unfairness. Wouldn't God want us to think at all?

To be honest, I thought Don was a little bit "nappy headed" if you see what I mean. Don "the nappy headed" Ho. That's how I think of him. And don't be too tough on banjo music. Anyone else listen to Bela Fleck? That guy is one of the greatest musicians alive today, in my opinion.

I read the paper. I'm not one of those who would be inclined to argue with you, but I'll make a few comments. It makes me very sad to read about that. I think that men are really quite afraid of the power that women have in their lives. Most men, left to their own devices, would be relatively unmotivated. They would be pretty happy sitting under a palm tree counting sand. Men are motivated to do more than that by being around women. Men are capable of doing amazing and wonderful things, don't get me wrong, but they just don't really feel a need to do these things unless they are motivated by women. Women provide the hunger. Women are capable of motivating each other. Women don't really need men in that way. But men don't really get much motivation from other men. James Brown was pretty correct in his song It's A Man's World. Men build the buildings, but it don't mean nothing, nothing, nothing, without a woman or a girl. This kind of power is terrifying to men. That's why men feel a need to wrap women up head to toe in burkas, and why men feel a need to suppress and control women in the ways described in this piece by the Mormon scholar. It seems like every religion has its own particular scheme for making sure women are controlled and that their power is undermined. Men happen to have the advantage when it comes to physical strength, and fear of female power causes men to seek to control women through use of that physical strength. I think that pretty much explains what rape is about. And it is really a loss for both sexes when men seek to suppress and control women. A happy, fulfilled woman is capable of motivating a man to become far more than anything he could have dreamed. Most men lose out on so much by deluding themselves into believing that they have the power and the control. We all lose so much from that. This is one of the main reasons I hate religion. It takes such a heavy toll on women. Women pay a huge price, and men lose so much too, without understanding why. Men seemingly have the advantage because they "control" everything, but they pay an enormous price as well. Everyone does by the imbalances created by religion. I'm married to a strong, confident woman. It amuses me to think of what might happen if I tried to pull some of these control games on her described in the article by the Mormon scholar. My approach with her is to do what I can to help her fulfill herself. I'm not Mr. Perfect and I make all kinds of mistakes. But I know that to the extent I can support her, my life will be doubly blessed. I always get back more than I give. Every religion seems to feature its own scheme for controlling and suppressing female power. Everybody loses because of it, but women are the ones who pay the heaviest price. What a sad and foolish way to live.

At least the "authorities" appear to understand that something needs to be done to change the law. But it's hard to tell for sure. It will be interesting to see how the court rules. If anyone hears, let us know. I wonder how many court scenes there have been that went something like this: Religious Person "Helping" the Pregnant Woman: "Your honor, I acknowledge that this woman is really, really, really, really depressed, but in my opinion, she is not suicidal." Pregnant Woman Carrying a Child That Wil Not Survive Childbirth: "No, Your Honor, seriously, I'm suicidal. Trust me on this one. Here, let me cut my wrist right here. Does anyone have a razor I can borrow? Here, I'll stick a pen in my eye. No, wait, seriously, I'm suicidal."

Carlene, on at least two occassions on this forum you have made the comment that "men are pigs (present company excluded)." I've posted them below. I'm very offended by those comments. It makes no difference whether you added the disclaimer that present company is excluded. It is obvious that you truly believe, as a general rule, that "men are pigs." I think you owe everyone on the forum an apology for that. I'll just wait here until I see that apology. I am so mad at my DH's friend, Mr. P. Today he e-mailed ME pics of him and his live-in girlfriend!!! Of course, it started another argument between DH and myself. I think it was a totally in-your-face thing for him to do, knowing, as he does, how I feel about their relationship. DH is afraid that I am going to "destroy" his 40 year friendship with Mr. P. I have no intention of doing any such thing. I was even civil when Mr P came to my house a few weeks ago. But this was just so not cool of him. I did not respond to the e-mail. Men are pigs (present company excluded). ==================== I told DH that this whole thing makes me sad, but more than that, it makes me feel terribly vulnerable. Mr P was the absolute best husband I ever knew. If he is capable of this, then it could happen to any of us. My friend Alan is right....men are pigs. (Present company excluded, of course.) I'm just thankful that Mrs P's state of mental confusion/drug-induced bliss prevents her from knowing what a creep the love of her life has turned out to be. =================== The actual fact is, I could not care less about your apology. I think you really do have issues with anger toward men, but this is a public forum, and people have a right to vent and use hyperbole without being called upon to apologize every time someone is "offended." In my case in particular, since it is so obvious from my posts on the topic that I do not in any way diminish the ugliness and horror of pedophilia, your insistence on an apology is particularly disingenuous. I just want to say that I'm done with this thread if the topic of discussion continues to be "Marjon." If people want to talk about something else, I'm there.

Totally awesome, dude (as my son likes to say). Congratulations!

I don't think a "poor choice of words," assuming there was one, or an analogy that "could have been better," is something that requires an apology. Especially in Rants and Raves. If it did, 80% of the posts would require apologies. Again, all of this is a red herring. No one wants to talk about what this thread is actually about, so instead they want to focus on my alleged "arrogance." Feel free to have whatever "honest opinion" you want to have about me, and feel free to refuse to "move forward" about this. Whatever.

Exactly!!! Well said!!! I couldn't have said it better myself!! You use the word "amusing" to describe this. I use the word "silly." Perhaps there is a big difference there, but I don't see it. The fact is, I do not in any way trivialize any sort of harm or trauma that may come from molestation, rape, pedophilia, etc. I've explained that clearly over and over again in numerous posts. If anyone got the incorrect impression that I do trivialize these things from a particular sentence of hyperbole I wrote three days ago, please let that impression be corrected. If someone wants to be offended by a position I have actually taken, I would have no problem with that. But being offended by a misunderstanding from one sentence that clearly does not reflect what I actually believe is, shall we say amusing/silly. I hope everyone will stop being "offended by the offending words that were not meant to offend."

Your post motivates me to make one clarification. That is, I have absolutely no animosity toward "Christians," or anyone else. I single out conservative Christians in my posts because, in my experience, conservative Christians are the ones who seek to use legislation and constitutional amendments in an effort to force others to live by a moral code that they believe in, in such areas as prayer in school, abortion, and gay rights, etc. That is what these threads have been about from the beginning. Anyone who happens to be a Christian is perfectly fine with me as long as they leave me and the rest of the world alone to live our lives by the moral code that works for us.

What I said was: "The concept of prayer in school is just about as offensive to me as pedophilia." I think all of you are being silly to get in a huff and claim that I am somehow equating rape and pedophilia with prayer. That's just ridiculous. If you read the posts I've made here throughout this entire thread, you can clearly see that this thread has nothing to do with anything like that. My comment was a little bit of hyperbole to make a point. If I said "drinking alcohol is the work of the devil," would you all pounce on me for being a devil worshiper, or some other such nonsense? This group of indignant comments about rape and pedophilia amount to nothing more than red herrings to avoid talking about what is actually being said here. And, what is actually being said here, is this: no group of people has the right to use legislation and constitutional amendments to force others to live by moral standards that everyone does not agree with. Whether you like it or not, prayer in school is deeply offensive to me. I don't expect you to understand. I don't really care if you understand. But what I do care about is that you should not be allowed to use legislation to force me to endure something I find deeply offensive, simply because you think it is wonderful. That is the point I'm making here, as I've said repeatedly. And by the way, when I say "you," I mean that generally. This is not directed at anyone in particular. It is not a personal attack. It is a discussion. But please, you can all put your arms down now. I'm not suggesting that prayer is equal to rape and pedophilia.

Great news, Laurend! It's been a long haul. I hope you get a surgery date soon!

This is simply not true. That was not my purpose. My purpose was to stimulate debate on the question whether one group of people has the right to control the behavior of others through legislation reflecting their own moral beliefs. Religious conservatives are constantly seeking to do this on the local level with school prayer, all the way through to the national level with constitutional amendments about gay marriage. I fully expected said religious conservatives to protest my post, and they did, demanding that it be removed because it went against their own view of "correct" morality. They were not able to get their way. I believe that this is a very legitimate basis for meaningful discussion, and is not simply designed to bait and stir up everyone's ire. Obviously, none of this has anything to do with whether anyone "supports" pedophilia.

Can you point to anyone who has even hinted at being pro pedophilia?