GOD HELP THIS COUNRTY!!

[oldenough]

Oops my bad...never were to good at that counting thang. []

[Deang]

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil, but you have to choose the lesser of the two -- you need to mitigate the potential damage. As a parent, I need to create the kind of relationship with my kids where they know they can come to me with anything and know that the relationship will not be threatened by the information they give me -- without information I'm in the dark and useless to them as a source of support. I don't like the idea of my teenage daughters engaging in sex, but I like the idea of having them get pregnent before they are ready even less. When the 17 year old told me her and Chris (her boyfriend) were wanting to do it -- I made an appointment with the doctor she's had since she was born, who gave her a physical, some counseling with all of us in the room -- and had her put on the pill. She turned 18 in July, Chris found a decent job, and they are getting married in December -- and they will live here until they have enough saved up for a house. Is this the ideal situation -- probably not -- but it sure beats the alternatives.

dkp had an earlier post about the relationship between fathers and daughters and how that when the "Daddy's girl" thing starts to diminish, how girls begin seeking out a way to substitute it. That's actually not how it works. If the relationship between a daughter and father is solid and founded on trust and acceptance, then there is nothing to "substitute" -- it's really just a normal response to an increase in hormone levels! The problem is caused when there is no real relationship, when there is nothing to build on -- no foundation and no trust. It's not substitution, it's a seeking out for something they never really had to begin with. Here you will find low self-esteem, self-loathing, guilt, etc. -- which leads to promiscuous sexual activity. "Promiscuous" because the activity doesn't fill the emotional void.

Some parents need to pull their heads out of the sand -- others need to pull them out of their ***. Mostly I agree with my liberal friend.

Signed -- a hardline biblical conservative

[Zen Traveler]

Compassion.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

Sounds simple doesnt it? Especially when one party can claim to care while they relegate those with whom they disagree to be uncaring callous folks...

...It seems to me that many have cause to go back and re-examine just what constitutes true compassion

I agree. When I heard first heard the term "Compassionate Conservative" I thought it could mean a fiscally responsible, moderate Democrat....Little did I know in reality it was code words for a Religiously Right Republican. [] ;-)

[Zen Traveler]

.... As a parent, I need to create the kind of relationship with my kids where they know they can come to me with anything and know that the relationship will not be threatened by the information they give me -- without information I'm in the dark and useless to them as a source of support....

dkp had an earlier post about the relationship between fathers and daughters and how that when the "Daddy's girl" thing starts to diminish, how girls begin seeking out a way to substitute it. That's actually not how it works. If the relationship between a daughter and father is solid and founded on trust and acceptance, then there is nothing to "substitute" -- it's really just a normal response to an increase in hormone levels! The problem is caused when there is no real relationship, when there is nothing to build on -- no foundation and no trust....some parents need to pull their heads out of the sand -- others need to pull them out of their ***. Mostly I agree with my liberal friend.

Signed -- a hardline biblical conservative

I agree with these thoughts on this subject completely.

Signed-- the opposite of a hardline biblical conservative. ;-)

[Amy]

Please try harder to keep your political convictions out of this subject.

[mas]

Having been in countless discussions on this topic over the last 40 years, the argument against compassionate action generally can be summarized like this:

1. Change the subject: Don't face the human psychological, and spiritual development issues. Convert the argument immediately to one of process and materialism - i.e. "The Government is evil...blah, blah, blah." "Giant bureacracies from afar!" "Charities are a ripoff and spend little or no money on the purpose they promote." "Most of this money is wasted...", etc. Process, like statistics is an easy way to obfuscate the issue. Whenever the argument turns to human development of any kind, such as growing in maturity, or into any spiritual practice areas, the discussion will be turned immediately into gears, wheels, laws, tax rates, percentage and other process oriented "legalities." Turn it into sports talk.

2. Rationalize: "I believe in charity, and I am as compassionate as the next guy, BUT, because the Government is wasteful and is run by a band of sinful thieves, and since I am a Good and Solid person, I am commanded not to support that sinful waste. I'll keep my money to myself, thank you." Sounds good. Sounds fair. Sounds reasonable. It generally passes muster with others who feel the same, and who are not inclined much toward self-examination.

3. Demonize: "People posturing as do-gooders and posing as compassionate are just stealing our money for sinful and wasteful purposes. These people are godless or otherwise evil phonies. The most common demon here is the "phony." This also gets extended into demonizing the recipient of compassion: "Those people are criminals, failures, losers, and lack personal responsibility to get off their duffs, blah, blah, blah."

ROFLMAO.

Methinks thou doest protest too much! A fascinating rant if only ANY of those issues had been breached.

Talk about rationalization! You utterly miss the point and instead manifest your objection.

Spoken like a very loving, very caring husband who has his secretary pick out a card and gift for his wife's birthday or anniversery! How dare one question the depths of his feeling!

And Amy's right guys. When you are discussing the legitimate scope of government in society, be sure to leave politics out of it.

And as for you guys over in the College Football thread, be sure not to get off message and bring up sports!

Oh, and for you fellows who object to "too many words", if you haven't already, this is where you should stop. Besides, your attention span has been exceeded anyway.The shame is that this must be pointed out rather than done spontaneously.....................................................................................

You know, the problem with most discussions here is the classic problem encountered in most religious and political 'debates', which do not really qualify as debates at all, but instead manifest themselves as vested emotional arguments where two 'sides' persist in their beliefs unable or unwilling to try to explore the idea without their own personal vested interests assuming precedence. Thus, instead of exploring an idea and examining what aspects are able to withstand critical scrutiny, one simply persists in tossing their personal belief at the other until the other party changes their position such that their response begins to reflect the other party's message back in recognizable form, at which point that party can agree and accepts the other party's position, which is ironically just a reflection of their own. Surprise!

And the problem with most 'discussions' regarding religion and politics, which are very much able, at least in theory if not practice, to be discussed and debated, is precisely the inability for the parties to explore the ideas independently of their emotional vesting which results in at least one party simply tossing their beliefs out and waiting until the other side either changes their tune, in which case the emotional party will congratulate the other as having an epiphany and coming around to a sane point of view, or the more usual - simply denigrating the other as not being sufficiently enlightened to be correct.

This reminds me of an Intro Religious Studies course taught by Dr.Rem B. Edwards, whose text is a widely used text in such university classes. The class, since it satisfied many elective requirements for many programs, and combined with so many being so religious (and obviously feeling well qualified in "religion"), was always filled far past capacity. So the first topics were always "What is the difference between philosophy and religion", followed by "Discuss various conceptions of God".

After the initial distinction was destroyed as being arbitrary, the second was dominated by folks with their hands fervently waving in the air as if they were in pain as they so wanted to answer. Dr. Edwards would refrain from calling on them, instead attempting to coax the more reserved folks to participate.Why? Well that is what made stopping by the class a perennial favorite for myself and a few colleagues! It was a great way to visit an old friend and to enjoy the chaos of the moment! You see, after MANY semesters of precedence, those who so fervently desired to to participate inevitably began their expose with "The Bible teaches that...." and proceeded to strenuously object to ANY other conception other than their own "lest one be condemned to Hell!" rather than allow any comparative analysis of conceptions.

And that was the heart of the matter. It was not a course designed to push a particular conception of religion, but it was a comparative religion course designed to examine similarities and differences in religious conception and tradition. And that was anathema to the already converted who were loath to allow any comparison or competing vision! Needless to say, by the end of the semester's second week, enrollment had mysteriously shrunk to a very manageable size - minus the zealots who were unable to explore comparative religion and who instead insisted on proselytizing their one 'acceptable' interpretation.

But then its never very satisfying to enter into a discussion about religion where you are 'stuck' with presenting ideas while the other party is quoting God...

To the degree that folks are unable to put their beliefs aside sufficiently to allow their ability to be able to evaluate an issue in a critical manner, there is no point to such a discussion (and "critical" that does not mean to simply complain! If you think it does, you need to go back and start over as you have no idea regarding the legitimate process of debate!).

This is just another issue that follows the same form as so many discussions here such as discussions about amp topologies with the Tube Taliban. And it is fascinating to see many of the same players adopt similar attitudes that refuse to allow others the legitimacy of their opinions without the same quasi-moralistic dismissal. Gee, if only you heathen were enlightened enough to appreciate the emotional positions of those more enlightened...Perhaps if we only cared more...LOL

Oh, and the truly compassionate shop at Target...as individuals could never figure out the proper organizations to whom to give 5% of their money for others to get off of their posteriors and to actually 'be compassionate' , all too often while they are 'on the clock'.

[oldenough]

Well i for one am convinced. Such an eloquent and convincing argument, and no spelling mistakes to boot. Surely now this thread is put to bed.[]

[oldtimer]

Just ask galileo mas. He would tell you that it was not that the church disputed his science but that it was a political decision to not acknowledge this truth to the masses.

[mas]

It is definitely dead!

But then it was from the beginning, when a discussion that is by definition political is not allowed to discuss political ideas, I tink this by definition results in a rather stillborn topic.

And the irony is that the problem is not the subject, it is the inability of many to understand the legitimate form of debate, wherein religion and politics and even audio (which is treated as some combination of the two by so many) are easily debated.

Huh? Whatever your point is...Sorry, but it was the Church's %$#@& political decision to persecute Galileo until March 8, 2000! Gee, and for only 367 years...Oh, and with that we are just supposed to ignore a preponderance of the Church's history where they were actively engaged in varous forms of the Inquisition... I certainly hope that you are not putting me into the 'socially/politically religious' camp!

Edit: Hey, don't get me wrong. I respect organized western religion just like Monty Python respects the French. They are a great source of material and amusement. And to think that those Greeks and Romans were silly because they believed in many capricious Gods who lived 'somewhere' up in the sky. What when we can have the three major traditions in western culture killing each other over the name of the same god. My how we have progressed... Ain't history fun!(?)

[oldtimer]

Absolutely not mas, but you must have misinterpreted my post because what I basically said was what you just repeated.

[mas]

The Church desputed both the science and feared the implications in the political realm:

"To suggest that the earth revolves about the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

Hey, they said it... I just quote them....

[oldtimer]

Yes that is what the public face of it was. The bottom line was all about politics and used religion as a cloak. Who knows, maybe the good cardinal also knew something about Mary?

Edit: At any rate, my point is that in your signature you seem to suggest that the Galileo incident (for lack of a better term at the moment) was about knowledge ending and religion beginning, which on one level may be true since it was a religious institution involved, but on the base level had way more to do about politics and control of the governed than about knowledge. Disraeli's quote can be taken as a restatement of Kierkegaard's leap of faith concept regarding knowledge versus faith.

[oldtimer]

"Ain't history fun?" Well yes I think so. FWIW, Disraeli also said "assassination never changed the history of the world." Take that JFK worshippers....

(in before the lock?)

[mas]

Yes that is what the public face of it was. The bottom line was all about politics and used religion as a cloak. Who knows, maybe the good cardinal also knew something about Mary?

Edit: At any rate, my point is that in your signature you seem to suggest that the Galileo incident (for lack of a better term at the moment) was about knowledge ending and religion beginning, which on one level may be true since it was a religious institution involved, but on the base level had way more to do about politics and control of the governed than about knowledge. Disraeli's quote can be taken as a restatement of Kierkegaard's leap of faith concept regarding knowledge versus faith.

Oh!

OK. I understand the confusion now!

My intent was a bit more sardonic.....both in reference to things acoustic and in reference to the modern revival of anti-science where too many things become 'religion' (characterized by belief based upon faith rather than substance). Hence audio is one of the more 'religious' of hobbies! []

With deference to sincere and authentic attempts at understanding, I think one can see the entire purpose and history of the Church as being political domination...and for those not familiar, you might also want to investigate the real function of the Crusades as an attempt to solidify their dominance over the many fragmentary sectarian Christianities that existed about the Mediterranean region from which the Church demanded recognition as the true source of relgio-political authority - at the risk (and subsequent realization!) that they would be forcefully subjugated if they did not comply.

And check out the recent PBS series on the Inquisition...

Not a pretty picture...

[oldbuckster]

"Teach Your Children" ........................ Learning begins at home ................. Be A Parent ............... Hey old dawgs on this forum, 45 and above, where did you get most guidance about growing up? It wasn't in a class room or school run clinic ............. that's for sure .......... It begins at home ..............

[sasha1]

As a mother of a 6yr old, this sickens me! That means my daughter is expected to have intercourse before she ever becomes a teenager. I was freaking out when she turned six, she was already through a 1/3rd of the time she will live with us. Parents if you aren't outraged by this - you need to take a gut check!

[Groomlakearea51]

OB: Yessir!! and.... on ocassion..., if I did not see it my father's way, well then... the beatings continued until my "morale improved" [:|].... Hurt at the time, but sure improved my behavior for the long haul (well sorta...[6])

[oldbuckster]

OB: Yessir!! and.... on ocassion..., if I did not see it my father's way, well then... the beatings continued until my "morale improved" [:|].... Hurt at the time, but sure improved my behavior for the long haul (well sorta...[6])

Funny, that's called child abuse now ....................... How things can change !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flannj]

As a mother of a 6yr old, this sickens me! That means my daughter is expected to have intercourse before she ever becomes a teenager.  I was freaking out when she turned six, she was already through a 1/3rd of the time she will live with us.  Parents if you aren't outraged by this - you need to take a gut check!

At first I wasn't going to contribute to this mess, because I feel it is wrong to comment on such strong subject matter if one doesn't know the whole story or was actually involved in the details of the decision making process.

"That means my daughter is expected to have intercourse before she ever becomes a teenager" is only suggested by you, and is a stretch by even the most alarmist of parents.

Your ridiculous over reactive comment just demonstrates why everyone is best served by keeping their mouth shut unless they know all the details.

So I won't comment on the issue itself, I'll just post a column from yesterdays Chicago Sun-Times.

Short Attention Span Theater

In Portland, Maine, a school board voted to allow King Middle School, serving grades 6 through 8, to distribute contraceptives, including birth control pills.

The arguments of the two sides are what you would expect. Some parents are outraged -- the kids are too young, it encourages sex, it's immoral, it's anti- religion. Other parents -- and the school board, obviously -- argue that a certain percentage of these kids, some as young as 11, need this stuff.

The controversy is so expected that I almost ignored it. Life is too short. But I held my nose and waded in, perhaps because I have a middle schooler of my own now.

I'm glad I did. Because a salient fact popped out of the debate, one which might elude the casual observer: Seven middle school girls in Portland, Maine, got pregnant last year. Ten more in the three years before that.

That's a lot of kids. The only thing worse than having sex at 12 is getting pregnant at 12, and it's ironic that the school board, seeing a problem and trying to address it, should be tarred as somehow encouraging sex. School policies can't be based on somebody's notion of an ideal moral fairyland. It's up to parents to keep their kids from having sex when they're 12, but when they fail -- and obviously they do -- it's up to the schools to make sure those kids still go to school. Keeping them from getting pregnant is a valid academic policy.

The whole contraceptives-encourage-sex argument has always been a mystery to me. If kids refused to have sex unless they had contraception, this wouldn't be an issue. Contraceptives encourage sex about as much as bandages encourage cuts.

Here is the web address for the column. I'm sorry but for some reason lately I can't get the forum to post an address as a link.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/613811,CST-NWS-stein22.article

[oldbuckster]

Young girls have sex, wanted or un-wanted, young girls have babies, been going on since history has been recorded, it will never change, that's the way it is. It's the parents, and the school's job to figure out how the young mothers get their education, not for the school to hand out birth control products, or contracptives. The problem today seems to be both parents working, and letting Mac Donalds feed them, X-box and PS2 entertain them, and the schools act as parents in their journey through school. That is of course the kid is lucky enough to live in a 2 parent home, many don't .................... What if an 17 year old guy comes home with your 13 year old daughter, and wants to marry her, what would you say to that ?????????? I don't know about others, but again, my only response to my kids, male or female, pre-teen or teenager, living at home is, ....... ABSTINENCE ...... I really don't see another logical response, from a parents point of view, and that is what the schools should teach. Sometimes I'm glad I'm an old guy, kids grown, educated, and out in the world, because what I see today, really bothers me, and I wonder when we'll turn it back around ...........