Like Bushidobillyclub, I agree that the most radical thing about applying the term radical to a group of people is the radical thinking on the part of the group that tries to assign the term radical to another group.

There is currently no more radical group in the world than those who govern the most radical country in the world: The U.S.A.

U.S. Christian ideals have always had varying amounts of influence on what motivates the political actions of individuals and our governing bodies.

In recent years however, we have witnessed the rise of overt Christian fundamentalism in our ruling elite.
Taking permission from the overt behaviors of those at the top of legislative power are the secondary powers that legislate at the state level.

We need only consider some of the recent actions against women’s rights, minority rights (think prison populations, retirees, disabled…), the prolific controversies over the rights of those within the gay community and how about the latest in state’s attempts to pass Anti-Science legislation in the schools.

See Example below.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/12-0 - only a couple quotes appear, view link for the whole article.



The article is not only insightful but it also made me think about the tools of persuasion that are most effectively used by those to whom we have granted the power of authority over us; Congress and the office of the President. Their favorite tool as of late is misdirection.

What the use of Christian fundamentalism a great form of misdirection is that there REALLY are such hideous creatures thrown in the mix. In fact, it would not surprise me if the Republican candidates were not hand chosen for their commitment to their fundamentalist views.

The members of one group who attribute the worst kind of agenda to one, or more, other groups in the loudest and most vehement fashion are those who have an agenda far worse than any they can make up about others.

I contend that the religious ferver in political arenas in the USA, are predominantly a means for misdirection of the public eye away from the agenda of the greatest political power in the world to continue its dominance of the world.

Can you see beyond the misdirection?

Let me lead you in the right direction (the Middle East).
Our Democratic process is currently no better than what the US supports and promotes in the middle east – which we consign to the label of dictatorships.

The amount of cognitive dissonance required for the vast majority of this nation to accept the radical nature of our militaristic government is on the order of mass psychosis.

And we have the one thing that allows the psychosis to continue – A RADICAL RELIGIOUS IDEAL held my many.

Jesus and the Father are one
Therefore Jesus had faith in himself
So it follows that if Peter had faith in himself he would have walked on the water.

Exodus is pretty interesting but how the quote used above really translates is matter that not even scholors seem to agree on.

[color-red]22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The English language is phrased in very different logical order than most other languages and even more so when compared with ancient biblical writing. Verbs, nouns, adjectives prepositions... all have different placement. I remember reading that some scholars believe that the mischief/harm above was being associated with the woman. The fact was that the woman was considered more important than a baby because if she was healthy she could have more babies.

I did a quick check and didn't find the information but I repeated as best as I remember just becuase it was interesting.

Also, I think the OP mentioned something about there being no opinion on eating beef.

So I included another section of Exodus below - interesting




So ox (beef) was good to eat unless the ox was murderer then it could not be consumed.

I'm not sure about the owners fate but 'quit' doesn't sound good.

Exodus 21 has a lot of those funny rules about servents.

I didn't get back to this thread last night so I thought I'd check it today.

In case you havn't heard, Obama decided to resolve the issue by not making religioulsy run business have to include birth control in any of their plans BUT (and the details are sketchy) anyone who wants birth control can still get see a doctor, PAID FOR BY THE INSURANCE, and get a script and then go to a pharmacy to fill it for free.

Can't wait to see how that will be done, but I can guarantee that it will still be tax-payer dollars that support it, which means, if the organizations that do not have free BC in their policies, are still required to pay taxes, then they are indirectly still paying for and support the effort.

If I can see that, don't you think that God can see that too????

The whole think is laughable.

No two people ever experience exactly the same situation. I am told that the point of the Bible is to present all the moral material necessary for people to make their own decisions.

In the scheme of Christianity, that makes sense. If God is testing the ability of individuals to take responsibility for what has been learned, and to apply that knowledge to making decisions in all of life’s situations.

We learn from our mistakes, but how can one learn if one does not accept the responsibility for personal decisions?

Making decisions about what action to take in any given situation requires hard work and many steps must be taken. But if you take these steps regularly, they become second nature.

The first step requires self-reflection to ask “what do I highly value and why, and how does that relate to my situation?”

The second step is necessary because it clarity of perspective, a sort of mental check list (or a written one) that helps determine what behaviors best align with what is valued.

The third step is imagine all the different things that could happen (the outcomes) if you take a certain action.

A. If all the outcomes align with one's values and the person is confident in and satisfied with the outcome then the decisions is made.

B. If the outcomes are not acceptable, if any of the outcomes conflict with any of the personal set of values, then there is a conflict within the system of values the individual holds. (a conflict might be that an outcome may cause harm to someone or something and that may be against one's own set of values) Procede to Step one.

Step one needs to be repeated until the individual has found the values that conflict and one or more values must be adapted until they align.
The process of making the decision then begins again at the second step.

I don’t understand why people should pray for you? What is it you want them to pray for, I mean what do you expect?

Do you think that the number of people asking God to give you an answer is more important to God than if you ask alone?

If the belief is that God has given rules and parables of moral quality, then certainly it must follow that God’s intention was for individuals to use their own thought processes and apply those rules and morals to individual situation in order to make personal judgment regarding one's own behavior.

In other words, thinking for one’s self by evaluating values, gained through experience, and then considering all possible outcomes of a particular course of action. If outcomes are not good, and conflict with one or more of the set of values, then values must be reassessed and conflicts found and adjusted and the thought process begins again.

Of course the easy way out of hard work is to attribute any individual action, regardless of outcome, to God. Even if the outcome is bad, an individual denies their own responsibility by saying that God must have a plan.

Well, what if God’s plan was for people to accept responsibility for behaviors that stem from their own decisions?

If God is responsible for every decision one ever makes, then what purpose would Jesus serve?

Sorry, way late last night and I see I must have missed the point you were making and seemed to go on about something else.

But I still don't understand what you were trying to say. Why should pre-treatment to prevent a medical condition (like inhalers,Prilosec,Clareton and the meds which prevent high blood pressure, heart disese ...) be any different from birth control products meant to prevent pregnancy? They are all pre-treatments.

The use of hormones as treatment for existing conditions are also medical treatment. The "morning after" pill could fit in this category if the condition was known but it's still birth control.

Adjust to what - the needs of the individual or the desires of the proclaimed hierarchy of a religion?




And so it's not - it's poking its nose into the needs of individuals, which clearly indicates that those individuals need birth control. GET IT - THE WOMEN need birth control - 98% of female Catholics have used birth control - AGAINST their own religious directives.

That must say something about the NEED for birth control because they are denying their own religious hierarchy to procure it. You think?




It does reflect the First Amendment - it gives ALL of those women a choice by making sure that birth control is part of the plan, but no woman is required to USE the free birth control.



I see any gray in that area. Individual religious choise is surely in tackt, they choose a religion, choose to defy it, and then you create the gray area by saying the government cannot make laws that serve the greatest number of people, because the Pope says his religious beliefs are not reflected in what the people do or say.


G'night!

In a one-payer system, not too many would choose to pay the price for a healthcare provider, it would be too cost prohibitive because it would be a novelty. The one-payer system is basically socialized medicine. Your healthcare needs are met and if birth control is considered a necessary medical service, then all the women in the system could choose to get birth control or not. But the bottom line is, however, the insurance premium is paid, probably as a payroll deduction, everyone pays the same amount per person covered.

Under Obama's healthcare plan, employers are free to choose the insurance provider BUT there are provisions in the plan that the provider MUST include, like access to free birth control.

If a person chooses NOT to accept the employer plan, they can certainly get insurance through the state which is supposed to be affordable, or through another provider (very cost prohibitive).

So it's not a matter of not having a choice, it's a matter of what choice one can afford.

And what one can afford is the reason why birth control (considered to be necessary to a woman's health) is mandated, because so many in need of birth control cannot afford it without insurance coverage for it.

I don't think we made a connection somewhere.

Nuclear family is more consistant with the head(s) of household and children. Extended family includes, granparents, aunts, uncles, cousins.

But a nuclear family can be one head of household and children too or it can be a man and his wifes and their children or a wife, her husbands, and their children.


If two parents are so beneficial to the childrens welfare and development, then why wouldn't and expanded nuclear family, (as noted above)be better?

Based on what evidence?

How do you know that a broader nuclear family would not contribute more to children's adaptability, patience, security, and acceptance of others?

Not under the current healthcare provisions.

However, if we go to the more socialized one-payor system, then the Church could not complain, because the Church would not have relinquish a dime for what it finds offensive. AND, all the 'individuals' who chose NOT to follow their Church dogma, would be the ones paying.

In fact, in a Democracy Now interview, a Church emissary was the one who suggested that a one-payor system would satisfy the Church.

So the Church does not feel the least bit responsible for the salvation of 98% of its women parisheners, as long as they don't take the hierarchy down the braisen path.

The wealth of the Catholic Church was not gained through the tithes of American citizens. It had always been the wealthiest of all religious sects, only surpassed by the Mormons in more recent times.

The vast amount of wealth was accumulated as its representatives found refuge in the courts of kings and emperors and served as PAID cohorts. The Church was also rewarded in kind by the spoils of successful gain of territory and people by those rulers.

That wealth is far from diminished and the small amount of tithes often only serve as additional support for the individual parish.

Contributions, other charitable donations, AND BUSINESSES, like the hospitals feed the Holy See that rules under the Pope in the sovereign city state of the Vatican.

Just a little more information.

Article below:


More solid evidence of religious hypocracy. The article states:
"the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health issues globally, in the United States, “among all women who have had sex, 99 percent have used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same among Catholic women (98 percent).”



If they hire non-Catholics and they take non-Catholic patients, and accept State and or Federal funds, they are not private enough.

They serve the general public, and hire from the general public. They are a business, like any other business that would be required to submit to the governing laws of a federal healthcare plan.





The Church itself claims that while the choices of its ‘flock’ may be wrong, it’s the values of the Church hierarchy that should be protected (as opposed to the people’s obvious choice).

So now the government is suppose to be some kind of expert on every religion and all of the dogma of all of the sects that divide them, in order to be considered as protectors of religious freedom.

The First Amendment points to the rights of INDIVIDUALS not to religious dogma as dictated by any religious hierarchy.

The above is a GREAT example of why there is a necessity for religious freedom (for individuals). Because the responsibility of the government is to protect the ‘common’ good and it cannot do that if it must bow to the dogmatic dictates of religious hierarchy.

Instead, individuals are given the freedom to choose their own beliefs.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/02/air-force-danger-pay-020712w/



HOWEVER, the value of American military personnel did increase in January; a pay raise (1.6%).

http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/charts/2011-military-pay-charts.html

I wonder if Utah would specifically make the law ONE MAN - and any number of wives. Or would they put a limit on it?

Or would they simply say any number or combination of just wifes, just husbands or One wife with many husbands or one man with many wives?

It just a shame how much governments have to worry about these days.

MM - makes me wonder if Congress would finally throw up it's hands and say - FORGET DOMA! Let's just concentrate on demolishing Planned Parenthood.

Good topic but extremely broad. Poverty, as several have noted, is a relevant term. In Africa, for example, there are a great many people whose communities are still tribal. How many closets do you suppose they have in their abode?

But we don’t automatically consider such people poverty stricken at the same level as we consider those in the U.S. as living in poverty. Even the destitute in the U.S. have many more options than those in Africa.

Someone then raised the question of defining poverty.
Without sounding too pessimistic, I think it’s safe to say that most people in the U.S. would describe poverty as an obvious lack of ‘stuff’.

Recently a high profile political figure (nameless) seemed rather upset because there seem to be so many people receiving government entitlement when they have dishwashers, computers, washers & dryers and maybe even a big-screen TV.

Obviously, even those we consider the educated elite believe poverty should be related to a lack of ‘stuff’.

What that political figure did was stereotype those living in poverty. There is significant research which indicates poverty is a line that is crossed over and back again by many people. Perhaps some had big-screen TVs before the major life changes which pushed them over the line.

To be fair it would be best to define poverty as a lack of the necessities, including opportunities, to live a healthy, happy, and productive life.

Even in poverty there are extremes – the most destitute might be considered to be those who are jobless, alone, sick, hungry, cold/hot, angry, and afraid.

There is a group which seemed to be given a lot of attention early in the thread, the generationally poor.

There are those who live close enough to the edge to cross it many times due to, divorce, sickness, loss of job, other factors.

There are those for whom the line will be crossed for no fault of their own, like those for whom retirement has become an expensive lifestyle due to inflation and increasing healthcare costs.

They are joined by those with major disabilities, many of which are terminal. Admittedly many of those individuals agree that they could work in certain positions, but they are NOT ALLOWED to make over a certain amount of money before their entitlements are cut off. Unfortunately, the jobs they might be fit for, would not, alone, support their needs. THESE PEOPLE live in an oppressive state of poverty that has been devised by social acceptance of government reqirements.

We can help all of those people. Some say we can’t, but much of the problem would be solved if we put a price tag on being productive and paid a fair wage for it.

If everyone who could be productive were given the opportunity to use their abilities to the extent of their individual capabilities and then paid a fair wage based on their effort and productivity, there would be more taxes, more charitable donations, and even the most destitute could be harbored.

But we have a stigma against words that begin with social – but it must be a social effort to solve this problem.

Yes religions can be very different and difficult to explain to children, for example:

Children: This stupid kid at school said that Jesus only saved people on Earth and all the aliens from other planets are going to hell.

Parent 1: Well, We have to love and respect all people and not call them stupid.

Parent 2: But that doesn’t mean they can all get married only mommy’s and daddy’s can get married ?

Parent1: Never mind about that right now, it’s time to bury the statue upside down in the garden.

OR:

Youngest child: Why do we have to go to two different churches every week?

Older child: Because mommy and daddy can’t agree on if a Christmas tree is a pagan symbol or not.

Youngest child: Don’t tell them about the Easter Bunny, I don’t want to go to three churches

OR:

Child 1: Why can’t we go to a church where they speak English?

Parent 1: They do speak English but that’s at the second mass

Child 1: But when we go to the second mass they speak another language

Parent 2: That’s a different church honey

Parent 1: It’s not called a church, its called..

Child 2: It’s called a jibberish

Parent 2: No, that’s the language, and it’s not jibberish, it’s Yiddish

Child 2: Well it’s all jibberish to me

Child 1 (now crying): I just want to go somewhere they speak English, can’t we go were Jimmy’s family goes

Parent 1: Where does Jimmy’s family go

Child 2: They go to Denney’s and they get a whole breakfast, not just blood and crackers.

Parents – staring at each other accusingly (this is all your fault)

Yep, two religions can be confusing to a child. I say stick to your own kind, it makes it easier if the whole family subscribes to the same methods of indoctrination.


Did you really expect an answer from people you don't know? Then here's a real life story.

My oldest friend since I was born is Jewish - her husband is Catholic. They've been married for over 30 years and have three children.

The children got to experience two very different families (who also along with each other very well)and they went to both church and synagogue.

The only pressure was that they go together as a family to both. The children were allowed to decide if they wanted to follow one or the other religious paths or to find one on their own.

Two are Jewish, one practicing and one not. One was baptized a Christian, but she teaches her children about both religions and encourages them to learn about others.

As a whole, they are warm, kind, and loving, family, non-judgemental and supportive.

There is nothing wrong with diversity, but there is something wrong when a religion teaches segregation by superiority.

So then, is your perspective to make English THE DECLARED 'international' language?

I only ask because tribalism exits here and they speak, read, and write English. People live in their own little sub-cultures (enclaves) and speak, read, and write English while they hate and kill people. Likewise, as a society, you are still likely to 'hear' or 'read', in English, about English speaking Americans who still believe some recompence is due to those whose ancestors suffered the abuses of slavery.


So how would a 'national' language resolve those things?

You are absolutely correct in that union shops have greatly affected the pay and benefit scales of non-union. However, the 'right to work' legislation breaks up the union shop by allowing workers in a union shop to decide if they want to pay dues and be part of the union or not.

While that would cause some problems, especially if negotiations broke down and a stike was called, but the law has catch - those who do not what to pay dues must still be protected by the union, like the members who pay their dues.

Those who do not pay dues must still have the right to vote for union officers and be part of the vote for funds usage and in the case of calling a strike.

In that environment, if union negotiations break down, a stike can be totally ineffective as the law would prohibit stiking union members from preventing non-union members from continueing to work. And it doesn't prevent the organization from hiring temporary workers. In effect a strike could likely lead to an end of the line for union members' jobs and for the union altogether.

Union shops and non-union shops work fine together and those who need unions the most should have the right to establish one (hotel workers for example.)

Without unions, more organizations could simply get away with paying by some minimun wage standard. Can you live on $7.25 an hour - even as a single person? Some states have min wage of $10.00 an hour, could you support a family of 4 on that?

And benefits - without unions as a gage for other organizations, what incentive do they have to maintain employee incentive and benefits programs?

Collective bargaining works best in a union environment because there is an infrastructure in place. There is no such infrastructure without it.