DanKroh

BTW, I want to give a big thank you to everyone who is willing to discuss this issue in such a civil way. It really is helping me to understand the other position, by going beyond the rhetoric and vitriol that usually blocks out any actual enchange of ideas.

In all the flurry over abortion, I missed this in your post, Beavah, and would like to address it: "Aye, there's the rub. Society cannot survive if any individual can freely "trump" the law and the community with personal belief. Prohibit murder? But I personally believe that I should kill old people who are in pain (Kevorkian), or young people who are permanently handicapped. You're infringing on my belief. Prohibit polygamy? But I'm an ex-Saudi prince who believes that I have a right to 20 wives to serve me at my whim. Prohibit theft? But I believe stealing from the other tribe/group/class is an act of righteousness. Prohibit pedophilia? But some individuals believe it to be a legitimate expression of mentoring love...." That's why I said that the purpose of a law should not be to codify morality but to benefit society by preventing harm or preventing an infringement of others' rights. Rastifarians have an exemption to marijuana laws based on their religious practices. Native Americans have exemptions to controlled substances laws to accomodate their religious practices. Quakers were exempt from the draft based on "conscientious objector" status. So even though we have laws, exemptions are made because of religious beliefs. So we do have a precedent of religious beliefs trumping the law, when it is perceived that doing so causes no harm to society. So shouldn't we consider how a law will infringe on the beliefs of others before we pass it? Edited to add: In my religion, we only have one commandment; "Do no harm", which makes the rest superfluous in my view. I tend to use this as my gold standard; does it do harm (includes physical, emotional, and psychological)?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

OGE, not it doesn't, that's why I didn't say that it fit your definition. But Beavah's definition didn't include that criteria. But what about those embryoes left over after IVF, OGE? Where do they fit in? Gern also brings up some other practical issues, if you want to protect the life/rights of a fetus, how far do you go? Do they get life insurance? Are they entitled to citizenship; if life begins at conception, then your country of citizenship should be where you were conceived, not where you were born, right? Obviously anyone causing harm to the fetus would be culpable for prosecution, but you might find a sticky situation in proving that someone actualy caused harm to a fetus.

Gern asks: "...on the topic of miscarriages, how many funerals are held for prenatal miscarriages? Sure, families who want the child grieve, but never have I heard of a funeral held for a miscarriage. Never seen a headstone in a cemetary either for the prenatal." I have. From a sad personal experience, I have known people who have had funerals for a miscarried baby, but in this case, it was after a late miscarriage (mid-second trimester) when the fetus is actually delivered, but not viable outside the mother. Interestingly, at least in MA, "death certificates" are issued in the case of "miscarriages" if the pregnancy is further along than 20 weeks. At that point, it is counted as a "preterm birth" and not a "miscarriage". Not sure about other states. Just know from my personal experience in MA.

Beavah says: "Science and genetics. From that point, provide food, shelter, and oxygen, and the organism takes care of itself. And there's no denying it's human." So by your definition, a tumor is a human life (not your intention but that's how it reads). It comes from a human, it takes in nutrients and oxygen, and takes up space (shelter) in a human body. Why is a day-old zygote deserving of respect, but we remove and discard tumors (even benign ones, so can't use the life-threatening argument). What is it that makes the zygote different? Yes, it is alive, but so are many other things that we do not protect. You then go on say it's the presence of a heartbeat or neural activity. But that's not conception. So abortions would be ok if they are performed in the first 5 weeks?

OGE says:"Women seeking to have an abortion talk about not wanting to have this baby, they say they dont want to raise the baby, they arent ready to care for another human. They never say, or I havent heard them say that I want to remove this mass of tissue before it becomes a human." My take on that is that women speak in terms of a baby because that is what will happen if they do nothing, not so much because they think of what is inside of them currently as a baby. So, from OGE's answer, it is the potential that determines the start of life. Ok, that's an interesting position. So does that mean that we should also outlaw IVF, because the procedure produces embryoes that have that potential to life that will then be destroyed (or left to sit in a freezer until they are no longer viable)? But are there any actual words in the Bible that speak against abortion (explicitly, the termination of a pregnancy, not just "murder") or that define the start of human life? Personally, I'd like to see us spend the time and energy used fighting the abortion fight to instead find practical ways to reduce the situations in which women seek abortions. Better and more available sex education. Better and more available birth control (including sterilization). Better support for women (and men) who decide to bring an unplanned pregnancy to term and either keep the child or put it up for adoption. I see a lot of practical problems arising out of forcing women to have a baby, some of which didn't exist pre-Roe. DNA/paternity testing being a big factor. A lot of men are going to be forced to pony up and take responsilibity, who might not have before DNA testing became so reliable. When transportation to a state where abortion is legal is more available, will women be prosecuted in their home state for having an abortion out of state? What about women who lose a pregnancy because of self-neglect? What about women who lose a pregnancy at all; will they have to go to court to prove that it was "natural"? I think if you want to support banning abortions, you should have answers to the entire can of worms that trying to enforce such a law is going to open.

OGE, Islam considers homosexuality a crime, and in Muslim countries, is often punished with death by stoning, hanging, or beating. Edited to add: However, keep in mind that in those same countries, a woman leaving her home without being covered head to toe might face the same punishment....(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Rooster, thank you for giving me credit on the biblical interpretation. Yes, I do not believe that is a correct interpretation of that verse, but I have heard of Christians that do. So I will take that as a "yes, that is would be ok because the will of the majority goes, even if it means dissolving someone's marriage." Wow. You did bring up the point that the Constitution is there to protect certain rights. But you and I disagree on the interpretation of the First Amendment. I do believe that codifying Christian morality into law violates my first amendment rights if that law is in conflict with my own religious beliefs. I think we need to consider why we have laws. I see the purpose of laws as providing a benefit to society. Why do we have laws against murder? Because they benefit society. The other purpose of a law is to prevent you from violating the rights of someone else (which is also a benefit to society). This is the main reason why I have a problem with any law that tries to regulate marriage. What benefit does it provide to society, other than to satisfy the morality of certain religions? Whose rights does such a law prevent from being violated? I agree with whoever said that the best way to solve the abortion controversy is to define when life starts, but I'm not sure that can be accomplished without then starting another controversy. For those who believe that life begins at conception, what is the basis of that belief? (This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be judgemental) Is there some verse in the Bible that has been interpreted to support this belief? I have seen many Christians cite the Bible to support the belief that abortion is a sin because it is murder, but have not seen any citation that explicitly says that conception is the start of a human life. What is present once the two gametes have joined that wasn't there before they joined? Beavah, you may believe that Christian principles eventualy ended slavery, but it was also Christian principles (completel with supporting Bible verses) that defended slavery for a century after a bunch of non-Christian deists tried to get it abolished in the Declaration of Independence. Not to mention a non-Christian president (at least according to his own wife) who proclaimed their emancipation.

Rooster says: "I dont believe that your example is valid.... Your hypothetical would force non-religious individuals to join a faith so to be married." Actually, I knew my hypothetical was unconsitutional when I proposed it, but I was hoping you would answer the question instead of arguing its validity. But ok, then lets leave off the part about "sanctified by God". If the majority decided that infertile people shouldn't be married because of the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply", would that be ok?

I am a psychologist, and have my own practice specializing in gender identity and uality (which explains my strong opinions about certain subjects ). That's what I do for a living, but what I live for is being a single parent to two wonderful boys. Sometimes it's a toss up which one actually my full-time job.... Edited to add: I'm not sure why the filter removed the three letter word meaning "intimate relations" from the word after "gender identity", since I know I've used that word here before without it being censored...(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

OK, the posts have gotten all out of order because of the timestamp glitch, so forgive me if it seems I am addressing things out of order. Ed-once it is born, a baby is independent of it's mother. It's not independent of *people*, but someone else can take care of it besides it's mother. Before birth, no one else can carry the child but the mother. I think abortion is, if not entirely, strongly a religious issue because religion is one of the benchmarks that people use to recognize when "life begins". It is certainly a religious issue for Catholics, and many other Christians, whose churches have dictated to them what their stance on abortion must be if they wish to remain members of that church. However, I would also like to address Rooster's idea about the "rule of the majority". Rooster, I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say tomorrow, the majority of Americans decide that they want to define marriage as "between a man and a woman, sanctified by God, and capable of producing issue", and they get their representatives to pass that into law. In other words, only heterosexual marriages, only ones performed by a religious figure (no civil marriages) and only between people who are not infertile. The popular rational used to support this position is Biblical. So, when the government starts dissolving marriages between people who were married by a JP, or who are proven to be infertile, that would be ok, because it is the will of the majority? There is very little chance that the people affected by this new law would have a chance of electing new representation to overturn it because they are in such a minority. So are they just supposed to suck it up?

We discussed freely giving vs. earning respect on another thread here a couple of months ago. I agree that respect is something that is given, not earned. But it can also be lost. I am saddened to admit that I have lost respect for some of the Scouters who regularly post here, and I'm sure that those same Scouters probably do not hold me in high esteem because of my beliefs and opinions. However, even when someone has lost my respect, I do still try to treat them with civility. Not being perfect, I'm know I do sometimes fail at that, but I will strive to do my best. But I would like to give a big thank you to all the posters who DO maintain civil discourse, even when debating topics they feel passionate about. You set the bar for the rest of us....

Funscout writes: "First let me make it clear that I do not believe that the U.S. should be a nation of ONLY Christians." No, actually, I didn't think you did believe that. Very few people (outside of a few extreme fundamentalists) want us to be a nation of only Christians. But a lot more of those people have no problem codifying Christian morality into our laws, even when those morals conflict with the morals of other religions. So who gets to say which we follow? The majority, who are Christians? Well, then we are back to a nation controlled by Christianity, and the name for that is theocracy. And which Christians get control? Do the Catholics get to outlaw birth control? How would the Protestants feel about that? Where do we draw the line? And I will return the favor and add you to my prayer list, as well....

I agree that I have no problem with "Christian Nation" in the way you mean it, Trev. But I think some people use the phrase to mean a nation *controlled* by Christian principles. Someone in another thread asserted that they were not trying to force me to be Christian. But if you force me to follow Christian morality by codifying it into our laws, are you not doing the same thing?

funscout writes: "As has been pointed out, Christians look at death differently than non-Christians.... How sad for those people who do not look forward to being reunited with their departed loved ones." I'm not sure if you meant to imply that all non-Christians do not believe in an afterlife, but many non-Christians DO look forward to being reunited with their departed loved ones. Just their version of Heaven and the afterlife may not be the same as yours. Or they might believe in reincarnation and that they will meet the departed again here on Earth in their next life. I know that TirNaNog awaits me when I pass out of this existence, and that all my loved ones will be waiting there for me. To some of them, it may look like Heaven, but to me it will be TirNaNog. And that thought has brought me great comfort in the losses I have experienced.

Thank you, Kahuna, for your thoughtful reply. It is interesting to see the viewpoint of other non-Christians. The only problem I have with the idea of us being a "Christian nation" is that it seems to be a slippery slope that could lead us closer to being a theocracy. If we say that we are a nation based on Christian principles, who gets to decide which of those Christian principles gets incorporated into our laws? At what point of making Christian morality into law have we gone too far? When abortion is illegal? When homosexuality is a criminal offense? When birth control is illegal? When it's illegal for a business to be open on Sundays? Which "Christian" morality do we follow, since even they can't seem to agree on everything?

In another thread, funscout writes: "This is just one of MANY examples throughout the book that show that the United States was founded on Christian principles. It was such an eye-opener for me, as my public shcool education contained none of the religious history that is so important to our nation." There is an opinion held by many that the U.S. is a Christian nation, that it was founded on Christian principles. What evidence is there to support the idea that the founders of this nation *wanted* Christian principles to be it's bedrock? There is no mention of Jesus or God the Constitution. There is mention of a Creator and once of "Nature's God" in the Declaration, but that simply promotes a deist view, not a Christian viewpoint. From their own writings, we know that many of the men involved in writing these documents (including many of the first presidents) were not Christians, they were Deists, Unitarians, and Humanists. They used these "principles" because they were common to many religions, and to humanism, not because they were strictly "Christian principles". Another eye-opening document you might want to look at is the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, which explicitly says: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." You can look up the rest of the text at Wikipedia, if you like. But given this text staring you right in the face, I admit that I don't understand how anyone can still claim that we were founded as a Christian nation. We are a secular nation, with a secular government (or that's how it should be), where the majority of people happen to be Christian. Funscout also writes: "So...did Christopher Columbus "accidentally" discover America, or was it divine intervention?" Given what happened to the people already living in the Americas after the Europeans came (and the diseases that were carried back to Europe from the Americas), wouldn't it be more appropriate to attribute it's discovery to the devil (or whatever malevolent force exists in your religion) rather than God (or comparable benevolent force)? And if you want to attribute "divine intervention", what about giving the credit to Allah, or Vishnu, or Athena, or Lugh, or... well, you get the idea. Why should Christianity get the credit? Maybe Brigit's hand guided Columbus to America because a nation based on freedom of religion was going to be founded there, where she could be worshipped. Just something to ponder....

BrentAllen says: " I'm always amazed at how many atheists and non-Judeo-Christians read the Bible and quote verses." How are we supposed to know that we *don't* believe something unless we learn about it first? It's not a matter of feeling smart or superior, just common sense, in my personal experience. What I find amazing are people who condemn a religion or a viewpoint when they don't really know anything about it! Edited to add: Personally, I plan on partying in TirNaNog when my time here is done.... (This message has been edited by DanKroh)

The only time I would see it as appropriate for a "parent" to be along on a campout is if the scout in question has some sort of disability that requires the scout to have extra help that an adult leader may not have the time and/or skill to assist with. I believe I am a case in point. My son has high-functioning autism. I go along on campouts with him because I don't expect the adult leaders to know how to handle the peculiarities of his condition. However, I try to take as much of a "hands-off" approach as I can, and only intervene when necessary. Since I'm the Cubmaster for one of the town's packs, and most of the troop's leaders know me in a scout-leader capacity, they probably think of me as one of the other leaders, even though I hold no official leadership position in the troop (being Cubmaster keeps me busy enough). I don't see myself as being there for the other scouts, just because I don't want to "step on the toes" of the real adult leaders, authority wise; but I don't ignore the other scouts, and try to be helpful when appropriate. My hope is that some day my son will be able to go on campouts without me along as a parent. Of course, by the time this happens, his little brother with probably cross over into the troop and I'll be an ASM by then....

Wow, I missed a lot, but I have one last reply for Rooster. Rooster said: "Sounds like youre taking this a little personally. Let me assure you, I know many learned people as well and they do not share your view. And interestingly, I doubt you would give them much credence. So why even go there try arguing the points presented." Can't say I take anything said by an anonymous voice on the Internet "personally". However, I do object to having my words twisted and implications made that I said something I didn't, or that I'm "avoiding" a debate because someone decided to bring up points that I didn't originally address and get confrontational about them. But you and I do agree about one thing, Rooster, when you said "But, I have no great desire to pursue a discussion with you."

Rooster, as far as I can see, you are the one going off on red herrings. I opined as to the motivation of the adoption of the national motto. You disagreed with that opinion. I could provide you with links to many essays by learned people who assert the same thing, but I doubt you would give them credence. Whether you believed this was an "official" motto of Judaism and Christianity never really crossed my mind, but it seemed unfair to drag Jews into your argument when they would, in reality, want to have nothing to do with putting "God" on our money. (And, btw, it's not just Orthodox Jews. Most Conservative Jews and many Reformed Jews still have a problem with writing "God" on something so common.) But then you bring up two different (although related, true) points and want me to discuss them with you. OK, I'll play along, since you seem determined to change the subject to your points. 1) I've no doubt that in this age of increasing religious furvor, that the motto is embraced by a majority of Americans. Personally, I have no problem with the motto. Even though the "God" I trust is not the same one as you trust. Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't adopted as the national motto until the 1950s, and that it was (possibly) adopted in response to communism. In fact, I'm not sure what this point has to do with my original comment at all. I never said it wasn't a popular motto among Christians (and even Jews), just that it hasn't been THE national motto for that long. What I DO have a problem with is when people try to use the presence of the motto on our currency and on our monuments as proof that we were founded as a Christian nation. 2) I do have to completely disagree with this one. I think that minority does have a valid argument. (I'm still pondering whether I agree with their position, though, btw). There are some people who feel that the government adopting a Christian motto violates the separation of church and state outlined in the Constitution. Are they a minority? Yes. But being in a minority doesn't change the fact that such a motto might violate separation of church and state, much as you might like the motto. In fact, if the rights of the minority (i.e. non-Christians) matter so little, why hasn't there been an amendment to the Constitution to do away with separation of church and state and establish Christianity as the state religion? Perhaps if you want to continue to discuss the constitutionality of our national motto, you should spin off a new thread, since I don't see what it has to do with the original post.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Well, Rooster, keep trying.... The second half of my comment, that it becoming the "national motto" being a response to "Godless Communists" is completely my personal opinion, although it is an opinion shared by many others who write on the subject. Your "story" may also be a popular one, but it's the first time I've seen it. And while many Jews may indeed feel that they trust God, they would not promote writing "God" on something as "vulgar" (in the sense of being common and handled by many, not profane) as currency. Edited to add, because I found the quote: In fact, President Teddy Roosevelt disapproved of using the motto on currency: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Actually, Rooster, my post didn't say anything about when it was printed on money (coin or paper), I said it became the "national motto" in the 1950's. From the U.S. Treasury web site: "A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States." Yes, please, let's do get the story right....

Two comments on this article come to mind: 1. "In God We Trust" has only been a "national motto" (along with "under God" in the pledge) since the 1950's, and was a response to the "Godless Communists". 2. Personally, I'd rather not have a man convicted of 3 felony counts which were overturned on a technicality as a spokesperson for my "values-based" organization. I especially like how the article glosses over that by saying that he "gained notoriety during the Reagan era". Notoriety, indeed!(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Brent, I also do not consider such condescension to be kind and courteous either, but that's just me, I guess. MY point was that making such an implied comparison was unkind and unwarranted. And backpedaling to say "oh, it was intentionally absurd" doesn't excuse it in my book. And how is making a complaint about a park director threatening to shoot a dog a complaint about BSA policy? (which is not to say that Kudu has never made a complaint to his district/council about BSA policy, since I have no knowledge of this one way or the other). He is certainly vociferous here about certain things, to be sure. As far as your comment about a comparison to racism being absurd, here is where we will have to disagree. To me, social activism is social activism, no matter what the root issue. So someone who was not black who was involved in racial issues was simply a "troublemaker" because they had a "choice"? That is what your comparison implies. And just because the BSA is a volunteer organization doesn't mean we have to agree with every policy. I think the BSA program is wonderful, the best around; however, I think some of the policies of the national organization detract from the program. I think it takes more courage to stand up and say, "Let's change this" than (to use a phrase so popular right now) to cut and run because I'm only a volunteer. I'm sure you think I am overreacting to your comment, but I see a trend, on this forum, and in the world in general, for people to say something nasty, including calls for violence, and then try to excuse it by saying "oh, it was a joke" or "it was sarcasm". And I think it's time that people start to get called out for it.