news item

[DrSmellThis]

Doc,

go back and read my posts in the thread about the FLDS church. I clearly stated that rape and forced marriage were

wrong. To amend that statement I also will state that beatings are wrong. You are misconstruing what I said.

If you'll remember my often repeated stand on human rights, there could be no question about how wrong your

statements are. That I also find the idea of the state owning any human being repulsive should be understandable

to any free person.

That I value all life is to me far more rational than saying humans are more important than

the beasts or the plants. The earth would do just fine without us. It would not do so well without the plants or

animals. A fact that we mighty humans seem to forget all the time is that we are a aprt of 'The Beasts'. The

unfortunate part is that we regard ourselves as more important than the rest of the system within which we dwell.



Your statements remind me of all the destruction and misery caused by the misguided belief that we are the

rulers of this world and more important than the rest of it. And to place 'The State' above even that is

obscene.

To set one last thing straight, I am asking as many questions as I am making statements. Very little of

what I have written has anything to do with my own beliefs. Rather, it has to do with respecting others beliefs and

the obvious fallacy of assuming everybody's knowledge is the same. To remind you: Your reality is dependent on your

focus. Your reality is not mine, nor is it theirs.

It's interesting, and I admit kinda funny, that

you're getting a touch defensive here. No offense intended, of course.

Remember, if anyone should feel

uncomfortable and defensive about getting their beliefs challenged here, it should be me, given that I've always

been a professional child advocate. Maybe my life's work is a load of crap in that way! But that's all the more

reason for me to challenge my own beliefs, which I am doing here. Screw my beliefs. They are not sacred, but are

temporary working hypotheses.

So why should the rapes and beatings be legally prohibited, if the state needs to

stay out of individual's private business? What is that line?

All I'm doing is exploring the issues -- not

suggesting that you believe this or that. And I am certainly not suggesting that I believe this or that, about the

state or what have you; except that I believe these are some issues and questions. I don't think I read the other

thread you were referring to, unless I forget. But I was suggesting that your words here appear a certain way

because they do within this thread, to me, (though I certainly suspected your complete beliefs were not identical to

appearances) and I was encouraging people to make coherent statements and clarifications of their positions in one

place, or explore what they believe. If I piece together what you believe from everywhere else, I'm going to fail

to understand what you are talking about, and to me the issues of this thread would have failed to have been

addressed, not that anyone needs to. Your view point seems essential. But this is a good issue, IMHO, to bring some

things together, because it treads so many boundaries, and even treads some lines that seem to exist for posters

here.

It's really a challenge to tie together several realms of thought; and it's a bit more concrete with

this case, than in a purely political discussion.

It's an opportunity to clarify, explore, etc. Why not test

our beliefs round the edges a bit? Even Christian theology mostly recommends this; or at least pays it lip service.

To me it's fascinating, even if it does put some of my beliefs at risk, beliefs that I have been passionate about,

and even argued in front of judges when I've had to testify about what should happen to a child.

Thanks

everybody, for your participation. Belgareth, I have especially been led to think and stimulated very much by your

input. Your mindset seems relatively consistent, as compared to most (yes, one of the best alpha traits).



Idesign, this applies to you as well. But I would also love to hear more about what you believe, because there are

so many aspects; political, theological, philosophical and humanitarian; and I haven't conversed with you as much.

I'd love a beer sometime. Beer is the philosopher's stone. What part of the US are you in?

[belgareth]

KK:
I also keep records of

what I have that belongs to others, lawyers are required to keep track of money and other valuables that belong to

others and so are realtors to name just a few. I'm sorry but I cannot and will not ever accept that the state owns

any individual. A social security number is not proof of ownership. I'll also dispute that the state cares beyond

the ability of the individual to support the state. That it attempts to provide services is a hold over from another

time. Both the quality of the services and the value for the money invested have dramatically degraded.

There

are two common stands on government. Mine is that the people own the government, that they work for us and not the

other way around. That so many people have surrendered their free will to an ever increasing, oppressive and

overbearing government is more a comment on the sad state of our society than anything else.

Doc:
The only

thing that I got touchy about, have in the past and will in the future, is misrepresentation of my views or

statements. Perhaps you did it mistakenly or perhaps you were doing it to pull my chain. Whatever the reason, I will

always respond to that.

[DrSmellThis]

Bel, you are still saying I

misrepresented you, and therefore did something wrong; but I cannot be responsibile for representing the real you.

All I have control over is to not misrepresent your words, in the self-contained context I find them in. You control

the rest. I know you really, really don't like to be misrepresented, and can honestly say I try hard not to do

that, including in this thread. Readers can of course judge for themselves, and I am open to feedback from anyone.

There are many examples in the forum of me admitting I'm in the wrong, and there will be others.

The last thing

I want to do to you is "pull your chain" (provoke in a mean way for my own amusement), unless pulling chains means

asking for clarification, which I absolutely was doing. I really don't want to fight with anyone unless it's

absolutely necessary and unavoidable, because fighting truly hurts everyone involved, drains energy, and wastes a

lot of valuable time in a too short life. I was definitely kidding around and joking around a bit, so maybe that's

what you meant? I try to make it so people can see I'm joking.

Maybe this will shed some light or

understanding: I come from academia, or the liberal arts part of it; where words are always taken seriously, and at

face value, in the context in which they're presented; for example, in a philosophy class. If you write a

philosophy paper you will be evaluated only on what is very literally said in the paper, including the implications

and ambiguities of those words. Maybe that's a cultural difference of some kind, I don't know. Where I come from,

the responsibility might be partly on someone to critically clarify their words when they feel misunderstood; not

necessarily just on the listener; especially when it comes to reading someone's mind or piecing things together

from other statements they may not have seen or remember. I'm not saying this because I want to, say, "beat"

someone in some kind of "debate", but just to be honest. I do promise to continue to try not to misrepresent you,

not just because I'm fond of you and know it's important; but moreover, because that's how I like to be. If

there's anything you could do on your end in this regard, if you should nonetheless feel misunderstood (especially

in the case of extreme sounding statements that are easily misunderstood by reasonable people), it would be

very much appreciated and might help prevent unnecessary conflict. Just to be clear, I will have no part of

unnecessary conflict, and less so than in the past.

[belgareth]

Perhaps we are looking at this

from different perspectives. I am not an academic and the context of these discussions has not ever been that of a

paper to be published. It has been more of a few friends sitting around drinking and poking at each other for fun

and knowledge. As such, I would expect that by now you would have come to understand enough of my nature to know

better than the statements you made. Yes, I could write a long desertation and cover all the basis, the same as you

could. But that is not the context of this forum. I also know what a fine memory you have and do not believe you

have forgotten that much about how I feel about individual rights, which include the right to one's own person.



The point here is simply where the parent's rights begin and the state's rights end. I will always err on the

side of the individual and always side against giving the state any rights to determine private matters. That it

causes harm to a child is a serious problem but the alternative is the serious harm the state causes to every person

every day. People starve, people die, unwanted children are born to state enforced poverty stricken mothers every

day and unjust wars are fought as a result of the power we have given the state over our daily lives. I will never

acknowledge the state's right to anything that gives it more power over the individual. I will, at every

opportunity, do my level best to take power away from the state. From my perspective, the state does far mre harm in

a single minute than those people could have done to a whole herd of children in a lifetime and we have given them

that power over our lives. This is not an issue of one child! This is an issue of what the state has the right to do

and where the state's power should be curtailed.

Consider the logical consequences of allowing the state to

force its beliefs on individuals. Where do you draw the line? Every time a line has been drawn in the past it has

moved to consume both more personal rights and more resources. The net result is an unreasonable burden on the

people and continuous loss of human rights and freedoms. Because of that, many people suffer.

[idesign]

Consider the logical consequences of allowing the state to force its beliefs on individuals. Where do you draw the

line?

At allowing death when its in your means to prohibit it. Aiding and Abetting comes to mind.

If

the parents won't step in and prevent a death shame on them, they open the door for state intervention, the worst

of all scenarios.

The bottom line is -in this specific case- the state should have intervened to

save this girl's life.

I may be trying to put this in a neat little package Doc, or be simplistic, or drawing a

too clear a line, but in essence the life of the child is more important than any of the arguments than we present

here.

The role of the state in other matters is a completely different discussion, and I imagine that we agree

on most of those, with some exceptions.

As for common morality Bel, you made your own case when you

denigrated forced marriage, rape, beating, etc. How common is that morality in the consciousness of our

society?

Sure, none of these questions are simple, and I understand fully (well, at least somewhat) the

implications of dissimilar ideas and beliefs, and their complexities.

All of the above was an attempt to tie in

a lot of discussion which I slacked on because I'm too damned busy at work!

[belgareth]

That's the same logic that

puts us in Afganistan and Iraq. The state should intervene. It is also the same logic that (en)forces drug and

prostitution laws on us. It is the same one that creates helmet and seatbelt laws. I asked before, where is the

line? Are cheeseburgers next? Shall we prosecute parents for allowing their children to get fat and lazy? It is a

logical conclusion based on your statement.

No, I did not make any case when I said that I disagreed with forced

marriage and rape. Instead, I reinforced my personal view of a person's right to choose and of never allowing

anybody to be forced into anything. The common morality, if you choose to call it that, is that the state had no

right to force itself on those people, no more than a church or other group has the right to force marriage on

somebody or refuse to allow the free choice of marriage to who and when you wish. You are supporting force used by a

legal entity for an alleged 'greater good' as determined by that entity where I am completely opposed to using

force for anything other than self defense. You give the state the right to determine what is in our best interests

and to use force, up to and including deadly force, to make us comply.

[idesign]

I think you're reading a lot

into my thinking that may or may not be there. I think you know me better than to believe I'm a "state

interventionist" in the way you described.

As for this specific case, you have to think about why

gov't exists in the first place.

Gov't is a "social contract" in which the governed relinquish certain rights

in the interest of cooperation among the society. By definition this contract must define certain laws and

moralities which prohibit actions which that society holds as undesirable.

Fundamental to societal cooperation is

life (personal safety) and property, which makes Doc's question of ownership all the more interesting. Our society

has determined that the life of an individual is important enough to require laws for protection, including

prevention of death when its within one's power to do so.

After reading many of your posts, you would seem to

prefer what Rousseau termed the "state of nature", where constraints are individually determined and, without the

limiting influence of a joined society, are necessarily enforced.

Its an idealistic and primitive view that

denies reason, on which you claim to rely so heavily. Its completely unreasonable to say the death of a child is

allowable because of something one believes, whether its you or the parents in question.

I will absolutely agree

that our current gov't is too intrusive in our lives. We've moved beyond what is necessary, and into social

control. Tyranny at its sneaky best.

[belgareth]

First, any contract requires

the willing agreement of both parties. It is not a contract when one is forced into the agreement at a literal or

figurative gunpoint. Thus, no contract exists with the government as you describe.

So, the death of one child

is not acceptable but the deaths of thousands by slow starvation are? The burden of the government is killing

thousands but you condone that while condeming those who, in their honest belief, did the best they knew how? I ask

again, where do you draw the line?

Do you mean government when you say society or do you mean society when you

say government? My approach may be idealistic but it is hardly primitive. But however you see it you are still

justifying society/government controlling the lives of the people at the expense of the people, to their ultimate

loss.

[idesign]

Well, political philosophy and

centuries of experience didn't work.

Let me ask a question (or several). Should anything be illegal? Where

is your line drawn? Do you have one? You say that gov't serves the people, in what way?

You keep

trying to generalize and paint a broad picture of a bad gov't, but I'm really trying to stay focused on the event

in question. Its a unique and important matter on its own. Other questions of gov't activity require different

arguments.

And yes, you are subject to a contract if you live in a place which has laws.

[belgareth]

No, as a matter of fact, it

isn't working any better than it did in Rome. Governments still grow to unmanageable size and consume

resources better left to the economy and the people and are still rife with corruption. Remember that Rome, Greece

and all the others eventually fell. We can analyse it to death but the singluar fact of failure, just like the

Soviet Union, is the important fact.

including prevention of death when its within one's power to do

so

Are you saying that they, in their best belief did not attempt to save that child's life? Just because

you and I agree that modern medicine was the right and best choice does not mean that we are either right or that we

have the right to force others to believe as we do. You are encouraging government intervention and I keep asking

where you draw the line on it. I know where I draw the line and have tried to make it plain.

Although you

continue to evade my question about drawing the line I will answer yours. I did not say government serves the

people. I said it should serve the people. What other function should a government have?

I draw the line in several places.

First, a massive federal government in our current form has no real purpose.

There is nothing needing doing that we need that huge burden on us to accomplish. At the most the federal body

should act as coordinator between smaller entities. In other words, a bottom up structure instead of top down.



It would be easier to list the things that should not be illegal but for clarity I will mix things. There is no

such thing as a victimless crime! If you choose to die euthanasia should be cheap and painless. If you choose to

inject drugs into your veins it should be no problem. If you choose to have sex with somebody of your sex it should

not be restricted so long as both partners are willing. If a person voluntarily choose to sell their body for sex it

is not the government's business so long as the person is not passing diseases. I believe that so long as a person

is not harming another, it should be illegal to interfere with them. I believe that failure to provide proper

education to every person should be illegal. The list goes on but I see our form of government on a failed path and

a crash coming. In that crash, millions will suffer and untold numbers will die of it.

The real key here is

(informed) consent and intent. To assault a person, to forcibly take their money or possessions, to harm a person

against their will, to force your beliefs on another all should be illegal. I keep saying the same thing to you but

you seem to be missing the point. You are trying to force your beliefs on another and justifying it as in the best

interests of the child. I personally agree that what we call modern medical science was their best

choice. They did not believe the same thing and they did their best under their belief system. So, now, we are going

to take these stricken parents who, after doing their level best in accordance with their beliefs, and we are going

to prosecute them for not believing as we believe? Just take a guess how many religious people are going to be

alienated by the punishment of people who were doing what they believed was right? How many more are going to become

more secretive? And it will not be confined to religious groups. A lot of others are going to react to the

vindictive treatment of a pair of grieving parents. So, tell me, exactly what are you going to accomplish by putting

those people on trial and throwing them in prison? I believe that you are going to do far more harm than good. To

me, it is an utterly irrational, emotionally motivated act of revenge.

con·tract

–noun 1.an

agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. 2.an agreement enforceable

by law. 3.the written form of such an agreement.

By defintion, there must be agreement for there to be a

contract. In this case, there is no contract. When one forces you to do something it is not a contract. It is called

many things from outright robbery to extortion but you cannot call it a contract.

Will you answer my question

now? Where do you draw the line? You have generalized about death but that is very general and really doesn't

answer it.

Yes, I am looking at a very broad picture and concept then applying it to an individual case. You

cannot have an over-arching concept full of exceptions without creating chaos.

[koolking1]

I'd draw it at "stupidity" which is what these parents have embraced.

I'm all for getting

rid of plenty of laws but some laws are necessary to combat some people's basic stupidity.

Some drug users

are quite stupid but I still prefer that drugs be legalized and administered by competent medical personnel,

excepting weed of course which is hardly dangerous.

Well, on second thought, maybe it's ok to be stupid.

The real losers in the end were the parents, relatives, and friends. They will all have suffered to one degree or

another so maybe the State doesn't have a right to be involved. It's gonna cost all of us taxpayers and will only

"send a message" and not solve a damn thing.

[belgareth]

I'll agree that in my context

they were very stupid. Not just a little but very. The problem, as I see it, is their personal beliefs. I believe in

modern science and can honestly say it has saved my life a number of times. It was my personal choice to use modern

medicine and in my opinion it was the right choice. Nonetheless, I cannot force somebody to believe or act as I

would in any situation.

It will surely send a message. That message will be: Hide what you do and believe from

the state. Otherwise they will be coming to get you.

[koolking1]

This happened yesterday to

a reporter who is no friend of the Bush Administration:

"In a blatant violation of the First and Fourth

Amendments, my reporter's notebooks, containing names of contacts in Houston and around the world were paged

through by the screeners. Another screener asked if I minded being probed in "certain private areas." He then asked

if I'd like the examination to be conducted in private. I replied, "no, let everyone see this." He then proceeded

to examine my groin area.

Then came the battery of questions.

1. Are you feeling okay?

2.

Where are you going today?

3. How long will you be there?

4. Why are you going there?

5. What

story are you covering/

6. Who do you write for?

7. When did you move to Washington?

8. Where

did you live before that?

9. What did you do for a living before?

10. Who was the most famous person

you ever met?

11. What was the most famous event you ever covered?

12. What type of things do you

write about?

13. What type of politics do you cover?

14. What is your place of birth?

My

colleague, who had successfully passed through screening and was waiting for me, was then asked to step into the

holding area so she "could see and hear what was going on." It was a ruse. She was also subjected to a full carry

on bag examination, frisking, and a series of personal questions:

1, Are you with him?

2. Where are

you going?

3. What is the purpose of your visit?

4. What story are you investigating?

5. How

long were you in the US Air Force?

6. Where were you stationed overseas?

7. Why were you not overseas

in the military?

8. When are you returning?

9. Who do you work for?

10. What is an independent

journalist?

11. How long have you been working with him?

12. Do you find your job

fulfilling?

13. What is your place of birth?

After this Gestapo-like of questioning, I was told that a

TSA screener was writing details in a notebook for the "paperwork." my colleague was told TSA was going to file an

"incident report."

[belgareth]

That's pretty strange. Do you

have an opinion on it?

[koolking1]

opinion, not exactly yet.

I do have questions though and no one seems to know the answers.

What do ya do if you find yourself in this

situation? Do you say "none of your efffing business" or do you give them what they want to hear? If you give them

a hard time I imagine they could keep you occupied till your flight has long gone - are out the money? or do they

have to reimburse you or what. No one seems to know.

[belgareth]

I have a lot of thoughts about

it myself. The first is that the reporter should have demanded a supervisor to come and explain the questions. That

would best be done in a firm, conversationally loud voice and in front of plenty of witnesses.

Record everything

or take extensive notes and go from there. You still might miss the flight but it might be well worth it in this

case. It sounds a lot like bullying and I abhore bullies. But bullies are almost always cowards too and usually

don't know how to handle somebody who acts with resolve.

[idesign]

No, as a

matter of fact, it isn't working any better than it did in Rome. Governments still grow to unmanageable

size and consume resources better left to the economy and the people and are still rife with corruption. Remember

that Rome, Greece and all the others eventually fell. We can analyse it to death but the singluar fact of failure,

just like the Soviet Union, is the important fact.

Are you saying that they, in their best belief did not

attempt to save that child's life? Just because you and I agree that modern medicine was the right and best choice

does not mean that we are either right or that we have the right to force others to believe as we do. You are

encouraging government intervention and I keep asking where you draw the line on it. I know where I draw the line

and have tried to make it plain.

Although you continue to evade my question about drawing the line I will answer

yours. I did not say government serves the people. I said it should serve the people. What other

function should a government have? I draw the line in several places.


It would be easier to

list the things that should not be illegal but for clarity I will mix things. There is no such thing as a victimless

crime! If you choose to die euthanasia should be cheap and painless. If you choose to inject drugs into your veins

it should be no problem. If you choose to have sex with somebody of your sex it should not be restricted so long as

both partners are willing. If a person voluntarily choose to sell their body for sex it is not the government's

business so long as the person is not passing diseases. I believe that so long as a person is not harming another,

it should be illegal to interfere with them. I believe that failure to provide proper education to every person

should be illegal. The list goes on but I see our form of government on a failed path and a crash coming. In that

crash, millions will suffer and untold numbers will die of it.

The real key here is (informed) consent and

intent. To assault a person, to forcibly take their money or possessions, to harm a person against their will, to

force your beliefs on another all should be illegal. I keep saying the same thing to you but you seem to be missing

the point. You are trying to force your beliefs on another and justifying it as in the best interests of the child.

I personally agree that what we call modern medical science was their best choice. They did not

believe the same thing and they did their best under their belief system. So, now, we are going to take these

stricken parents who, after doing their level best in accordance with their beliefs, and we are going to prosecute

them for not believing as we believe? Just take a guess how many religious people are going to be alienated by the

punishment of people who were doing what they believed was right? How many more are going to become more secretive?

And it will not be confined to religious groups. A lot of others are going to react to the vindictive treatment of a

pair of grieving parents. So, tell me, exactly what are you going to accomplish by putting those people on trial and

throwing them in prison? I believe that you are going to do far more harm than good. To me, it is an utterly

irrational, emotionally motivated act of revenge.

con·tract

–noun 1.an

agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. 2.an agreement enforceable

by law. 3.the written form of such an agreement.

By defintion, there must be agreement for there to be a

contract. In this case, there is no contract. When one forces you to do something it is not a contract. It is called

many things from outright robbery to extortion but you cannot call it a contract.

Will you answer my question

now? Where do you draw the line? You have generalized about death but that is very general and really doesn't

answer it.

Yes, I am looking at a very broad picture and concept then applying it to an individual case. You

cannot have an over-arching concept full of exceptions without creating chaos.

Well, here are some quotes

from my previous posts which, I think, have made it clear where I "draw the line".

Open Quotes:
"Our

society has determined that the life of an individual is important enough to require laws for protection, including

prevention of death when its within one's power to do so."

"At allowing death when its in your means to prohibit

it. Aiding and Abetting comes to mind."

"I think its relatively easy in this case to see that the State should

not permit a child to be allowed to die when its preventable."

"Its completely unreasonable to say the death of a

child is allowable because of something one believes, whether its you or the parents in question."
End quotes



I don't know how much more clear I can be. As I stated before, it does not involve a "belief" in science to go

to a doctor. Medicine has a proven track record in treating the disease this child had, and its a choice based in

reason. Her death was preventable.

When the parents failed to exercise their responsibilty, whether from

"ownership" obligations or whatever, the State should have been obligated to save that life. Perhaps the parents

subrogated their right to ownership to the State, if you want to look at it that way.

Its a fundamental role of

our gov't to protect a life when its within its power to do so. On this particular point (life or death), what you

"believe" is not relevant.

BTW, laws relating to personal offense are State laws, not Federal, and vary widely,

if this makes a difference to you.

You can believe all you want that a given life or lives is subject to the

whims or vagaries of some system of thought or belief, but you'd join the company of a lot of unpopular (and

incarcerated) fellows who "believed" that God (Darwin? Manson?) was speaking to them.

That leads to "social

contract". Whether you offer your agreement or not, you're subject to the laws of the country you live in. Try

killing someone, then claiming as a defense that you "never agreed" to the contract. Of course you wouldn't do

such a thing, because you have at least that much agreement with the "common morality".

You do seem to have a

way of articulating a wide scope of thinking at any given moment. I enjoy reading it, but can't hope to do it

justice by way of a comprehensive rebuttal, or agreement as it often happens.

Your examples of "victmless crimes"

were not all that great if you think about it.

Your assessment of the runaway control over the minutiae of our

society by the Federal obsession over "the greater good" is spot-on, and I'll stand firmly by your side.

[belgareth]

You can call it a social

contract but it is not a contract becase there is not agreement. As I said, "At the point of a gun" That does not

make a contract. It makes a set of laws enforced through greater force, including deadly. That does not make it

right or a contract of any sort.

I really do see where you are coming from but from those people's perspective

God has a good track record and a much longer one. What you believe is not what another believes and you are

allowing the state to enforce its will on them. It is the same logic that could be used to prosecute people for

smokiing or allowing their children to get fat on junk food. After all, both can be deadly and both are preventable.

That's the line I keep asking for. Where is it? Will you stand up for the state when the state prosecutes parents

for not forcing their children to eat right and exercize? What do you think is going to be accomplished by

prosecuting those parents?

Or, lets try something a little closer. Say they took the kid to the doctor and were

offered several options for treatment. The kid still died after they made their best choice based on that knowledge

and belief. Are they then culpable and if not, why not. What is the difference? They would still have been acting in

their best belief and the kid would still be dead.

Remeber something I said before: Reality is based on your

focus. Your reality is based on a rational focus but there's is based on superstition. Why is yours better?

[idesign]

Ahhh, I'm pretty dense at

times, just ask my g/f if you have any doubt.

Perhaps I should have used words such as "impending" or

"immediately preventable" death or some such. The trouble is, in the case in question, the line is pretty clear, at

least to me.

Taking the kid to a doctor for a treatable disease would absolve the parents from culpability.

They would have at least offered a proven solution, whether it actually worked or not.

In the other examples you

gave the line is hazy, and there is only the "potential" of death in eating a Big Mac. I've never been one to

outlaw potentialities.

I would never advocate drunk driving, but in reality there is no crime committed until a

law is passed against such. An infraction, accident or death is already illegal, so a DUI with no infraction is a

law against a potential harm.

Maybe this is not the best example, but illustrates a growing trend to create by

law a "risk-free" world, and the MADD mothers pretty much began this trend of prohibiting risk. I heard just the

other day that the playground game "tag" was prohibited in some school district or another, probably S.F. It

was deemed "too risky" for the children. America, we have a problem, you cannot legislate a perfect

world.

"Point of a gun" is not the point. You might agree that you'd prefer to live in a country which has a

pretty good set of laws which you generally prefer to another country which believes that, say, women are second

class citizens and that stoning is an appropriate punishment for adultery, but only for women. You would agree to

live under a more desirable set of laws.

I'll state again, my faith and my reason are not in conflict. You may

call it superstition, but you also said that God has a longer and better track record. I'm being facetious.

[belgareth]

Again, back to the point. In

their best knowledge and belief, God was the deciding factor instead of a doctor. You and I believe in modern

medicine but they believe in their god and in his willingness or ability to make the choice in whether a person

lives or dies. In their belief taking the child to the doctor would have made no difference if god had already

decided the child's time on earth was at an end. Very fatalistic but many otherwise rational people believe that

way and I cannot/will not try to force them to believe or act in any other fashion.

A question I have been

hoping would come up but has not was 'Did anybody ask the child what she wanted and, if so, what did she say?' It

might have been enough to reverse my position or it might have made it more solid. In the case of the child

believing that god would make the decision, would that change your stance?

To tell you the truth, I'd rather

live in a place where there were almost no laws other than equal rights and responsibility for all people. Here and

now, there is so much inequality that it is pathetic. For example, a person talking on a cell phone while driving is

statistically as dangerous as a drunk driver yet I see police doing it all the time. A person can get behind the

wheel of a car drunk, crash his 4,000 lb car into a family and get slapped on the wrist but a person defending their

home can be sued to the point of losing everything because they shot a burglar. A politician or industry leader can

steal millions and walk away while a person robbing a liquor store goes to prison.

Why not call drunk driving

what it really is, assault with a deadly weapon, and in the case of a car accident , attempted murder or murder? Why

not let people who live risky lives live them in peace so long as they are willing to pay the increased cost of

medical care? I am a non-smoker but am totally opposed to all the BS associated with the anti-smoking nazi. If you

own a bar or resturant and wish to allow smoking, allow it. If you don't smoke and find it offensive, don't go

there. It is as simple as that.

But this is a tangent best left to another thread. In short, I cannot force

people to act or believe as I would in ANY situation so long as they take full and complete responsibility for

anything they do. I will not ever cede the right to the state to do anything otherwise.

[belgareth]

My thought here is that another child died. The difference was intent. The stupidity was there in both

cases but in this case there apparently was intent.



Anybody?






Woman indicted in Missouri MySpace suicide

case

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special CorrespondentFri May 16, 4:26 AM ET


A Missouri woman was

indicted Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social network MySpace against a

13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
Lori Drew, 49, of suburban St. Louis, who allegedly helped create a

MySpace account in the name of someone who didn't exist to convince Megan Meier she was chatting with a 16-year-old

boy named Josh Evans, was charged with conspiracy and fraudulently gaining access to someone else's

computer.
Megan hanged herself at home in October 2006, allegedly after receiving a dozen or more cruel messages,

including one stating the world would be better off without her.
Salvador Hernandez, assistant agent in charge of

the Los Angeles FBI office, called the case heart-rending.
"The Internet is a world unto itself. People must know

how far they can go before they must stop. They exploited a young girl's weaknesses," Hernandez said. "Whether the

defendant could have foreseen the results, she's responsible for her actions."
Drew was indicted by a federal

grand jury on one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to get

information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl.
Drew has denied creating the account or sending

messages to Megan.
Dean Steward, a lawyer representing Drew in the federal case, said a legal challenge to the

charges was being planned. He characterized them as unusual and puzzling.
"We thought when prosecutors in St. Louis

looked at the case and all the facts, it was clear no criminal acts occurred," Steward said.
A man who opened the

door at the Drew family home in Dardenne Prairie, Mo., on Thursday said the family had no comment.
Megan's mother,

Tina Meier, told The Associated Press she believed media reports and public outrage helped move the case forward for

prosecution.
"I'm thrilled that this woman is going to face charges that she has needed to face since the day we

found out what was going on, and since the day she decided to be a part of this entire ridiculous stunt," she

said.
Megan's father, Ron Meier, 38, said he began to cry "tears of joy" when he heard of the indictment. The

parents are now separated, which Tina Meier has said stemmed in part from the circumstances of their daughter's

death.
Tina Meier has acknowledged Megan was too young to have a MySpace account under the Web site's guidelines,

but she said she had been able to closely monitor the account. Meier's family has also acknowledged that Megan was

also sending mean messages before her death.
Megan was being treated for attention deficit disorder and depression,

her family has said. Meier has said Drew knew Megan was on medication.
MySpace issued a statement saying it "does

not tolerate cyberbullying" and was cooperating fully with the U.S. attorney.
U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien said

this was the first time the federal statute on accessing protected computers has been used in a social-networking

case. It has been used in the past to address hacking.

"This was a tragedy that did not have to happen," O'Brien

said at a Los Angeles press conference.
Both the girl and MySpace are named as victims in the case, he said.


Rebecca Lonergan, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law at the University of Southern California, said

use of the federal cyber crime statute may be open to challenge.
Lonergan, who used the statute in the past to

file charges in computer hacking and trademark theft cases, said the crimes covered by the law involve obtaining

information from a computer, not sending messages out to harrass someone.
"Here it is the flow of information away

from the computer," she said. "It's a very creative, aggressive use of the statute. But they may have a legally

tough time meeting the elements."
She said, however, that because "a very bad harm was done," the courts may grant

some latitude.
MySpace is a subsidiary of Beverly Hills-based Fox Interactive Media Inc., which is owned by News

Corp. The indictment noted that MySpace computer servers are located in Los Angeles County.
Due to juvenile

privacy rules, the U.S. attorney's office said, the indictment refers to the girl as M.T.M.
FBI agents in St.

Louis and Los Angeles investigated the case, Hernandez said.
Each of the four counts carries a maximum possible

penalty of five years in prison.
Federal officials said Drew will be arraigned in St. Louis and moved to Los

Angeles for trial. Her lawyer, however, said Drew did not have to surrender in Missouri but would be arraigned in

early June in Los Angeles.
The indictment says MySpace members agree to abide by terms of service that include,

among other things, not promoting information they know to be false or misleading; soliciting personal information

from anyone under age 18 and not using information gathered from the Web site to "harass, abuse or harm other

people."
Drew and others who were not named conspired to violate the service terms from about September 2006 to

mid-October that year, according to the indictment. It alleges they registered as a MySpace member under a phony

name and used the account to obtain information on the girl.
Drew and her coconspirators "used the information

obtained over the MySpace computer system to torment, harass, humiliate, and embarrass the juvenile MySpace member,"

the indictment charged.
The indictment contends they committed or aided in a dozen "overt acts" that were illegal,

including using a photograph of a boy that was posted without his knowledge or permission.
They used "Josh" to

flirt with Megan, telling her she was "sexi," the indictment charged.
Around Oct. 7, 2006, Megan was told "Josh"

was moving away, prompting the girl to write: "aww sexi josh ur so sweet if u moved back u could see me up close and

personal lol."
Several days later, "Josh" urged the girl to call and added: "i love you so much."
But on or

about Oct. 16, "Josh" wrote to the girl and told her "in substance, that the world would be a better place without

M.T.M. in it," according to the indictment.
The girl hanged herself the same day, and Drew and the others deleted

the information in the account, the indictment said.
Last month, an employee of Drew, 19-year-old Ashley Grills,

told ABC's "Good Morning America" she created the false MySpace profile but Drew wrote some of the messages to

Megan.
Grills said Drew suggested talking to Megan via the Internet to find out what Megan was saying about

Drew's daughter, who was a former friend.
Grills also said she wrote the message to Megan about the world being a

better place without her. The message was supposed to end the online relationship with "Josh" because Grills felt

the joke had gone too far.
"I was trying to get her angry so she would leave him alone and I could get rid of the

whole MySpace," Grills told the morning show.
Megan's death was investigated by Missouri authorities, but no

state charges were filed because no laws appeared to apply to the case.
___ Associated Press Writers Greg Risling

in Los Angeles, Betsy Taylor in St. Louis and Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

[idesign]

Thanks everybody, for your participation. Belgareth, I have especially been led to think and stimulated very much

by your input. Your mindset seems relatively consistent, as compared to most (yes, one of the best alpha traits).



Idesign, this applies to you as well. But I would also love to hear more about what you believe, because there are

so many aspects; political, theological, philosophical and humanitarian; and I haven't conversed with you as much.

I'd love a beer sometime. Beer is the philosopher's stone. What part of the US are you in?

Doc, just

got back from a trip and was re-reading this thread and realized that I completely missed your comment and question.

As an excuse, I guess I was too focused on the discussion at hand. I'm really not so socially handicapped that I

ignore people, and have to apologize, especially to you, who makes a point of being friendly and accommodating of

others.

A beer would be great, and as the night (and beers) wore on I suppose more would be accomplished in the

way of discussion than a thousand posts.

We'd probably talk a lot of s__t too.

Though I hesitate to

talk about my beliefs for several reasons, I suppose they'll come out incrementally as we move along. As I

remember you saying of your ideas (beliefs), my beliefs will probably run contrary to the acceptable beliefs of many

here.

Belief and reason are not exclusive of each other, and there are separate and coincidental arguments to

be made. In that manner, I can't hope to do your academic discussions justice, but can certainly offer my own

positions based on studied belief and lived experience.

I look forward to talking to, and learning more from you,

and any others who I hope will join in the discussions. And of course you're welcome to challenge or question any

or all points I may present.

BTW, I'm in NC, on the coast.

On re-reading this post it seems such a canned

reply, though genuine, but we'll sort it all out later. Let's just have fun, like we've been having.

[idesign]

Remember, if anyone should feel uncomfortable and defensive about getting their beliefs challenged here, it

should be me, given that I've always been a professional child advocate. Maybe my life's work is a load of crap in

that way! But that's all the more reason for me to challenge my own beliefs, which I am doing here. Screw my

beliefs. They are not sacred, but are temporary working hypotheses.

That's a great perspective. Having

one's beliefs challenged will either solidify or alter those beliefs. Challenge makes one think; honestly, if they

are honest, ignorantly if they are ignorant.

An honest man will respond to challenge and be changed, however

drastically or subtly, knowing that he holds an incomplete knowledge. An ignorant man will perpetuate his ignorance

by refusing challenge, and squeeze his ideas through strictured thinking which disallows any expansion of his

ideas.

That's not to say there couldn't be a core set of beliefs that one can hold which is valuable, perhaps

even in an absolute form. There may be elements of tradition (and/or religion) which are there for very good

reasons, and we'd all be the worse off for relegating them to archaic thought or belief. In other words, there are

things which have always been true, and will not cease to be true.

why should the

rapes and beatings be legally prohibited, if the state needs to stay out of individual's private business? What is

that line?

That "line" has been a serious point in this thread. The line delineating individual freedom

and belief from gov't intervention is at one point pretty clear in my view but grows very quickly grey as you move

away from death or bodily harm, and in some cases psychological harm.

While the State is obligated to protect

life, it must constantly practice due diligence in not overstepping their own boundaries which restrict personal

freedoms.

But this is a good issue, IMHO, to bring some things together, because it

treads so many boundaries, and even treads some lines that seem to exist for posters here.

It's really a

challenge to tie together several realms of thought; and it's a bit more concrete with this case, than in a purely

political discussion.

It's an opportunity to clarify, explore, etc. Why not test our beliefs round the edges a

bit? Even Christian theology mostly recommends this; or at least pays it lip service. To me it's fascinating, even

if it does put some of my beliefs at risk, beliefs that I have been passionate about, and even argued in front of

judges when I've had to testify about what should happen to a child.

You're right Doc, this issue

treads every ground, and I've had to think hard about where certain beliefs fall in the midst of political/social

realites. On the other hand, there is a good bit of common sense involved, and a good bit of case law.

As for

Christian theology, it does encourage, indeed demands a fully engaged intellect to mine the full depth of its

meaning. However, its elegant beauty allows both the simplest and most complex minds to apprehend its most

fundamental (sorry to use that word ) truths. The parents in this case tragically overlooked a host of scriptural

admonitions, secular laws and pure common sense.

I'm perfectly happy to put my ideas and beliefs at risk, as are

you and Bel. We're only willing to grow to the extent that we're willing to allow other ideas to integrate into

our own while maintaining personal integrity. I've come to like that word even more since reading your posts.

[DrSmellThis]

That's

not to say there couldn't be a core set of beliefs that one can hold which is valuable, perhaps even in an absolute

form. There may be elements of tradition (and/or religion) which are there for very good reasons, and we'd all be

the worse off for relegating them to archaic thought or belief. In other words, there are things which have always

been true, and will not cease to be true.

I am going to pick out the one thing I have a problem with, even

though I agree otherwise. Just because it's interesting. Hope it's OK.

There is no core set of beliefs that I

would not like to challenge and to have challenged in myself. NONE.

I'd challenge someone to name one thing

that we can all agree on that has always been True with a capital "T." I can't think of anything.

Science is

the tradition most dedicated to truth in a realistic sense, and belief in science is regarded as temporary working

hypothesis.

I'd love to believe the happy stories some religions tell, in a way. Unfortunately, religion

merely claims to have a lock on Truth, without offering substantive reasons to believe any of it. "You just have to

have faith." Or, "the bible says so". That is the most childish circular argument I've ever heard. The other thing

religions do is use power, intimidation, and punishment in an attempt to force people to believe, even though the

power and punishment is sometimes very subtle (e.g., being a little bit ostracized). It always makes me a bit

curious, or in some cases, sad, when otherwise intelligent, thoughtful and sensitive people stop thinking,

considering and discussing altogether when it comes to their "cherished beliefs". It is often the cherished beliefs

that end up causing unforseen and severe problems on the planet, unfortunately.

Bottom line: Turns out integrity

is impossible without openness; indeed without a sort of absolute openness. You are not just having integrity vis

a vis your preexisting internal states, but also vis a vis everything in the world too, which flows

freely in and out of your mind. Given our inherent limitations as rational beings, I can see no other way to

approach anything like truth. I would substitute absolute openness for absolute belief any day.

Practical

considerations do dictate that you can't question your beliefs 24/7 -- at least all of them -- because we need to

operate with working hypotheses. We even assume the road we are driving to work on is solid, even though it isn't

really.

This is why I don't respect moments when people trumpet their beliefs with too much bravado, as if

it's somehow a virtue the more rigid and unyielding we are about our beliefs -- like it makes them strong, heroic

people. It just doesn't impress me, even if I tend to share the person's belief. In fact it is a rather sophomoric

trait, like the maturity of a teen or very young adult.

The courage to admit one is unsure, insecure, and even

flat out wrong is a constant companion to integrity.

For example, Mother Teresa's private letters prove she

almost constantly questioned and doubted her faith -- hard core. People had no idea. Yes, she struggled with guilt

around that, and certainly was extremely humble due in part to that. But I regard these somewhat distressing traits

as virtues, not "signs of weakness", like most would. It's not all about being cheerful and comfortable. My

experience and studies in mental health suggests that being fully human is not some clear, tidy and neat thing. We

regard her as a beacon of faith, yet she experienced a level of anguish around her doubt that most of us can't

imagine, because we don't have the planetary role and history she had.

[belgareth]

Challenging and having your

beliefs challenged is, in my opinion, the core to learning. However, a far tougher and more challenging proposition

is to look at the world from another's point of view. Only through that can you gain understanding and even

sometimes wisdom.

Science, again in my opinion, is not involved with TRUTH so much as the gathering of FACTS.

Truth is a belief in something which can include science or extraterrestrials, demi gods or an almighty. Facts are

not subject to belief, the just are. Often people confuse belief with facts but they are not the same thing.



I'll slightly disagree with you on integrity, as well. You can have internal integrity without external. You can

behave in a manner that is internally consistant with what you believe while not being open to others' beliefs or

acting with integrity towards others. It all depends on how and what you believe. You believe in learning and

sharing, something I hold in high esteem but others have learned a singular way of thinking and refuse to allow

other inputs or experiences to impact it in the least.

My youngest daughter is fond of stating that only fools

are sure. Not really sure where she came up with that but I have to admire the thought. Through questioning we

learn. When we become certain of anything, when we know, we cease to learn. Your example of Mother Teresa was

perfect. She never ceased to question and as a result she never ceased to learn.

[DrSmellThis]

Challenging and having your beliefs challenged is, in my opinion, the core to learning.

However, a far tougher and more challenging proposition is to look at the world from another's point of view. Only

through that can you gain understanding and even sometimes wisdom.

Science, again in my opinion, is not involved

with TRUTH so much as the gathering of FACTS. Truth is a belief in something which can include science or

extraterrestrials, demi gods or an almighty. Facts are not subject to belief, the just are. Often people confuse

belief with facts but they are not the same thing.

I'll slightly disagree with you on integrity, as well. You

can have internal integrity without external. You can behave in a manner that is internally consistant with what you

believe while not being open to others' beliefs or acting with integrity towards others. It all depends on how and

what you believe. You believe in learning and sharing, something I hold in high esteem but others have learned a

singular way of thinking and refuse to allow other inputs or experiences to impact it in the least.

My youngest

daughter is fond of stating that only fools are sure. Not really sure where she came up with that but I have to

admire the thought. Through questioning we learn. When we become certain of anything, when we know, we cease to

learn. Your example of Mother Teresa was perfect. She never ceased to question and as a result she never ceased to

learn.

I agree but think we are using different terms. No biggie. To wit:

Yes, perspective taking is a

key, but I see it as a key ingredient in challenging one's beliefs and being open. I certainly meant that as a part

of it. That is very important in communication with specific people, in particular. No doubt you were also using

that "skill" in thinking of the family that denied medical care to their kid.

I also agree the term "truth" is

problematic. So I use "truth" with a small "t" for the stuff we shoot for in science -- not absolute or cosmic

"Truths", but just working hypotheses currently supported by data. It's not a perfect word by any stretch; but

"fact" is just as problematic in science.

Data is not a set of facts. Nor are raw data portions of fact. Raw

data is completely meaningless in science. What we call "fact" actually involves the interpretation of raw

data, and is often a rather flimsy thing to call one's findings.

Really you're trying your best to

approximate something like "facts" and/or "truths", seeking them without ever achieving that absolute certainty.

It's probably most accurate to leave the interpration part explicitly attached to the data, clearly labelled as

such, for the sake of honesty. You can have a theory that is so far well supported by data, where you can make

successful predictions of how new data will turn out with that theory. That's what scientists shoot for.

Of

course, this issue is a well-worn philosophy of science problem. We've seen an example of a science writer in this

forum not so long ago claim he dealt in "facts" as opposed to some others. But that isn't really the most

scientific way of thinking about it, in terms of the commonly accepted way science is done today. It's more a

newspapery kind of science talk, or a colloquial expression; not the formally accepted way of discussing one's

findings. Not that we need to care, but it's helpful to clarify how the language is typically used.

When I

discuss "integrity" I am referring to a term in philosophical ethics, having to do with a sort of master virtue; but

also the findings of our study, having to do with how the people studied actually all experienced morality as

something like being true to a central self that is constantly changing and developing in interaction with the

world. It was a consistent theme in their narratives, a theme which enjoyed good validity data of various kinds. The

term was applied in hindsight as the most appropriate label for what was happening.

So it was both internal and

external, and I wouldn't mention those two "poles" at all were they not the central findings.

I agree that one

can also just be internally consistent and mostly closed to the outside world.

However, I would not equate that

with a "virtue" of "integrity", because that would be a highly self-defeating way of approaching life and

behaving for virtually everyone; since you aren't accepting any external data into your mind's concepts of

yourself and the world but are obsessively-compulsively sticking to one idea. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find

anybody who got what they really, really wanted out of life and the world that way, or who was able to do as they

really intended.

One would sort of crash and burn to the extent one did this. It would be sort of like steering

a car without looking out the windshield or turning the wheel. Not all that practically helpful, or even very

intelligible; which defeats the purpose of calling it a virtue.

I do like your daughter's way of thinking on

that. Very succinct!

In general, I also like your points about learning as a major issue.

[belgareth]

I

agree but think we are using different terms. No biggie. To wit:

Yes, perspective taking is a key, but I see it

as a key ingredient in challenging one's beliefs and being open. I certainly meant that as a part of it. That is

very important in communication with specific people, in particular. No doubt you were also using that "skill" in

thinking of the family that denied medical care to their kid.

While still not very good at it, I try to

always do that. You may remember a question I asked a while back about morals. The criminal, are they moral or

immoral by their own standards? Let's try something even better. A long time ago I said that if somebody harmed one

of my daughters I would disembowel them. Yes, that is very illegal but I would do it and accept the consequences of

it. In my reality, I would be doing it for two reasons. One is simply because he harmed my daughter. The other is

because I would be ridding the world of a menace to others. To me, leaving that type person walking the streets to

harm another is a far more immoral action than killing them. Since our legal system has proven itself unreliable I

would deal with it myself.

I also agree the term "truth" is problematic. So I use

"truth" with a small "t" for the stuff we shoot for in science -- not absolute or cosmic "Truths", but just working

hypotheses currently supported by data. It's not a perfect word by any stretch; but "fact" is just as problematic

in science.

Data is not a set of facts. Nor are raw data portions of fact. Raw data is completely meaningless

in science. What we call "fact" actually involves the interpretation of raw data, and is often a rather

flimsy thing to call one's findings.

Really you're trying your best to approximate something like "facts"

and/or "truths", seeking them without ever achieving that absolute certainty. It's probably most accurate to leave

the interpration part explicitly attached to the data, clearly labelled as such, for the sake of honesty. You can

have a theory that is so far well supported by data, where you can make successful predictions of how new data will

turn out with that theory. That's what scientists shoot for.

Of course, this issue is a well-worn philosophy of

science problem. We've seen an example of a science writer in this forum not so long ago claim he dealt in "facts"

as opposed to some others. But that isn't really the most scientific way of thinking about it, in terms of the

commonly accepted way science is done today. It's more a newspapery kind of science talk, or a colloquial

expression; not the formally accepted way of discussing one's findings. Not that we need to care, but it's helpful

to clarify how the language is typically used.

I was diferentiating between belief but should have given

examples to make myself clear. A theory is not a fact, it is a belief in something. Even though we can use many

theories to predict the outcome of an experiment or a physical device, it may not be based on facts, only theory.

Science is replete with examples that have later been shown to be wrong.

Fact is very slippery, when you get

right down to it. A solid object is not solid at all despite appearances, in theory. So, what is the fact? Slam your

hand into a brick wall a few times and you'll come to believe it is solid yet when you examine it at the subatomic

level it seems to be no more solid than a puff of smoke. Then, is your perception the fact or the underlying theory

the fact? At some point we must begin to rely on something to base our perception of facts on yet it is still

filtered by our perception of reality. As I said before, your reality is not mine. Mine is not that of those people

who believed god would make the decisions about their daughter's life. Theirs is not the doctor's perception of

reality.

When I discuss "integrity" I am referring to a term in philosophical

ethics, having to do with a sort of master virtue; but also the findings of our study, having to do with how the

people studied actually all experienced morality as something like being true to a central self that is constantly

changing and developing in interaction with the world. It was a consistent theme in their narratives, a theme which

enjoyed good validity data of various kinds. The term was applied in hindsight as the most appropriate label for

what was happening.

So it was both internal and external, and I wouldn't mention those two "poles" at all were

they not the central findings.

I agree that one can also just be internally consistent and mostly closed to the

outside world.

However, I would not equate that with a "virtue" of "integrity", because that would be a

highly self-defeating way of approaching life and behaving for virtually everyone; since you aren't accepting any

external data into your mind's concepts of yourself and the world but are obsessively-compulsively sticking to one

idea. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who got what they really, really wanted out of life and the world

that way, or who was able to do as they really intended.

One would sort of crash and burn to the extent one did

this. It would be sort of like steering a car without looking out the windshield or turning the wheel. Not all that

practically helpful, or even very intelligible; which defeats the purpose of calling it a virtue.

I do like

your daughter's way of thinking on that. Very succinct!

In general, I also like your points about learning as a

major issue.

Like my daughter, since she most likely picked it up from me, I do not know anything. All I do

is based on what I believe, which is based on learning and experience. But all my learning and experience is based

on my perception of reality. The cave dweller who ate a big meal of warthog then saw a falling star might percieve

it to be the warthog's spirit ascending into heaven. For him, that may be reality. The people who have fits in

church, talk in voices and believe they have been cured of diseases may percieve that as reality. Who am I to tell

them differently?

The real question is if they act with integrity based on that perception. The perception is

based on their own internal reality. Nobody really can know what actually happened to them. Were they visited by a

divine spirit or perhaps an alien healing beam? Did something happen in FACT? And, if it did, did they act with

integrity or were they just making some or all of it up? Did they leave the church, go out and share bread with the

masses or did they go to work the next day only to lie, cheat and steal from their fellow man. Do they act on their

internal belief or not?

[idesign]

I am

going to pick out the one thing I have a problem with, even though I agree otherwise. Just because it's

interesting. Hope it's OK.

There is no core set of beliefs that I would not like to challenge and to have

challenged in myself. NONE.

I hold the same view. Though one may hold a set of beliefs, parts of which

he may deem unassailable, he must continually entertain challenge to test those beliefs.

If you consider faith,

which by definition is not "provable", then challenges are integral to its development. A faith that is not

challenged and tested is not faith at all.

In my own experience, I often have doubts about aspects of what I once

thought was an "unassailable core" of beliefs, even to the point of considering abandoning those beliefs altogether.

I did learn that that was part of the process too. I really don't see how an honest and intelligent person

cannot but question himself. Again, we come back to integrity.

I I'd challenge

someone to name one thing that we can all agree on that has always been True with a capital "T." I can't think of

anything.

The first thing that came to my mind is the inability of mankind to behave

itself.

I'd love to believe the happy stories some religions tell, in a way.

Unfortunately, religion merely claims to have a lock on Truth, without offering substantive reasons to believe any

of it. "You just have to have faith." Or, "the bible says so". That is the most childish circular argument I've

ever heard. The other thing religions do is use power, intimidation, and punishment in an attempt to force people to

believe, even though the power and punishment is sometimes very subtle (e.g., being a little bit ostracized). It

always makes me a bit curious, or in some cases, sad, when otherwise intelligent, thoughtful and sensitive people

stop thinking, considering and discussing altogether when it comes to their "cherished beliefs". It is often the

cherished beliefs that end up causing unforseen and severe problems on the planet, unfortunately.

Yes its

unfortunate, but I would point out that its mostly people who populate any organized movement. You could say that

religion (a human institution) causes problems, but then you'd be obligated to say that basketball causes problems,

because fans spit on the players and the players run up and hit the fans. Religion may cause trouble, but hockey is

worse.

My point is that its people who act in the ways most of us see as unacceptable, from

Cain to Charlemagne (to McCain?). Its no stretch at all to see that the cherished beliefs of the well-organized

Secular Humanist movement cause unforseen and severe problems on the planet, because some group of experts or

scientists say they have the answer. I would say that an Environmental Scientist Socialist Democrat with a budget

is as bad or worse than a church with a following. The minute one group or another takes an extreme tack there is

trouble.

As it pertains to belief, it takes as much faith to follow certain scientific "discoveries" as it does

to believe in God. Perhaps more since much of science has reverted to pretty much a juvenile state of development,

ie "don't ask me what time I got home last night, just assume that everything is OK because I said so, based on my

desired outcome". Too much of scientific "discovery" is a kernel of truth marketed as snake oil. Some guy comes up

with an interesting but ultimately unprovable computer model and the faithful give Al Gore an Oscar. The damage

done in the name of this bit of science will only be seen down the road, and it will never be refuted as a

hoax.

Religion has the peculiar problem of having God involved. Bad behavior is an automatic hypocrisy rap, as

is should be. There is an intellectual and moral integrity which is lacking in many cases, but certainly not

absent. The multitude of positive influences religion has had in history is pretty much ignored in many

circles.

I agree that there are many who's religion is tied up in repeating platitudes with little or no thought

behind their words or actions. Of course that is a stereotype which holds the imagination of many. Similar

stereotypes could be that all businessmen are greedy, or all interior designers are gay, or all gun owners are the

love children of the late Charleton Heston.

The problem is that stereotypes are too easy a target, and its hard

to resist kind of knee-jerk response whenever one hears about God, gays, greed or guns. I'm as guilty as the next,

more so perhaps.

I suppose I bristle a little when I hear an anti-religion remark for this main reason: almost

always, the person who makes that remark has made no study whatsoever into the subject they criticize. Not that you

have to be an economist to discuss the economy, but religion is uniquely different it transcends temporal living and

requires specific study to apprehend its principles. Its all around us, but is ignored, and does not press in on us

like politics or economics or psychology. I'm surprised and sometimes sad when I see smart and sensitive people

who have no interest in looking into the most intellectually and personally stimulating areas available to us.



Bloody hell, I told myself I would not go in this direction in this post. I really don't want to bash science or

be an apologist for any religious belief. I just thought I'd add a different

perspective.

I The courage to admit one is unsure, insecure, and even flat out wrong is

a constant companion to integrity.

That comment strikes a deep chord. Doubt and insecurity are hallmarks

of a responsible, honest-thinking, sensitive, humble and effective person. How can you presume to doubt others

until you've doubted yourself? Someone said, "a life unexamined is a life not worth living".

I For example, Mother Teresa's private letters prove she almost constantly questioned

and doubted her faith -- hard core. People had no idea. Yes, she struggled with guilt around that, and certainly was

extremely humble due in part to that. But I regard these somewhat distressing traits as virtues, not "signs of

weakness", like most would. It's not all about being cheerful and comfortable. My experience and studies in mental

health suggests that being fully human is not some clear, tidy and neat thing. We regard her as a beacon of faith,

yet she experienced a level of anguish around her doubt that most of us can't imagine, because we don't have the

planetary role and history she had.

I've no doubt whatsoever that her anguish had nothing to do at all

with her "planetary role". Her anguish was her own, among those she served. Any doubt she had within her faith was

anguish enough.

To be fully human is certainly not tidy or neat, the range of emotions alone will make a mess of

it. Add spiritual consciousness and fullness is both enriched and made more complicated. Its a challenge that

engages every aspect of being alive, both within oneself and among other humans.