dialamah

Hah ... as a young girl, my mother engaged us in bible study, and the women sometimes talked about 'self-abuse'. It took me a while to realize what that meant, cause it sure didn't feel like 'self-abuse'.

Canada, obviously. Why? The rich already get mostly their way because they can buy politicians. If they change the system, they might lose power, rather than gain more if it inspires those with 'lesser vote' to band together. Also, why the hate for unemployed people? Why should people be punished for being unemployed, especially if it's through no fault of their own - injury, illness, economic downturn?

I know several Muslims who have 'embraced the Western culture' and are not considered apostates. Just like Christians in Western countries who go to church, pray, celebrate their religious traditions, and live according to their religious beliefs so do Muslims go to Mosque, pray, celebrate their religious traditions and live according to their religious beliefs.

Yup, if I was inclined to follow any kind of religion, I think it might be Buddhism. I don't know much about it, did a very little reading some time ago, but it really does seem to focus on making oneself worthy, and assuming/allowing everyone else to be responsible for their own salvation. One thing about Islam that I like is that there is a teaching that Christianity and Judaism are valid paths to salvation - all part of the 'people' - shame that it's not a more widely known and practiced belief.

Believe it or not, we have Conservative, fundamentalist Christians here too, along with similar-minded Muslims/Sikhs/Hindus/etc.. And Betsy may well try to save your immortal soul, you having admitted you are gay. You need only *choose* heterosexuality, and you'll be fine -- check out the "Transformed" thread, which gives many examples of people who successfully transformed from the 'evil' of homosexuality.

Don't gotta be a believer to know what's taught. But, no answer eh? Or perhaps you are heading off to offer some practical, loving, non-judemental help to the women who may be considering abortion?

Of course, you'd side with the least humane faction of the Islamic Faith, just as you do with your Christian Faith. it seems that as far as you are concerned, the truly faithful are the ones who take the most judgemental, moralistic, unkind and unloving interpretation of their holy book - whether the Koran or the Bible, and seek to 'punish' all those who do not subscribe to the same interpretation. Christians at least are (usually) waiting for God to inflict that punishment; their Islamic counterparts are doing it in the here and now. Other than that, I find it hard to identify much different between conservative Christians and conservative Muslims.

*Yawn* "Liberal Guilt", what a joke. Agreed that humans have been violent throughout their history, and show no signs of slowing down. The West is included amont those humans, and they have effectively provided a common enemy for many of the people of the ME, through their manipulations and invasions in that region. Ignoring that fact, as if we're entirely innocent, ignores reality. Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bag, so to speak, and there's no going back that I can see.

Trust you to miss the point whilst pretending moderation. Some people would certainly choose to punish the whole family as a way to get back at the real culprit; humans can be nasty that way. Alternatively, perhaps the friend also accidentally knocked your kid over ... so you might think it's perfectly fine to knock their kid over in turn. The point is that many Westerners refuse to acknowledge how the actions of the Western world have contributed to the Islamic terrorists we now have. This doesn't excuse terrorism, by the way; it is taking responsibility for our behavior. Something Republicans/Conservatives often accuse the left of refusing to do.

Terrorists are always wrong. Still, the actions of the States and allies in the Middle East have created a situation where it's easier for them to gain support for terrorist activities. Imagine if you asked a friend to come over and help clean your house, and they came over - but while there, they broke all your stuff. You'd be pissed, eh? Maybe so pissed that you'd want to beat up your friend. Of course, your friend could act all surprised - "Why are you mad at me? You invited me over, and I did the best I could! Your house is cleaner isn't it?? Sorry your stuff got broke, but it's really not my fault - you shouldn't have left it out." Too many of us in the West are like that "friend"; unwilling to admit our own complicity in this situation, and pretending we're innocents being unfairly targeted.

Pro-choice means support whatever choice a woman wishes to make, of which abortion is only one. Pro-choice organizations also provide information on contraception, and on STDs. This, to me, seems a very loving thing to do, something of which Jesus would approve - certainly more loving than a bunch of self-righteous people shaming women who may already be suffering beyond your comprehension. Perhaps, if you are so concerned about these unborn babies, you should hie yourself down to a family planning organization, and offer to support and care for a 14-year-old who's been kicked out of her home by her "Christian" family because she's pregnant; you have four or five years to spend, don't you. and some extra cash? You could ensure this young lady gets through school so she can become a contributing member of society, rather than another single mother living in poverty. Or maybe you could spend some time comforting a pregnant woman who's been violently raped; be with her through her nightmares, persuade her that the thing inside her, placed there by some brutal man, is worthy of her love and caring for the rest of her life. But no, here you are - arguing with people who do not believe the same as you and who will not be persuaded, instead of doing something practical and useful to save these babies, about whom you claim to care so much. Pretty sure Jesus would counsel you to DO the good works, not just pay lip service.

Hope things work out soon and you are able to come back.

Yup, indeed. And this, from Romans 14:1-23 "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ... "1 Corinthians 13:1-13 "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; " i certainly do not perceive love, nor willingness to accept others as they are from you, Betsy. Perhaps you need to consider how God is viewing you, rather than worrying out how God is viewing homosexual people.

This morning I read headlines that the motion had failed by a very few votes. There were a lot of not-very-happy people. Then, all of a sudden - recount, it passed.

Nah, I learned as a very young girl that it didn't matter when I repented - as long as I accepted Jesus as my savior before dying, I was good to go (to heaven). That's a lot of wiggle room.

Why is it important to specify a 'group' when pointing out abhorrent behavior? Wouldn't headlines screaming "Extremists Hurl Bombs at Police" get the point across that extremists are extreme? Currently, every time a Muslim does something violent, his religion is highlighted. Why don't news headlines do the same for white guys --- "White man defrauds seniors of life savings"; "Three white men arrested robbing bank"; "White man holds girl captive for 18 years; fathers 2 children"; "White man shoots wife/daughter"; "13 White men arrested in pedophilia ring" "White man shoots 70 people; 12 die". If every crime that involved a white guy generated headlines pointing out that he was "white", who would look more violent - white guys or Muslims? And if you think that people don't assume *all* Muslims as violent as the headlines inform them, you aren't paying attention. At least two people on this forum have made the statement that if a Muslim isn't being violent, he's not a true Muslim. Not to mention a particular presidential candidate got support for suggesting he'd refuse entry to Muslims, and register the ones who are already in his country. What is that if not belief by a significant number of people that all or most Muslims are inherently violent?

Wikipedia says: I'm reminded of that old saw "A rose by any other name".

Only if the trip from the Middle East/Europe becomes less of a 12 to 24-hour-hour plane trip and more like a few hours by boat .... That's the major difference between we in Canada and the issue the Europeans are facing. Migrants can get there practically by foot. They can't get here by foot. We can control the flow much more effectively than they can over there. Realistically, it's literally impossible for them to 'swarm' to Canada.

LOL. Today I saw a group of adults, women in long blue dresses and bonnets; men in blue pants/shirts with sweater vests and straw hats. And beards. Probably the women had long hair, but hidden beneath their bonnets. I've no idea which religion they adhere to. Or perhaps they were a theatrical group. Anyway, whatever they were doing ... Long Live Diversity!

She's read it; she's just trying to find a source that twists it to say what she wants it to say.

So you support scantily clad women in public? What about your "Just say No" campaign in that other thread? How can women (girls) really mean NO when they're hanging it all out for everyone to see?

If kids are experimenting among themselves, then having the knowledge of consent, pregnancy, STDs etc is important. We may not WANT kids of 13 to have sex, but some of them, even from 'good families' are going to anyway - to say there isn't that 'option' is disingenuous. If a 13-year-old is having sex, it's better that they understand the concept of consent and that they know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs. "Just say No" education campaigns have been proven to be unsuccessful at reducing teen pregnancy and STDs. Providing kids with comprehensive information about sex, including consent, has been proven to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs. Unlike you, I took a look at the links provided for the actual curriculum. Here is some of what it says about teaching consent; note that abstinence and delaying sex is also part of the curriculum. Nowhere does the word 'enthusiastic" appear in any context. Perhaps you need to consider that your sources are manipulating you.

Maybe the 'enthsusiastic yes' message is directed to boys - Your partner must give an ENTHUSIASTIC YES before you have sex; who can give enthusiastic consent if they're passed out? Ever think of that? Probably not; your ability to think even a little bit outside the box you've dived into is evident. Not that I think the act you are referring to anywhere says "teaching kids to say yes enthusiastically"; I think that is your misstatement of what it actually says, culled from one of your 'sources'.

When I was 10, 48 years ago, kids of my own age were experimenting with sexual touching; girls from 10 to 13 pretended to have sex to 'practice' for when they were dating/married. One girl about my age was very knowledgeable - these days I wonder if she was being abused within her family. One 12-year-old boy, from a different family, told me, quite matter-of-factly, that he and his father regularly had sex with his younger sister; he told me this as a way to persuade me, at 10, to have sex with him. Perhaps some early classroom instruction on consent, saying no, appropriate touching etc., would have made a difference to the one girl who was being abused and the other who I suspect was being abused. Perhaps I would have found a better way to deal with the situations I found myself in, if I'd had some factual and non-judgemental knowledge imparted.

Six year-olds, 7-year-olds, 8-year-olds and beyond should know that when Uncle Bob says "It's ok if I touch you there", they can say NO, I don't want you to. Without that explicit knowledge, kids are more easily manipulated by predators - whether that predator is a stranger or, more likely a family member/family friend, or the local priest. Kids who are abused tend to blame themselves, not their attacker. Being told that they must consent and what exactly that means also teaches them that they are not the guilty party. This helps protect kids. Its the kids who are told over and over that sex is wrong outside of marriage and that God/parents will hate them for it who are more easily persuaded not to tell. You/your sources insistence that somehow this is designed to prime kids for sexual activity is ridiculous, no matter how much you use red to misstate the issue. Although, I can certainly see how the Catholic Church would like ignorance such as yours to continue, given how many of their priests have been proven to be pedophiles. If it gets known that even a six-year-old has the right to say NO, it's going to make it a little harder for these guys to continue to operate under the radar.