betsy

Yes, we got side-tracked because I couldn't help commenting about your fixation upon seeing yet another topic from you about, what else, religion. Anyway, I do not expect you to admit to what I said. You yourself, may not even be conscious of the reason why you have this fixation...negative though it is, you're still somehow "glued" to it....analyze - a word you used. Well, obviously you are on a quest to analyze. You have a wish to understand. The reason behind this wish to analyze may be to find irefutable proof that will give you that certainty - finally extinguishing at last, that tiny spark inside you. But anyway, somehow, it got you intrigued. You may insist otherwise....but the impression you project to me is what I said it is. At least, for me. Btw, this is not an attack on you. I am just stating the impression you give me. So okay, let's get back to your topic. What is it you want to know about prayers? Can you be specific?

If by some chance science proves that God does not exists, that Christianity is baseless, inspite of millenia of accumulated evidence to the contrary - historical records, scriptures, archeological sites, etc., - and you are proven to have guessed right, you will be able to nya-nya-nya me for a very, very short time. HOWEVER, if not, nya-nya-nya ad infinitum. Of course at least, you won't hear.

Those very real things have real scientific explanations. It's too bad you're so busy attributing all of this to God that you can't appreciate these things for what they really are. Yes there are scientific explanations for the behaviour of natural phenomena. But there is no scientific evidence that proves how they got there. Just a few feeble attempts. As the theory of evolution sputters and grinds to an embarrassing halt under the weight of the lack of evidence that its inventor admitted was essential....I would think that anyone defending our scientific understanding of the universe would be a little embarrassed, to say the least. These theories, often wrongly, seek to explain the behaviour of nature and the universe. Only the most arrogant and ignorant imagine they can explain their existence.

The problem with you is that you care so much about my beliefs, but I don't care at all about yours. I don't care if you don't pray! I don't care if you don't like me praying! In fact, I don't care if you pray I don't pray! You're the only one that cares here. I suspect you care because you can't pray. Your pride won't let you. That fall can be pretty scary. I don't have to defend my religious belief to you. But you might well have to defend your lack of belief at some point in the future.

The problem for you people who worry about my belief in God is that you care what I believe. But I don't care what you believe. I'm not worried that I "have religion." BUT you're worried because you DON'T have religion. Of course you'll never admit it, but that's the way it is.

I may have expresed my observations of you openly on this one particular topic, however my impression of you was not made solely because of this topic alone. If you recall, I've commented about your passion in another thread, musing that it seems you are trying to convince yourself. If we count the numbers of topics you've started and the threads you've contributed where-in you either maligned or reviled religion, or made disparaging and mocking remarks about people who have religious beliefs, I would say there's quite so many of them, whereas I hardly see you in other non-religion topics. At least shall we say you have such an interest on religion? It's this fascination you have on religion - especially the Christian religion, and GOD - that makes you quite interesting to me. Religion - Christianity - it seems, is like a scab you couldn't stop from picking. A scab that bothers you. A reminder. If I am not mistaken, you've said way, way back that you used to be a Christian. Could it be that perhaps, deep inside, there's a part of you that couldn't and wouldn't let go completely? There is still that tiny little spark of belief that bothers you every now and then...this spark that you are at war with....that you'd like to extinguish? Although this comparision cannot really compare, the struggle of one who used to smoke comes to mind. This ex-smoker suddenly hated the smell of cigarettes! He has nothing but criticisms towards people who still continue to smoke. He mocks their habits...their weakness and inability to shed this ugly vice. But in reality, it is not really about other people's welfare he cares about. It is about him. This people are like a temptation....reminding him of the enjoyment he felt puffing on that cigarette. After all this years of non-smoking....he still struggles to stay on the wagon. The cigarette still beckons.

I strongly suspect that radicals and what you call "sleepers" - although not necessarily al qaeda - had been dispatched to other countries decades ago...especially countries with strong US presence. During my university days, to this day I am convinced that I had been in the presence of such a group without realizing it at the time. I worked part-time at the US military base during those days (which became full-time after I graduated). My bestfriend had new neighbors renting an apartment. A couple of Iranians who enrolled in our university. Now I would understand why there were a handful of Americans taking courses in that university since it's just a 5 minutes drive to the military base...but what's a couple of Iranians doing in a provincial university? Manila had a lot of popular universities! Anyway, they started asking me "why do you want to work for those Americans?" And they'd try to explain and debate with me about it!! It's like I was talking to two walking propogandas with these two. I was naive at the time - ignorant about politics! To make a long story short, one incident stuck in my head. These two hosted a party...their guests consisting of women only! I guess they wanted to get "lucky." But anyway, another Iranian came to the party. He looked quite older - I"d say in his mid-forties. The three of them were in the kitchen. I went to the kitchen to ask for something, and I came upon them in the middle of a very serious argument or intense conversation, in their own language. The older guy was the one who was talking. He abruptly stopped when he saw me and moved away. I did not encourage the friendship - why should I? Who wants to be berated for working with the Americans everytime we get together? Besides, I confided to another friend - an American - about the things these two Iranians were telling me, and that they were trying to convince me to stop working for the Americans, my friend adviced me to stay away for they sound like "trouble." But that scene in the kitchen stuck in my memory, I don't know why. Maybe because of the intensity in their expressions which was out of the ordinary. Years later, thinking about it....I am convinced those two were not really students. They may have been enrolled as students, but they were there for other reasons. This problem we're having with radicals all over the world is not a coincident. It is well-planned.

Sorry for inserting this in this thread. I don't mean to dis-respect. It's just that I would like to say something positive regarding the changes that's happening on the board....but it's not an issue enough to warrant a thread of its own. I love the new edit - where it shows automatically at the bottom the last time I edited my post.

Another lady who runs her own daycare had to re-do the words on her contract due to a recent incident that happened to her daycare. Apparently a mother brought in her child knowing that she and her child were exposed to some virus (I can't recall the name but it was in the news not too long ago) after a trip to somewhere in Canada. Then the child started showing symptoms. And another child from her daycare started showing symptoms. And another parent. That's how they found out what it was. The guilty mom admitted that yes, they got exposed to it. All the other parents were upset. I've had a parent who secretly put a peanutbutter cookie with his son's lunch bag knowing that peanuts or nuts of any kinds were forbidden in my house since one of my children (a two year old) was extremely allergic to it....an allergy so serious it could result in death. After I found the cookie and confronted her about it, her reply to me was: "Well, she should know better than to go near it. She knows she's allergic to it!" So would this fall under negligence with total disregard? I'm afraid we do live in a self-centered society nowadays, so this kind of attitude is just common.

Dan Matheson from CTV newsnet interviewed a spokesperson for the Presbyterian Church regarding the Pope's comment. I guess Matheson was quite disappointed with the Presbyterian Minister's response..."I am surprised with your reaction. It is too mild considering the remarks of the Pope saying your church is not a true Christian church..." The Minister was not baited however and refrained from being drawn into this obvious attempt at sensationalism.

This relentless and passionate abusive contempt towards religion is more than just an obsession. I have noticed it for quite sometime now...and most recently I do seriously believe he is having some inner struggle. Although he makes an attempt to mask it (by naming other religion), his problem has to do with only one particular belief: Christianity. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that these statements are not really meant for us....but rather for himself. Cybercoma got his own personal issues. All I can say with sincerity....I pray that peace be with you.

Yeah. She posted 7 times in this thread alone. And we're only on page 2. Mind you, she also said this: Yep. No doubt about it. She's going for the numbers!

Four one-line posts in a row, and nothing of value in any of them. I say Xman should boycott this thread! I'm with you there Xman....go.

Do you mean Europeans? What about contributions made by Jewish/Chinese thinkers? Prosperity is a likely reason for advancement. When one is hungry, it is difficult to think of much else. Boy, shall we dig up and keep scores? What have been the contributions of the white race to the world compared to the non-whites? I'm willing to bet, history will show the whites had indeed contributed a lot.

I just read Scott A's reply above. Need say no more. I think this thread will inevitably head in the wrong direction. People who envy whites will do nothing but hate whites. People who envy Crees will do nothing but hate Crees. The ones you need to fear are the whites themselves...the self-deprecating liberals who imagine that the shall we say fairly significant accomplishments of the white race should be criticized in every possible and irrational way. I think this thread can go nowhere. Sorry ScottA.

Walk through a First Nations reserve lately? Not much reasons for hope, is it? Why would we want to preserve the Cree language or race?

I am not a Caucasian, therefore I cannot really say if there is this concern, for me. On the other hand I also see the concern that some Caucasians like Scott is talking about. I know that my race is nowhere near from dying back in the old country! But then again, my race is not exactly a good example of what a "pure" race is. We're a mix of Spaniards, Chinese, Malay, Indonesians, and whatever pther races had set foot on our shores. Other race have a strong desire to preserve their "pureness". Japan and China strongly comes to mind. I think eventually we'll all be a race of mixed races. It will defintely come sooner to places that had open its doors pretty wide to others.

So, why don't you explain to us why you think this is a false premise?

I am interested reading the various point of views, and likewise I don't see any racism in the question that was raised. Although I understand you have to have your say, I do however find it annoying that you would disrupt the conversation by repeating your replies. So you stated it's a false premise. We can read. We can decide for ourselves if we agree with you or not. If you find the topic too unbearable, then go find other topics to join. Thank you very much.

"crazy OR a zealot OR as bad as the religious" You do understand there's 3 items there, right? yes I do realize that. But I figure it's the "zealotry" part that's being alluded to most of the time in this discussion. Besides being crazy and as bad as the "religious" could easily be moulded to fit the definition of zealot. Zealotry could easily encompass those two.

I think showing gross insensitivity to a rape victim and not presenting her with all her options would be almost unanimously reviled, except for those, that for no other reason than religious faith, have had their morality skewed. GROSS insensitivity in what way? Other than being frank about citing his religious belief, how was he being grossly insensitive? After 2-3 years of silence, Boyer's sudden decision to come out to give her own testimony - the accuracy of which is highly questionable at this point based on the obvious slanted view of the article, among other things already mentioned before- is more than just insensitive. Although I understand somehow the reason for her anger, nevertheless, it's obvious she's got an ax to grind against this doctor, not to mention another possible agenda she might have - thus I question her motive as well - that this is being used as a tool by the radical women's rights group. People like Moxie, for example! The article blatantly paints Gish as being judgemental. But who's actually and truly being judgemental here? Boyer and the writer of the article are the ones being judgemental, that's who! That they would presume and judge the doctor of judging Boyer's morals....by simply citing that what she's asking for is against his religious belief! Then proceed to tarnish him for it by writing the article. Even blaming this doctor that Boyer became so "affected profoundly" by the experience that she did not see her gynecologist for 2-3 years! But there was no mention at all about the "profound effect" of the rape itself that she did not date or go out with any men for 2-3 years. ..and yet the details of the rape was given. Talk about the poison pen! And the more I see that this Boyer incident is indeed a politicized tool! And I still looked at hers as an alleged rape anyway. But giving the benefit of the doubt that indeed she was raped... After 2-3 years, and Boyer still looks at this in a skewed way...having a misplaced anger, to say the least...obviously this woman had not gotten over her trauma! She must need psychological help! Or most of it is pure bull! As I said, we were not there to witness the whole discussion between Gish and this woman! And I'd say shame on this writer for using this woman! So, now it is okay to focus on and revile a man based on pure assumptions simply for exercising his right...more so than the man who actually done the crime it seems. Talk about skewed morality indeed!

Corrections. One had found out from her sister...and the other (Boyer) herself brought it up herself by demanding that she needed it, thereby giving the indication that she was already informed. Yes, those are medical specialists. I don't know the procedures with prescriptions....but I doubt a doctor who do not wish to prescribe marijuana will have a list of names of doctors who are only to willing to prescribe it. I would bet that the doctor will opt to play it safe and find an excuse. The rape counsellor need not be an employee at the time. I would be willing to bet that Gish knew that Boyer had a rape counsellor to advice her. All Gish has to say is: Well, ask your rape counsellor. She is more likely to know of someone. What does my agreeing to an abortion have to do with it? I'm not the one who's going to perform the abortion! I'm not her guardian. I don't have any say on the matter whether I agree or not. She'll do what she wants whether I agree with it or not. If she wants to, I'm sure she'll find a doctor who'll agree to give her one. Since abortion is now legal, she has the right to choose whether she'll have the abortion or not.

ZEALOT - IMPLIES EXTREME OR EXCESSIVE DEVOTION TO A CAUSE AND VEHEMENT ACTIVITY IN ITS SUPPORT (ZEALOTS OF REFORM); FANATIC SUGGESTS THE UNREASONABLE OVERZEALOUSNESS OF ONE WHO GOES TO ANY LENGTH TO MAINTAIN OR CARRY OUT HIS OR HER BELIEFS ZEALOUS - CHARACTERIZED BY, OR SHOWING ZEAL; ARDENTLY DEVOTED TO A PURPOSE; FERVENT; ENTHUSIASTIC. ******* Religious people aren't the only ones who can be zealots.

He is not wrong. You're wrong. That pretty well puts an end to the discussion. Now how can you say he's wrong when that's the point of the discussion? As I've said before, declaring it doesn't make it so. Of course since it is his religious/moral belief, he believes he's only doing the right thing. Furthermore, the law had said he is right to refuse what goes against his belief...that in fact, the law had decided to make it his right. Out of curiousity, what would you say if instead of citing religion as his reason for not prescribing morning-after pills, he said: "Sorry, but I believe the dangers of its side-effects outweighs its benefit. I don't know anyone off-hand to refer you to, but I would suggest that you speak with your rape counsellor. Your rape counsellor would be most likely to have that information available."

What if the doctor didn't know anybody who offers this kind of service? The most likely thing to happen would've been for the doctor to advice the raped woman to ask her rape counsellor. The rape cousellor would be more likely to know of doctors who prescribe morning-after pills....after all, I would imagine that to be part of his/her job as a counsellor! And like I said, we were not there to hear every details of their discussion. We are only relying on Boyer's testimony. Purely one-sided! And I must say, questionable as to its accuracy....considering the lapse of time that this incident took place (2-3 years ago), plus with her state of mind (induced by trauma) at the time it happened....and yes, not to mention her motive. How sure are we that Gish did not advice her to ask her rape counsellor, explaining that her rape counsellor would be more likely to know of someone? In the end, it was indeed the rape counsellor who gave her the referral!