Tawasakm

OK. Using this example: 1) Was the change forced on them by the process of colonialism? 2) In the process of being tied into the international economy have they lost the ability to revert to a more preferred state even after regaining independence. (For example Aboriginal Australians can never live in a full traditional manner because the water tables have been altered too drastically - even were such an option available) 3) If the resort doesn't bring in enough money and the polynesians are starving do the descendants of imperialists who may still be beneficiaries of that process owe them assistance? I've read enough posts here to know there are some very knowledgable people on this forum - is there an issue of culpability existent here? If so, in what form? I'd like to bring a bit more to this if the discussion proves interesting for people and discussion is generated.

Guilty as charged. I have never worked in a secular equivalent. My point, which I have failed to make clear, is that religion has a measurable effect on individuals, families and society at large. As religion diminishes as a credible foundation to lives then what is the effect of that removal? Are we removing more then we know and building on a hollowed foundation? If we must discredit religion then can we find another basis for a value system? Is the fact that we have not adequately addressed this issue imapcting negatively on families. I'm trying to say that an argument about the validity of religion as a foundation should perhaps include debate on what exactly replaces that foundation in entirety - not merely in arguments over creation. Hope I'm finally beginning to express myself clearly here.

I'm not certain that we are talking about the same thing here. I'm not talking about coercion. I'm not talking about providing as counsellor a party that has a vested interest or an agenda that they will pursue in regards to presuppostions relating to the morality and/or predetermined courses of appropriate action. What I am advocating is a way to ensure informed choice. Abortion is not reversible and there are psychological affects. Under these circumstances I think there should be full disclosure to an individual regarding all options and risks etc. The same thought had crossed my mind. However you said your views are based on personal experience. Perhaps you could share with us, in a way with which you are comfortable and without specifics, what it is in your personal experience that leads you to believe that counselling will be suborned into coercion and why the majority of cases will involve such negative male motivation?

I've seen the argument on many occasions that the past is given too much weight when considering situations in the present. I wonder if this is a valid assertion. I will throw in the following example for debate. I recently read an interesting PDF (I'll provide the source after the last quote) discussing the question of why people can't feed themselves. It postulated that such problems cannot be understood in static terms but rather as the result of a historic process. It contends that nations which are now unable to resource their own agriculture are deficient in resources due to colonial impact. Agricultural needs were determined by colonial powers on the basis of their economic needs. For example production of staple foods might be replaces by increased production of sugar, coffee or rubber etc. Some of these crops change soil conditions in such a way as to render it useless for any other crops in future. People were forced to work in these new plantations by such means as introduction of a cash economy. A cash economy means taxes, failure to pay taxes means loss of land, cash can only be gained by working for the colonial power. The argument continues with instances of colonial powers protecting their own interests above those of the native population thus establishing a process whereby food must now be imported to the nation and creates a dependency cycle. There are further arguments as to how declarations of independence can't alter the effect on infrastructure etc but I guess I may posting something too large here. I'll add more on request. I will include some (well most) of the second last paragraph however. sources: Lappé, F.M., Collins, J., and Fowler, C. (1977), Why can’t people feed themselves?, in Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity, [Online], Houghton Mifflin, Boston, U.S.A., pp. 75-85., Available from: University of Western Australia Library E-Reserve. Lappé, F.M., Collins, J., and Fowler, C. (1977), Isn’t colonialism dead?, in Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity, [Online], Houghton Mifflin, Boston, U.S.A., pp. 86-90., Available from: University of Western Australia Library E-Reserve. (Yes I currently reside in Australia) Now an addendum to this kind of question is the question of responsibility. If historic factors contribute materially to poverty and famine in underdeveloped nations then do we, as beneficiaries of that process, owe a debt to these people?

It could be abused yes and would need some good inbuilt safeguards. My concern here is that people seeking abortions, particularly young teenagers, are making informed decisions. The only way, to my mind, that it is possible to know this is by introducing mandatory counselling. While the person may have put serious thought into the decision that does not infer a) that the decision was well informed in all aspects possible, that the decision may not be rushed, pressured or panicked. Counselling, properly conducted, could also act to counterbalance demands being placed on the individual concerned by significant others in so far as it would allow a decision to be made with access to all the facts. Please explain to me how we can be sure that a person seeking an abortion really knows what they are getting into and are fully aware of all options and their possible consequences?

An interesting article. I think Bill Cosby has a point - he generally does I feel. That said I think the article may be a little simplistic. It speaks of the need for black families and communities to recapture family and community structure and spirit in order to combat other influences (at least that is how I read it). A good an valid point. It goes on to say Which I think is not inferred. The article does not really produce much data to address causes. Only a negative correlation between crime rates fifty years ago and today. While it purports to have established a root cause its case is far from substansive. I personally also find the the above quote to be segregationist. Surely it's not a case of guilty white people being made to pay. Surely it should be a case of the community (read whites, blacks and every other colour of person) to assist those that are at the lowest end of the economic scale. I see the merit of Bill Cosby's very relevant point but I just don't see how the article manages to run so far with it.

Heres my two cents. I'm anti-bush not anti-usa. I think that what we are seeing is the polarising effect of a war time mentality. Since the USA has gone to war, and placed the lives of it's soldiers at risk, there is a higher stake in government policy and a higher stake in criticising it. It seems natural enough that criticism from foreign sources in such a time can be easily miscontrued as anti-usa instead of being merely anti-bush. When Bush-bashing occured prior to September 11 was it as likely to be interpreted as an anti-usa sentiment? I don't think so. I hope that discussion like this can help to facilitate greater discrimination between criticism of government and criticism of nation.

Thankyou for your clarification caesar. There surely are. Women do become pregnant through sexual assault. In such instances the victim must surely be protected absolutely from any further contact with the criminal (I hope the criminal is rotting in jail at this point). However I do think there are valid ethical considerations in situations other then this. I do think there should be a system in place where the father should at least be consulted. I can not in good concience question a womans right to final determination but I do question a womans right to make a decision completely alone. By this I also mean that a person should receive some kind of counselling aswell - by which I mean education as to possible effects etc and not sermonising. An abortion is a serious thing and so I'd like to know that anybody who chooses that road is doing so with eyes wide open and not blindly - without really knowing the consequences of the act. Of course there is also the question of whether or not putting people through compulsory counselling will drive some to "backyard" abortions instead. Perhaps education should occur in schools instead?

I read my post again. I don't think I'm making sense. Let me try and tackle this again. The question is: In answering this question the point of religion and it's validity has been raised. My point is this: 1) Traditionally religion has been a major force in determining family structures and right and wrong etc. 2) Religion is being displaced as a valid source of knowledge. so... Blackdog and The Terrible Sweal rightly question the validity of using religion as a basis for, well anything, in a logical world. I concede the point. In fact I have undergone the process. What I found was that the same science which abolished my belief in my religion did not provide answers or knowledge for such things as; what should be a family structure, what is right and wrong etc. So I believe that to answer this question fully one needs to be able to fully measure the effects of religion and to provide adequately for it's removal. I thought that the debate over religion had strayed off the point of it's effects on family. I would really appreciate views on how the vacuum left by the diminishing influence of religion should be addressed and on how this impacts on family structures.

I would have thought that there were many reasons to ask/demand that a foetus not be aborted - religious beliefs, a genuine desire to have a child, concern for the mother/baby to name a few. I realise the reasons won't be universally altruistic but surely there are many reasons to want to have a baby? I'm prepared to be corrected here if you have research to back you up - at this point this is conjecture from me. I agree that the person who is actually pregnant must have the final choice. However she is not the only person affected so I don't agree that others shouldn't be included in the decision making process. Although I am not entirely sure if that is what you are saying?

I'm sorry but I think thats a little oversimplified. The people who were in the program had lots of people to talk to - counsellors (trained professionals), others in the program, friends, family etc. What I did not make clear is that those people who were crediting God for their rehabilitation were specifically crediting a power higher then themselves. They believed this was the key to success - that in accepting something greater then themselves into their being they were gaining that beings strength to combat problems they had not the strength to face. While I can't argue logically for the existence of God I do believe that the positive affects of believing in a higher power CAN be measured (also the negative affects of such belief). So even if God can not be proven that does nothing to counteract the effects of said belief. Therefore religous belief must have an impact on society (perhaps in ways we are no longer even really aware of). Which is why I question whether or not religion can be dismissed so quickly. Logic aside it underpins the value systems of many people. What would replace it? If people have already dismissed religion, in part or in whole, then the implications can be subtle and far reaching. It is my opinion, and just an opinion, that the rapid development of science has caused a shift in belief systems. While this is a good thing I do think there has been something of a vacuum left behind which has yet to be filled. Perhaps we need to consider religion in the context of the measurable effects on human lives and families. Part of the answer to what is best for families may well lie there. On the other hand do you think that religion may need to be excised? Is it the dichotomy between science and religion that is creating social conflict and impeding our discovery of the answers?

I understand the argument that men should "butt out" so to speak. We are not the ones who have to experience a pregnancy. I do, however, believe that men should have legitimate input into the question. It may be that the child is ours, or that the pregnant woman is a friend/relative etc who's concerns and pains we share (to whatever extent possible). In so far as a mans input is the result of concern for the pregnant woman and/or the unborn child I would hate to see it dismissed so completley. Women need to have more power in the decision making process then men, I think, but not the power to exclude men from the decision making process. The quote is from Belfred (I apologise for not quoting him properly I will find out how to do so soonest). In regard to this comment about creeping euthanasia I would say that medicine kept a couple of my relatives alive long past the point they wished to keep living. Perhaps past the point where you could define them as alive still in every sense. What did you mean by a persons natural time for death? And are there not compassionate grounds for euthanasia on occasion?

I have seen quite a few arguments here in favour of secularist government. What I haven't seen (and I may have missed it since I'm new - please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is an extension of that argument to the middle east. I have read some arguments about democracy seeding and the pros and cons. I don't mean to refer specifically to the war in Iraq and the particular methodology currently being employed by the United States and allied forces operating under them. What I would like to know is to what extent people feel that religion in government has given rise to problems in the middle east (and I suppose I should include Israel here). What I would also like to know is to what extent people may infer that the situation would be different should church and government be effectively separated. Or would the people of the middle east be the worse for wear with such a radical restructuring? If secularism is desirable then what effect would that have on culture and families etc? Would it be desirable to have a western form of democracy or are there other ways to achieve this separation which would impact less radically? I have thought that it might be possible to achieve a secular government which doesn't necessarily follow a western model and which might therefore be more palatable to the region but have been unable to actually arrive at anything meaningful myself. If religion is at the heart of conflict then what must occur to government bodies to correct this problem? I look forward to any comment.

Arguably we are making the decision - with our vote. Thats a part of the basis of democracy - of the people and for the people. If our vote does not empower us to have a direct impact on what the government determines to be right or wrong then that could well be considered to be a failure of democracy. Should the goverment use the majority rule as it's indicator however? I think there should be a balance. People in goverment have greater access to information and (hopefully) more education and experience in these areas and so should have a large part in determining such things. That said government decisions need to be counterbalanced against the wishes of the people (at least in a democracy). Perhaps it is best to say that I believe government needs to steer the boat but it needs the input of the rest of the crew when plotting a course. Please note also that I feel there is quite a difference between majority rules and mob rules.

This is my first post here. Since I'm still becoming orientated I hope you'll all be gentle with my first post (and rip into everything thereafter) Obviously the question of religion has become a burning topic of debate here. While I find myself drawn to the logic of the Terrible Sweal and Blackdog I do feel there are aspects of faith which aren't being addressed here. I spent some time volunteering at a Salvation Army drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. Every single person who remained successfully rehabilitated after a length of time (say at least five years) credited their success to faith in God and Gods intervention. I realise this is my anecdotal evidence from speaking with participants and I'll try to dig up some sources over the next few days to support this claim. Wether or not the existence of God is supported logically or empirically I can see evidence that faith in God can mend lives and families. I'm throwing this in as one instance where I have seen religion and nothing else have an effect on such a negative situation. Personally I'm undecided on wether a higher being exists. If such a being does exist I would be even more unsure as to it's exact characteristics. Even if God IS a lie then it is a very powerful lie. What I'm wondering (and fishing for comment on) is wether or not an underpinning this powerful can be removed from society. What can we replace it with? It might be primitive to cover ignorance (gaps in scientific knowledge) with belief but can that not be a viable solution? It's something that allows people solid guidelines. It is also something that does evolve slowly and changes with the times - at the same time acting as an anchor to slow down change. Or, in other words, may prevent upheaval and even make change more palatable across generations. (I'm looking forward to arguments contradicting this) (Crapo, Anthropology of Religion: The Unity and Diversity of Religion, Chapter 10)I guess my point is that religion can be dismissed on logical and scientific terms but doing so does not replace it's many (and perhaps necessary) functions in society. Perhaps it is this growing void that needs to be addressed when considering social problems - such as family structure. If we can't replace religion should we try to dismiss it? What should it be replaced with?