All Comments (101)

Please explain!?!

I am having a very hard time understanding the reasoning in the OP and that of the majority of the above posts on this issue. I don't understand how anyone (especially pagan, Wiccan or any other minority for that matter (race, color, creed...)) can condone the use of force, ESPECIALLY to impose morality on another being. I find it morally repulsive that there are people, young and old, in need all over this planet yet still we wage senseless wars (is there any other kind?) on one another. I believe each of us should lend what aid we can to any we see in need but, I do not believe in using force. Government is force. The government has no money of its own, it has only what it takes from us in taxes, fees, etc. BY FORCE. Charity works, but works much, much better when the government isn't forcing the $ from us as well, only to be wasted in the bureaucratic nightmare we've created. I think it is immoral to force our morality on others and once it begins...where does it stop?

I completely agree that it is morally reprehensible that anyone should go without health care. I have been there and it stinks, but I would never consider forcing someone else to pay for me and I think neither would any of you. It is easy to convince ourselves to just get the government to do it but we really need to stop and think...would any of us rob our neighbor or even a stranger on the street at gunpoint for that money? That is what we are doing when we ask the government to pay for anything, we are effectively putting a gun to each and every tax-payer's head and ordering them to pay.

I am really concerned. I have no pagan friends or family to discuss social issues like this one with and I really don't understand how any pagan could petition or even condone the use of force on other human beings. Personally, I am devoted to the goddess. I think Lady Liberty is one of her most beautiful faces.

Blessed be!

******
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

*pointpoint.* Sick poor people.

Sick children.

I will sit in your existential ducking stool if you help the sick children first.

Christians.

Deal?

Well, Anonymous,

I see what you're saying, but I have some problems with it. "Be good to each other" is great, and we're after that too. The rest...

The 'institution of marriage' has nothing to do with morals. You can have abusive marriages, loveless marriages, and marriages where a parent is virtually absent. The institution is meaningless: the RELATIONSHIP is everything, and that doesn't need a stamp of approval from the Church.

Applying "morals" to 'all of us' is problematic. Strict authoritarianism never brings about a good result. Everyone is always claiming that we have descended into immorality fairly recently, but this is never true - it's always been like this. It's frequently been much, much worse. If there's one thing anyone from any period in history could agree on, it's that people were better behaved 'in my day'.

"Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book." - Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BCE.

We *don't* agree that your definitions of morality are self-evident or the best choices for mankind.

As for the initial debate on this page, and who owns the 'moral' choice, I notice that the conservative view leads to rich people keeping money, and the liberal view to providing healthcare to sick, poor children. I don't care what you interpret a text to say, I'll keep trying for the version that saves lives.

We all should not be afraid to admit there is/are fundamental (meaning basic) types of morality that all of mankind should live by. Not saying all should be yellow pencils in thought, culture, etc. It is evident around us that we have passed the rubicon with regard to morals, that is, we now embrace a lack of standards of the basic morals that are inherently good for all of us and would apply to all of us. And we all know what these are. Human morals. Respecting one another. Respecting the institution of marriage. Living life to benefit others as much as we do for ourselves. Not branded by any particular group or anything of the like. And that lack of standards is in the filth of pornography to the vilest of speech that lowers the potential character that mankind can have.

Regards, and good day.

An American:

If pagans appear averse to the use of the word 'morality', it's probably because it is used so often to mean "Christianity". The other assumption is that anything which comes from outside christianity cannot be 'moral', or that christians are inherently more moral than anyone else.

On the contrary, sanctimonious conservatives preaching 'morality' have been at the heart of the greatest harm in the past few centuries, and continue to be so. We are entirely justified of being wary of the word.

Morality is not the same as ethics, and our definition of it is probably very different to yours. I'd argue our version ends up doing more good in the real world, is psychologically healthier, and is based on exactly the same love for our fellow man.

Not so sharp, now, I guess.

"An American."

I'll tell you who's an American.

Could be someone who *doesn't* think she has only one life to give for her country.

If scorning me and my people will appease your need for an excuse to stop hurting people, then do so.

If that's not enough, that's neither our fault, nor our problem.

If you were to succeed in driving faithful Pagans underground again, this would not absolve you of the effects of what you do.

It never does.

But I don't think there's a Pagan heart among us that wouldn't *let* you, if it meant you would stop killing the future in the name of your self-proclaimed righteousness.

We did not ask for this kind of controversy.

But *you* have the power. The credibility gap is your own issue. You talk about 'absolute morality,' but it always ends up being a justification to hurt the poor, to hurt children, to hurt non-Christians, to hurt, hurt, hurt, hurt.

Then you claim you alone know mercy and forgiveness, but your knuckles get white whenever it comes to treating others like human beings.

Blame us, if it'll help.

But I observe it does not, and never has.

Capiche?

Cause, An American:

If you really need to hurt Pagans in order to *actually stop hurting children,*

I'm your huckleberry.

Do it. Defame all you want, if that's what it takes.

Just don't fool yourself like you haven't been hurting kids in the name of your 'Morality' all along.

Ever seen a kid with TB?

You may blame Non-Christians for it, but... Funny thing is, somehow I didn't see you there.

Moral guy.

" An American:

"An American:

"Alot of people on this thread seem to be repulsed by the word 'morality'."

That's probably because 'a lot' of people use the word to try and justify doing really hurtful things to innocents, ...because a lot of people say 'This is moral' before doing horribly *unethical* things, if not *just plain wrong things,* and then try to spin it as 'Moral.'

You *bet* it's repulsive.

As bumper stickers of the Seventies said:

"The Moral Majority

Is Neither."

Capiche?
How bout you let poor kids go to the doctor, then bash us for coming up with the idea.

Meanwhile.

*point*

Sick kids.

Christian.

Alot of people on this thread seem to be repulsed by the word 'morality'.

Go figure.

Well, actually, no, I misspoke, Anonymous.

I *don't* respect that position. In fact, I hold it in utter contempt.

With civility, I say, you are wrong.

But I do not respect what you say. I think it's a dodge, an excuse, a dishonesty, a fraud.

All I respect is you are a human saying it.

But I think it's horrible. And I think it hurts people. And I think you do not see the effects of what you say.

And I think you are afraid to.

And I cannot respect that.

Sorry.

"I respectfully disagree. I believe morality and ethics go hand in hand."

I respectfully state that if your lot were to get the ethics right, you could sputter about what you think 'morality' is all you want.

I've got nothing but mad love for this crazy world. Sometimes that's mad as in joyful, sometimes it's mad as in angry, but I try to make sure that what ever I feel and however I act or react, that it is based in love. Thanks for asking!

MAD LOVE:

Thank you also.

Just curious - tell me about your handle - Mad Love.

It's all semantics to me. Just do the right thing. Simple enough even a child could get it. Justify it anyway you need to. Just do the right thing.

Paganplace:

Thank you.

I see Ethics as something that the individual lives by, through their own inner guide and morality is something enforced from the outside.

terra

"Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct." [William H. Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," 1847]

We have free will to take the actions we wish. It is up to us if we care about others. It is up to those Pro Lifers to really walk their talk and care about Kids outside of the womb.

It seems the pro choice folks believe everyone has a stake in the future. A healthy child will be a more productive adult.

It is all free will. If virture was easy we all would be perfect. It's a test...
terra

Im not sure where you are senseing any 'fun' I might be having in my remarks with regard to immorality, ethics, children and all else.

I respectfully disagree. I believe morality and ethics go hand in hand.

Regards

Im not sure where you are senseing any 'fun' I might be having in my remarks with regard to immorality, ethics, children and all else.

I respectfully disagree. I believe morality and ethics go hand in hand.

Regards

There *is,* however, a difference between *ethics* and "morality," inasmuch as people claim that 'morality' is an externally-imposed judgement.

Ethics relate to *at least* being internally-consistent amid an agreed-upon set of rules.

The distinction is *real,* as evidenced by the willingness of the 'moral' to *cheat,* to be... unfair and hypocritical, ...whoever it hurts... in the name of their 'Morality.'

Have to say, all I see is Christians claiming 'moral superiority' while dealing unethically in government...

Cause it's apparently a lot more fun to call people 'immoral' than actually care for children.

>>"If you had read my original post today, I concurred..children are the exception."

>>In what way do you express this 'exception?'

Pasted below is what I mentioned in my original post today:

...Children, until they reach adulthood, should have the parents to rely on for care. But, when that is not possible, society should provide for that need as best as possibe....

Regards

I stated above:

>>"Ethics is synonymous with morality."

Paganplace responds:

>>Not really

Merriam-Webster states:

ethical

Main Entry: eth·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ˈe-thi-kəl\
Variant(s): also eth·ic \-thik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English etik, from Latin ethicus, from Greek ēthikos, from ēthos character — more at sib
Date: 1588
1: of or relating to ethics
2: involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval
3: conforming to accepted standards of conduct
4of a drug : restricted to sale only on a doctor's prescription
synonyms see moral
— eth·i·cal·i·ty \ˌe-thə-ˈka-lə-tē\ noun
— eth·i·cal·ly \ˈe-thi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
— eth·i·cal·ness \-kəl-nəs\ noun

This is the base of the problem with our society. No morals, no ethics, no absolutes. There are some standards all must live by in the same way (no conservative, no liberal, no whatever applies) to have equal outcome for the family of man.

Believe me, I agree with your point with regard to children. I have three of my own. The problem lies with adults that have not held themselves to standards that would have ensured a better existence for our children.

Regards

"If you had read my original post today, I concurred..children are the exception."

In what way do you express this 'exception?'

Somehow I hear a lot of justifications for conservatives even *bringing up* the obedience to Christian tabooes of the parents when it comes to the simple question of, 'Should we care for children?' And not just by trying to take kids away from loving queer and Pagan parents for abuse by Fundies and calling it 'love.'

"Immorality can certainly be associated with what you have mentioned. Countless relationships based on premarital or extra-marital sex have ended up causing much greif for the very children spoken of."

And about half of those supposedly based on 'conservative family values' end up in even more grief. The more 'red' the state, in fact, the higher the divorce and abuse rate.

Why, again, did you bring up your 'values?'

"Ethics is synonymous with morality."

Not really. But continue gutting the education system, and more might think so.

"It is not ethical in our society for one to commit rape against another. Those that do not follow ethics and do not care for ethics disqualify themselves from matters of which we are speaking."

Funny how conservative Christians in Kansas and other places have tried to use force of law to force rape victims to carry children to term *and* allow their rapists full access to them and their child until the children are adults.

" Children, though, as I stated originally, do not fall under such."

Could have fooled me.

Should be very simple. If we have a trillion dollars to borrow-and-spend on Iraq, funny how we haven't had somewhat less to care for our own people.

Notice the pattern, there, btw? Conservatives claim that liberals want to 'tax-and-spend,' (whenever it comes to caring for people or even giving them the social security they *paid for* ... ...so instead they *just spend.* Let the people suck up the debt, and then blame the liberals for settling up *their* debts.

Somehow, amid all this wealth, health care profits are king, and conservatives claim it's about 'morality' when kids don't get health care.

There's no excuse. Not even for whatever reality you live in.

If you had read my original post today, I concurred..children are the exception.

Immorality can certainly be associated with what you have mentioned. Countless relationships based on premarital or extra-marital sex have ended up causing much greif for the very children spoken of.

Ethics is synonymous with morality. It is not ethical in our society for one to commit rape against another. Those that do not follow ethics and do not care for ethics disqualify themselves from matters of which we are speaking. Children, though, as I stated originally, do not fall under such.

Regards

How bout, Anonymous, we start with *not hurting children and denying them health care cause we believe 'sex without my Church's permission is immoral?'

It's a *child.* Look at them.

If what to do ain't obvious, don't talk to me about 'morality.'

>>Bringing on human suffering brings on human suffering.

Exactly. Immorality is one of the factors that brings/is bringing on human suffering.

Regards

"Immorality inherently brings on human suffering...doesnt require to be any ones side. Its been that way for time immemorial."

Nonsense.

Bringing on human suffering brings on human suffering.

You gonna sit in your wealth and deny sick kids medicine, or are you gonna blame the 'immorality' of parents who can't do any better?

Your choice.

The results are clear.

Calling others 'immoral' might salve what you call a conscience, but it's still *you.*

Watching kids suffer and trying to inflict more.

Pagans aren't known for calling much 'black and white,' but this one's just that simple. All prevarication aside.

I have mulled this issue over long enough now.

Suppose the Government mandated that all employed people carry health insurance administered by a private insurance carrier and partially subsidized by employers and the government in proportional shares. There could be a catastrophic level of insurance and several levels of buy-up in 5% increments up to 95% of total coverage. The catastrophic level would insure the basic needs such as immunizations, emergency care, needed surgery and hospital expenses. Buy-ups, depending on level of coverage could include cancer screenings, dental and vision insurance and specialized care such as provided by physical therpists, chiroprators, etc.

The American populace is large enough to spread the risk insurance companies carry over a large cross section of individuals. Liability would stay acceptable,premiums would be kept at an affordable level and the potential underwriting gain for insurers would still be profitable.

Immorality inherently brings on human suffering...doesnt require to be any ones side. Its been that way for time immemorial.

When a child becomes an adult, then responsibility starts with them (with regard to what they are 'owed' or better said 'eligible' for in regard to health care, etc) . If they live their lives recklessly, they reap what they sow. Children, until they reach adulthood, should have the parents to rely on for care. But, when that is not possible, society should provide for that need as best as possibe. Unfortunately, there are subcultures of those in the adolescent years that live just as recklessly as some adults...they need help before the adult world receives them.

Regards

I think the conservative Christian attacks we see here are entirely summed up by the words of Rev. Elliot in his column:

"The Republican side of me says the immoral should suffer."

When greed and a desire to see people who 'sin' (either by having sex without their permission or without being personally-rich) ...*suffer* coincide, we get the system we have now, where Christians are told there is a *conflict* between personal and societal responsibility for children.

In the Pagan view, there *is* no such conflict.

And anyone who tries to make it about their sense of righteousness does so at the expense of suffering people. Children.

Period.

The concept of sin comes with a concept of punishment and reward. We do not have a concept of Sin, punishment and reward in the same way that Christians think. There is no hell for punishment and heaven for reward, all after death.

We believe that doing wrong hits you now in the life you are living and the here, where you are.If you intentionally do wrong for greed, lust or power you will recieve what that earns you. We do not believe that manipulating others for power or to gain what you think you want, will bring anything but harm back to you. So it is stupid to go that route.

We have laws called Principles, Ordaines and Redes that give us the commonsence way to live in community. Our ethics create morals without the "thou shalt not's", because we are responcible for our actions, and we believe that the laws of nature and the universe, which are reflected in our laws, are active in the world. In other words it is better to do good then bad. Helping to make the world a better place for all of us is better then to care more for money (that is loseing value every day).

Like Athena said... we do not strive for perfection, only to be the best humans we can be, and to help others to achieve this goal also.

terra

Mad Love-

None taken. I've faced off with Canyon Shearer, Pablo, and other "True Believers". Haven't gotten scared yet. :-)

Wiccan, no offense meant, but I think what Chris REALLY wanted was an opening to scare with his burning Hell if we don't repent out evil ways and bath ourselves in the blood of his sacrificial lamb.

Great response, Athena.

If it harm none (responsibility)
Do what you will (freedom)

Responsibility comes first. It is impossible to live on this earth and harm none. Each Wiccan must use his/her judgement to act in a manner that brings about the least harm.

The Law of the Three-fold Return

This is what Chris really wants to know. Who punishes us if we do something bad? Ourselves? The universe? I don't know. I do know that if I make the deliberate decision to act in a manner that harms another, I will receive that harm back three times as strong.

These two concepts probably will be as hard to understand from a Christian viewpoint as "original sin" is for Wiccans.

Well, Wicca doesn't have the concept of "sin". Instead of trying to live up to an unattainable idea of perfection, we accept that we are Human Beings. Instead of a "thou shalt not" from some judgmental Man-in-the-sky, we have the concept of "If it harm none, do as you will." The most important part of that being HARM NONE. One can interpret that any way that they choose. If that means not eating meat, not wearing leather, or not swatting mosquitoes, that's for you to decide and to be consistent about. We also have the concept of "whatever you do comes back to you three times over." This is about as close to a deterrent to doing harm as one can get. It takes the Golden Rule one step further.

That doesn't mean that bad things don't happen to Wiccans. They do. But we forgive ourselves, move on, and try to do better the next time.

In matters of theurgy the god or goddess principle can represent whatever you need it too. So the question becomes: can you forgive yourself?

Barena raises a good point, and it applies to a realm far broader than abortion. She says that "Women who have chosen to have an abortion live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." I know firsthand that she is right, but it is the same with many other acts that some call morally wrong.

What I'm getting at is this: Starhawk insists that it is a "moral imperative" for us, or the government, or both, to support government-funded health insurance for children. Now if a Christian believes that, and still opposes it -- let's say out of sheer selfishness, and not prudential judgment -- if a Christian refuses to obey a "moral imperative," he commits a sin.

Now the Christian, recognizing his sin, might well "live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." She might long for forgiveness. And, the Christian firmly believes, Christ came to forgive, and to save, sinners.

So my question is, does (or can) the Goddess worshipped by Wiccans forgive sin?

Barena,

Really excellent post, thanks. You are correct: bringing abortion into a discussion of Starhawk's beautiful article is simply uncalled for. You are also correct, IMHO, in your views on abortion. I support choice, reluctantly, as the lesser of two evils.

Also, I am humbled that you have done more hands-on good works than most of us Christians (including me). Churches do good works, just not enough of them. And too many are just concerned with thousands of members and the resulting bigger cash flow. I would not come within a mile of a 'church' with an ATM in the lobby.

Arminius

Barena raises a good point, and it applies to a realm far broader than abortion. She says that "Women who have chosen to have an abortion live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." I know firsthand that she is right, but it is the same with many other acts that some call morally wrong.

What I'm getting at is this: Starhawk insists that it is a "moral imperative" for us, or the government, or both, to support government-funded health insurance for children. Now if a Christian believes that, and still opposes it -- let's say out of sheer selfishness, and not prudential judgment -- if a Christian refuses to obey a "moral imperative," he commits a sin.

Now the Christian, recognizing his sin, might well "live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." She might long for forgiveness. And, the Christian firmly believes, Christ came to forgive, and to save, sinners.

So my question is, does (or can) the Goddess worshipped by Wiccans forgive sin?

Barena raises a good point, and it applies to a realm far broader than abortion. She says that "Women who have chosen to have an abortion live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." I know firsthand that she is right, but it is the same with many other acts that some call morally wrong.

What I'm getting at is this: Starhawk insists that it is a "moral imperative" for us, or the government, or both, to support government-funded health insurance for children. Now if a Christian believes that, and still opposes it -- let's say out of sheer selfishness, and not prudential judgment -- if a Christian refuses to obey a "moral imperative," he commits a sin.

Now the Christian, recognizing his sin, might well "live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain." She might long for forgiveness. And, the Christian firmly believes, Christ came to forgive, and to save, sinners.

So my question is, does (or can) the Goddess worshipped by Wiccans forgive sin?

Terra and Lep,

Oaken staves would be great, drums too. And mead? Wow! Yer talkin' my language!

Barena, good on you for fostering. I myself am a social worker in direct residential care and I know that the government doesn't make things easy for those in need of its benefits. I don't, however, think that gets them off the hook. Not that I think that your point. It's always going to be a matter of holding their feet to the fire to do the right thing. Efficiency might be asking for too much. Democracy is work, and I’m not even convinced that we’re going to have one for much longer.

To Chris and all....I am hoping that some of the people responding to Starhawk's article regarding children's healthcare AND the abortion debate going on here(which is totally a separate issue from Starhawk's piece) have some REAL LIFE and PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE obtaining healthcare for children in need and understand how difficult that can be EVEN with the government funded programs. Surely you do not think that the government makes it easy to get such benefits? If you do, you have never spent any time in a government social service office, have never fought for seriously needed services through Medicaid/Medicare for needy children and/or adults. Having fostered over 30 children , I can speak from experience. Without that funding, some of my kids would be dead and/or living life as very sick individuals. As far as abortion goes, UNTIL YOU ARE THE ONE making that decision on a personal level...BACK OFF. Abortion is never an easy decision, should never be used as a means of birth control...but unless you are the one making a decision to birth a severely damaged child, a child of rape or incest, a child giving birth to a child, or risking your own life to birth...you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Furthermore, again speaking from experience, parents with sick children live in fear and move in faith. Women who have chosen to have an abortion live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain.It's not a pleasant choice or experience...I have spent many years studing Christianity and did practice it as my spiritual walk for many years. I was a Christian counselor to many. I can quote Scripture better than Jimmy Swaggert could before he "fell from Grace"...I RETURNED TO WICCA when the CHURCH failed miserably to perform the MOST BASIC of Christ's tenets....feed the poor. Dude, you want to get a food basket from your local church?? You'd better get in line, fill out the forms, be ready for the righteous to belittle you with a smirk on their face and a grimace at your clothing ...while they hand you a box of food
and pat themselves on the back because they are so "compassionate". But then again...nowadays, you had probably better attend a couple services first...just in case the disciples decide that they only can help those of their own congregation. I am WICCAN. Jesus was AWESOME. It's a real shame that his own people are missing the mark. Man, if your heaven does exist...Jesus is going to ream you all a new place to eliminate your bodily wastes. AMEN. MERRY MEET.

To Chris and all....I am hoping that some of the people responding to Starhawk's article regarding children's healthcare AND the abortion debate going on here(which is totally a separate issue from Starhawk's piece) have some REAL LIFE and PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE obtaining healthcare for children in need and understand how difficult that can be EVEN with the government funded programs. Surely you do not think that the government makes it easy to get such benefits? If you do, you have never spent any time in a government social service office, have never fought for seriously needed services through Medicaid/Medicare for needy children and/or adults. Having fostered over 30 children , I can speak from experience. Without that funding, some of my kids would be dead and/or living life as very sick individuals. As far as abortion goes, UNTIL YOU ARE THE ONE making that decision on a personal level...BACK OFF. Abortion is never an easy decision, should never be used as a means of birth control...but unless you are the one making a decision to birth a severely damaged child, a child of rape or incest, a child giving birth to a child, or risking your own life to birth...you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Furthermore, again speaking from experience, parents with sick children live in fear and move in faith. Women who have chosen to have an abortion live with regret, guilt and sometimes profound psychological pain.It's not a pleasant choice or experience...I have spent many years studing Christianity and did practice it as my spiritual walk for many years. I was a Christian counselor to many. I can quote Scripture better than Jimmy Swaggert could before he "fell from Grace"...I RETURNED TO WICCA when the CHURCH failed miserably to perform the MOST BASIC of Christ's tenets....feed the poor. Dude, you want to get a food basket from your local church?? You'd better get in line, fill out the forms, be ready for the righteous to belittle you with a smirk on their face and a grimace at your clothing ...while they hand you a box of food
and pat themselves on the back because they are so "compassionate". But then again...nowadays, you had probably better attend a couple services first...just in case the disciples decide that they only can help those of their own congregation. I am WICCAN. Jesus was AWESOME. It's a real shame that his own people are missing the mark. Man, if your heaven does exist...Jesus is going to ream you all a new place to eliminate your bodily wastes. AMEN. MERRY MEET.

Terra,

There's a liquor store near me that actually carries a decent mead. I'll pick up a bottle or four.

So now the Church is buying stock in Healthsouth,
or what, here? If you want healthy kids, shut
the TV off, and get em outside, working, moving,
doing, you don't need 40 billion dollars OR
religious literature to get that done, and
most kids already have coverage under their
families' plans. I think the healthcare 'crisis'
is just as much an artificial shortage as the
oil story. Political fakery to slice off another
slab of promissory debt is just more fraud.
The Church also has a lot of money, why don't
they drop some of that building some more of
those St./Our Lady of/Sister places? There
must be a lot of lettuce that moves through
the pews these days, especially with the ATM
in the lobby, um, do they have those VISA
wave things yet? If not, doubtless someone
will be along to get that installed as of this
writing...

How much did the HMO guy pay you to write this,
anyway? Hmmm...

Let's have more transparency and accountability
not ONLY in the healthscare field, but also
in the Church, please. No more building stuff
on Other People's Money. Hospitals would also
cost less if they left out the 25 million dollar
fountains and the 24-hour on-call ice carver
banquet guy...

Oh and I can contribute a drum and fire wood...any one got mead??

terra

I don't have a claymore or woad...but I have a good oak staff and some ink... ; )

terra

Lep, you said,
"Oops - my Southern is showing again - I made the Willie Nelson connection before I made the William Wallace connection."

That is an absolute classic, and got a grand chuckle here. A pity so few would understand.

Arminius -

Oops - my Southern is showing again - I made the Willie Nelson connection before I made the William Wallace connection.
I've got the Guinness. Now where's my cane knife?
;)

Chris,
Re: your post November 4, 2007 1:38 PM

Only legislation has put in place the moral pillars necessary to make a moral society.

The religions have been a complete failure since the invention of "faith".

Witness that the "good christians" in Southern States stopped lynching blacks as laws were enacted to exact a price IN THIS LIFE for immoral behaviour.

Note that even the "good christian" mormons toed the line when the Great Society legislation was enacted. Now black males can "hold the priesthood". (well as long as they pay their money).

Nooses?

They have never been out of style among the hypocritical, southern and midwestern, "good christian", rednecks; but, Blacks are now protected from these "good christians".

The point.
Legislation is responsible for raising the bar of morality, i.e. conservatives are forced to be moral via threat of prosecution.

Health Care?
"good christians" have done nothing to provide for children's health care except as it has provided a tax deduction for the wealthy.

The "inconvenient truth"?

The churches use donations to further their existence, not for charity as Jesus encouraged.

Sadly, an immoral society tends to vote for immoral candidates, e.g. George Bush and the majority of republicans.

Nevertheless, little by little, we achieve a more moral society via legislation (FDR, JFK, LBJ) - not faith (we also lose morality via legislation Hitler, Lenin, Reagan, Bushes 1 & 2).

Oh, c'mon, Lep! You are right, of course, but join in the fun. Anyway,the plan is for everyone to show up in costume, anointed with woad, with a weapon (plastic swords are fine), and bearing food and drink. It is to be singing and dancing, in celebration of the Creation.

Wiccan sure as hell is on the woad again. I, the Liberal Christian support, am sharpening my claymore and trying to figure out where the hell I put that blue stuff.... A Bellandaine!

Athena:

The life I love is making magic with my friends...

I think that Wiccan is on the woad again. Just can't wait to get on the woad again... ;)

Chris, you are "pro-life". I assume that this means that you want abortion to be outlawed, correct? This means that the Government has a vested interest a woman bearing a healthy baby that will someday be a productive member of society. How would you like your taxes to be raised so that all of these mothers will have adequate pre-natal care, so that their babies will be healthy? If not, how much of your tax dollars are you willing to spend to fund indefinite stays in neo-natal care units, for those babies who aren't born perfect and at nine months? Are you willing to pay for infant child care so that these (presumably) unwed mothers can return to work/school after they give birth? Are you willing to pay for improvements to the adoption and foster care system? How about educating all of them? Oh, let's just dump them into the public school system and hope that they'll learn something. And, of course, if those children don't grow up to be productive members of society, are you willing to pay extra tax dollars for prisons, juvenile detention facilities, the court system, homeless shelters, drug rehab facilites, etc.?

I didn't think so. Come back to me with your anti-choice arguements when we live in a perfect society.

Chris,
You talked of China's one child policy. Well that policy has been ignored lately...But the reason behind it was for the welbeing of the people in China. They were over populated and the children alive were dieing of starvation and disease. Disease that is caused by too many people and not enough land.

It reminds me of when my mother was very ill...she had a brain tumor, surgery caused a bleeder, a stroke and coma followed. After 7 months she woke...not my mom any more. But to make a very long story short...7 years later the doctor tells me that I have a decision to make. Either take her off antibiotics now ( that is what was keeping her alive) or remove the feeding tube later. Ok what to do? She was dying day by day, being kept alive by chemicals, by machines, by the magick of tecnology. I chose.

China's people were dying, day by day...not enough land to grow food. Too many babies that would grow up to have more babies, babies that would suffer and die. So a limit was imposed that is now being lifted. Now that they understand about family planning and limits being neccessary for the life of those alive and the future.

So those folks who use China in their talking points need to educate themselves in the reasons behind hard decisions that have to be made.

Chris, why can not those who spout the guff think first. You all like to think you are more moral and better then others. That is ego and pride..last I heard a sin.
terra