Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)
About the middle of 1998.
BigMack
Hi BigMack :)
That seems to be the case. They held my sister off a week cause they said her baby was like 6 pounds, she ended up beng over 9. They apparently measured the wrong leg bone in making their calculation. We all knew it was wrong.
SD
That's really not the point. You're fixated on the title. "Pope" is just the English transliteration for "Papa" which is an endearing term for "Patriarch," which is just a fancy word for "father."
Every major religion has some type of head. That's not really a big revelation.
SD
There were historically 5 major sees in Christendom. Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople.
There are indeed others, like the Coptics, that seem to be outside of this mainstream. Then add on later developments like the Orthodox Church in Russia and you can add up as many Patriarchs as you like.
I'm really not sure of your point.
If the Roman Pope is first among equals regarding the others, are there 12? One for each of the Apostles?
There's no one-to-one correspondance that I am aware of. Generally speaking either you believe the Roman Patriarch is the Supreme Leader (Catholic), or you believe your own Patriarch is a co-equal with other Patriarchs (Orthodox).
SD
What am I missing? I am seeing a lot of "Religious" discussion spilling over onto the news forum because of the Pope business. Is this what you're talking about?
I had the AC on yesterday. I just went downstairs and turned on the heat.
Try opening a window. I haven't used hardly any energy this April. This should be a good gas bill month. And we're still a month or so from needing A/C.
SD
Keep in mind that cardinals lose the vote at age 80 and all bishops must tender a resignation at age 65.
Not a hard and fast rule. The Pope can change these rules at his whim.
True. Yet he is not omniscient either. Nor infallible in personnel matters.
Not a hard and fast rule. The Pope can change these rules at his whim.
True. But generally the Pope writes the rules and then follows them, so there is some expectation of a "rule of law."
SD
If you're going to take it out of context, sure. ET asked why we weren't worried about a feeble Pope. The answer is that the Pope can't screw up any doctrine.
SD
The entire Terri Schiavo affair. You must not go very much into the main forum! ;o)
Try opening a window.
The furnace had to run last night because the outside temperature dipped to 32°. Opening the window wouldn't have helped warm up the house!
You are in need of a re-write of history.
Oh, that. I thought that was over.
Opening the window wouldn't have helped warm up the house!
I hoped it was obvious I meant that as an alternative to turning on the AC.
SD
What happened in the Schiavo case was already legal under Florida law. And you're right, this has been going on all over the country, for a long time. It has become more apparent in recent years because we've gotten better and better at using technology to keep people alive. 50 years ago, Terri Schiavo would never have survived her initial cardiac arrest. The technology isn't going away, so this issue isn't going to go away either.
There are really two distinct questions brought up by the Terri Schiavo case. First, do people have a right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment? And second, what evidence will we accept as to the patient's wishes? I think that pulling a feeding tube under these circumstances is wrong. It shouldn't be done on the basis of oral testimony of one or a few people. I think the presumption should be, in the absence of written instructions specifying otherwise, that the patient wishes to receive life-sustaining medical treatment. However, I do think that people have a right to decline medical treatment. We shouldn't be forcing feeding tubes into people who don't want them.
We find ourselves in the position of having to make choices about things which wouldn't have even been an option not so many years ago.
This was court-made "law."
SD
We can only go by what you give us Reg. You didn't post that part of the language and can't reasonably expect us to read minds. Surely you weren't talking about OS... we know JPII approved of that.
I certainly wouldn't hire you. You'd misunderstand the directions on my medicine bottles.
No problem there. I'd just give you more of whatever you're taking. :-)
Besides, you couldn't afford me. I charge extra for "cantankerous".
I say it proves that God should play a (BIG) role in who you marry. That was her only misake.
I say they used the law to kick the door off of pandora's box to make legal what was already going on all over the country.
I don't know. This wasn't a case of "unplugging" life support.
I will admit, however, that we don't know what we don't know. There was disagreement (and dishonesty) on both sides re: the facts. Based on the "facts" as determined by the court... the application of the law wasn't necessarily so bad. But those "facts" didn't appear (to me) to BE facts.
The Schiavo case was governed not by Florida's living will provisions, but rather by its guardianship law. In the absence of an advanced directive, the guardian may make health care decisions on the ward's behalf.
A plenary guardian shall exercise all delegable rights and powers of the incapacitated person. (Florida Statutes 744.344(5)
If there is an advance directive for healthcare, the court appointing the guardian shall specify that the guardian abide by that directive (765.3115). In the absence of an advance directive, though, the guardian acts according to what he judges the wishes and/or interest of the ward.
The guardian's decisions can be challenged by the ward's family, attending physician or other specified parties if
The surrogate or proxy's decision is not in accord with the patient's known desires or the provisions of this chapter (765.105(1))
It was on this point -- the 'known desires' of Terri Schiavo -- that the case turned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.