Free Republic

Correction: has *already* spread beyond Africa

that they send their daughter to Canada to have it done because in the states they could get in trouble.

And in Canada, they won't?? That makes me sick beyond words (I'll have to check if we have any specific laws against it).

On another note, female genital mutilation started out as an African tribal practice that crossed religious lines. But since Islam is misogynistic in so many other ways, it's only natural that they encourage it (in fact, it may spread beyond Africa because of this).

As I understand it, the Amish are taught not to fight under any circumstances, even in self-defense.

That being said, had I been in the teacher's position, I'd have done the exact same thing - run away and called for help as quickly as I could (and with the Colorado case fresh in my mind, I probably would have told police he planned to rape the girls in the hopes that would get them to act faster).

Unless I had a gun myself, there's no way I could fight back against a heavily-armed man.

Want to take a bet on how many new death threats she'll receive as a result of this speech? :-/

bookmark

Has anyone ever tried these shoes?

Quote: "The health and fitness enhancing concept being MBT is based on a simple insight: the human musculo-skeletal system is designed for walking barefoot on soft, natural ground. But we all spend most of our time moving on hard, flat surfaces."

These shoes are supposed to have a soft, squishy interior sole to mimic the feeling of walking barefoot on sand. Not sure if they actually work, but the animiation of how they function looks cool...

They said news of the theft was deliberately delayed in order to *not* alert the crooks. However...

Stolen personal data for 26.5 million veterans and military personnel may have been erased by teenagers

If anyone would think of searching a hard drive for useful info and copying it, it's teenagers...

See http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/10/video.abduction.ap/index.html

Electric chair/hanging is far too gentle... *smolders with rage*

What would the law say in the case of photos taken *without* someone's knowledge or consent? (e.g. a hidden cam set up by a pervert landlord in a tenant's bedroom). If that person then went and posted the photos on some website, could that website be legitimately sued? Not a rhetorical question btw, I'm genuinely interested to know just what the law says in that kind of case...

If it can be proved that a so-called "religious practice" results in direct harm to a minor, the gov't has every right to intervene. If not, they don't. There have been cases where parents denied medical treatment to their children (e.g. Jehovah's witnesses, Christian Scientists) and wound up being charged when the child died as a result.

There was another recent case in Canada where a judge essentially ordered a girl to undergo a blood transfusion if doctors deemed in necessary. She was a minor, only 14, but since she was raised as a Jehovah's witness she wanted to refuse the transfusion. Now if an adult where to make such a decision for themselves, they have every right, but in the case of a minor I don't think the parents' religious beliefs should be allowed to endanger the child's life.

So getting back to this case, if the father were practicing some kind of Wiccan ritual that endangered the child, the ruling would have merit.

There is no difference. The adult is the one who is supposed to have the understanding of what is right and wrong, legal and illegal, not the minor.

True to a point, but penetrative sex forced on someone else should ALWAYS be considered a more heinous crime, simply because of the mechanics and consequences of the act. It's a question of degree. Also, if the situation were reversed, it would be the 12-yr-old girl whose body would undergo the trauma of pregnancy. Female victims of male abusers always have more to lose than the reverse.

Now, in the case of homosexual abuse, it's entirely different. If a 35-yr-old male sexually penetrates a 12-yr-old boy, that's just as evil and as heinous as male-on-female rape.

If I had to take sides, I'd side with the gays...at least they don't run planes into building or strap bombs on themselves and kill train passengers.

Thanks for that bit of perspective. I still don't understand why *everyone* doesn't see that Islamic extremism is the biggest threat to humanity since the Nazis.

"This one signed up TODAY to bash Christians"

Really? Then I must have special powers to have been able to post in so many threads prior to that :P

As for "bashing Christians," I don't consider the mullah-wannabes to be Christian anyway - true Christians aren't holier-than-thou moralistic monsters who seek to persecute anyone who doesn't act as they see fit. They believe that they're no more worthy of salvation than anyone else, and lead by example, NOT coercion.

and promote the leftish notion that the only true freedom is sexual acting out.

*sigh* more groundless assumptions. I'm not promiscuous, I don't do drugs, I don't even drink alcohol - but I sure as hell don't believe the gov't has any right to make those behaviors illegal. The only sexual behavior the gov't DOES have the right to outlaw is that which involves non-consenting adults or minors too young to give consent. Bestiality should be covered under animal cruelty laws, and someone who has an STD and knowingly puts others at risk can be charged with assault or attempted murder (something that's happened even in bleeding-heart liberal Canada, so there :P )

Exactly, there was nothing "ban-worthy" in anything you said, and it was a hell of a lot more charitable than what was going through my mind when I read that mullah-wannabe's posts. I notice neither he nor the others of his ilk answered the many questions you brought up...which leads me to believe that yes, they do indeed want to see an Iran-style theocracy in America. Wackjobs like that give other Christians a bad name.

I guess that would include enticing them to enter your house/apartment so you can rape them...I have a feeling we will be hearing about you on the news before too long. And you know, those hairy guys in prison have the same ideas as you about consent :)

Lol, thanks for saying exactly what I was thinking only in non-ban-worthy language ;) Hope all the female real estate agents and cleaning ladies in his neighborhood have been duly warned about his views... o_O

ping

If anything is threatening your health and well-being, it is your own actions and lifestyle. I don't even know you, so I could hardly threaten you. You are certainly quite paranoid though.

Justifiably so if you look at how theocracies turn out. I was speaking in general terms of what would happen if someone with your views came to power and passed laws based upon them - therapeutic abortions would be outlawed and women would die. Not to mention the medications that would get banned...

The situation is not comparable to a pregnancy, since an unborn child is not an agressor liable to measures of self-defense.

In a manner of speaking it is, if continuing to carry it poses a threat to a woman's life. Again, that's a call I only want qualified medical professionals to make.

This whole discussion would become moot, of course, if we ever got to the point of developing an artificial womb.

It goes to show that most Americans, including yourself, are philosophical Marxists.

Wrong on both counts - I'm not a Marxist and I'm not American :P But since I'm right next door, I do care what happens "south of the border."

And I could easily take your question and turn it on its head - why is the mother's life less valuable than the fetus?? (there have been other answers to your question as well that sum up my views exactly; see the pings).

Sleazy and disgusting though Bill Clinton may be, I'd rather have 1000 of him in charge than just one radical Mullah (of ANY faith). People like you scare me and millions of others; it's that simple. People like you are a threat to my health and well-being. I don't share your religious views and don't want them shoved down my throat, especially if they're a threat to MY LIFE and MY HEALTH.

As for the abortion question itself, I don't place a zygote at the same level as a fully-developed human being anymore than I consider an acorn to be the same as a full-grown oak (or even a sapling). So I don't have a problem with the pill. If the fetus is developed to the point where it can survive outside the mother's womb, of course efforts should be made to save it and abortion should only be used as an absolute last resort (but that's a call for a woman and her doctor to make, not you).

As for the destruction of innocent lives, sorry, but it happens all the time with "ends justify the means" reasoning. Think of Iraq and Afghanistan - how many innocent lives were lost then? How many pregnant women (along with their fetuses) were killed by American bombs? But that's considered acceptable because it's part of a larger plan to liberate people and fight terrorism. And if a Sept 11 scenario were to repeat itself, most people would consider it acceptable to shoot down a plane and kill everyone on board rather than risk that plane crashing into a building and killing 1000s more. By your logic, it would be better to just let it crash, since that's the "natural outcome".

It would probably help your understanding if you didn't work off the assumption that Catholics were ignoramuses.

Well Hermann isn't exactly doing much to refute that assumption, now is he? :P Seriously, people like him repulse and frighten me just as much as the Iranian Mullahs (and the only difference between these fanatics, at the end of the day, is whatever religion they declare is "right"). If I could gather all his posts, show them to the mainstream American public, and somehow convince them that this (e.g. not performing therapeutic abortions because women *should* die in childbirth, it's their "nature") was the Republican platform - Hillary would win by the biggest landslide in American history.

The following quote by C.S. Lewis has been posted here many times before, but it bears repeating, since it tells us why religious fanatics of *any* stripe must never be allowed to come to power:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

His religious obligation not to look upon a naked woman would trump her need to not be dead. Any other position would be "selling out" his faith right? That is, afterall, the logical extension of your position...PS - I don't know what's more obscene: your refusal to provide needed treatment to rape victims or the pride you seem to take in it.

Very well said. At first I thought this guy's posts were a joke, but now I see he really means it and that absolutely sickens me. I can't believe a DOCTOR would support the right of someone to work in the MEDICAL profession and REFUSE BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS!! WTF?! Thank the Lord above he's not working at any hospital in my vicinity. His views would provide excellent ammunition to anyone who wants to make religious conservatives look bad.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw: "Dear God...please protect me from your followers."