iNow

Loaded questions, much?

You have yet to supply any links to support your contention that our nation was founded on christian principles and you've failed to support your point that our founding fathers were christian. My point stands. You've simply dismissed my references without telling ANY of us what you find incorrect or inaccurate with them. And you know what? I am beating her up for believing God AND for being a dumbass who has little concept of history. Tough shit. If you truly wish to continue this religious discussion here at SFN, then for the love of Thor tell us what you mean when you say "Christian." Perhaps this site will help: http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm

Would you "buy it" if our current president followed Obamas advice and did EXACTLY that? http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=26522492 American forces conducted a raid inside Pakistan on Wednesday, a senior U.S. military official said, in the first known foreign ground assault against a suspected Taliban haven. Pakistan's government condemned the action, saying it killed at least 15 people. The American official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of cross border operations, said the raid occurred about a mile inside Pakistan. The official didn't provide details on casualties. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry protested the attack, and an army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups. Via: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/bush_follows_obamas_suggestion.php Remember when Obama suggested that as president he would send US special forces into Pakistan to hunt down Bin Laden even if the Pakistani government disagreed? And remember how the right attacked that idea as proof that he wasn't ready to be president? Well Bush just did exactly that. Just like McCain condemned the idea that we should pull out troops out of Iraq within 18 months of the election and now the Bush administration has agreed to do just that. Funny, that.

I only quoted the above because I didn't want to limit my comments to any one point you made. That was one of the most articulate posts on difficult subjective issues I've read in a long time. Well done, my good man. It's interesting to hear that the photographers and film makers would not have been arrested, since that is legal. The thing is, it's legal here in the US, too. That's what really flips this issue in my mind into one where the state was clearly in the wrong, and it gives signficant issues into their true motivations. They weren't upholding laws protecting property as their primary mission. They were using the law and leveraging it to prevent people from freely expressing themselves, and precisely because they disagreed with what that expression was saying. This is my opinion, and readers of this thread are welcome to disagree. People don't generally confuse me with a anarchist whacko, and I'm not generally ill-founded in my points or motivations, but I can't help but think that we are ever venturing closer ourselves to becoming the evils which we fought to uphold with honor in the mid-20th century. My grandfather would NOT be proud of acts like this by the state, and I'm not either.

This was not a direct result of the insulin, though. While I agree that the pig insulin was (overall) not as effective at controlling blood glucose as human levels were, the bigger reason for the complicatoins you cite is that the blood glucose testing technology did not exist at that time for use in the general population. Regardless of the type of insulin being used, it must be controlled based on data with the body's glucose levels. If glucose is high, more insulin is needed. If glucose levels are low, less insulin is needed. The type of insulin is far less relevant than the amount of insulin needed. The blindness and amputations you cite are more related to the lack of balance and control of blood glucose levels than it is to the type of insulin injected. Consistently high blood glucose levels, as well as frequent/vast fluctuations result in the build of of ketones (whenever possible, blood glucose levels should remain within a pretty tight range of roughly 80 to 120 mg/dl), and the diabetic who runs high and fluctuating blood glucose levels experiences ketoacidosis, and it is THAT which leads to vascular issues in the retina (blindness from diabetic retinopathy) and issues with dead limbs and nerves in the legs (diabetic neuropathy).

It would depend on how extensive the skin wrinkling was. If it was very very wrinkled, then it would take longer to return to a normal state. If it was only a little wrinkled, it could clearly return to it's normal state more quickly. I'm sure there are a few other variables for which you'd need to account, like each different persons baseline oil content and skin flexibility and things like that. This is, of course, assuming that it does, in fact, return to it's normal state. I don't know the answer to that, myself.

I'm confused where you think my arguement suggested that the founding fathers weren't fundamentalists. I agree, they were not, but that was never a point that I was here trying to make (I left that as a given, really). I guess none of this really matters. It's false to suggest that the founding fathers were christian unless you expand the definition of christian to be one which is unrecognizable by today's standards (are there a lot of Anglicans in the US?) Like I said, time to get past this. The bigger issue that brought this all up... before waitforufo came in and asked me to repeat all of my references so he could then again dismiss them... was that she failed with me personally on some of my key selection criteria for the higher offices and elections (what I termed "litmus test"). One of those issues was a horrid misunderstanding of the founding principles of our nation, and the thought that (not only did) our founding fathers say the pledge of allegiance to the flag, but that "under god" was already a part of that pledge and was okay with them.

Of course, wiki has it, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. My links DO NOT support your point, they do, in fact, support mine that they were deists. And, frankly, you have yet to share a single source supporting your contention, so I'm not sure how else I can move this forward until you concede, retract your comments, or prove me wrong.

Okay. Mistaken it is.

Precisely. Yes. That is the claim you made that I'm asking you to support. But, I'd actually welcome a source from you since I have, in fact, found a small handful of conflicting stories. According to this link: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html ...It turns out that Anglicans made up 55-60% of the entire religious spectrum for our nations founders, and Anglicanism can effectively be lumped under the christian umbrella. What is disconcerting is how this idea of them being "christians" seems only to be supported by christian websites. Other references tell a drastically different story. I think perhaps you will concede the point once you keep reading my next few references. For example, in much greater number have I found cites like this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html Which state: The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible. These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe. Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on "biblical principles," but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. ...and here... http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/christian_nation.html In recent years, we have been told by a variety of conservatives that America’s founding fathers established the country under Christian doctrine—that we are a “Christian nation” and should operate accordingly. This notion—that our country’s roots are explicitly Christian—is both foolish and wrong, for it devalues the Christian faith and disrespects the genius of the founding fathers. <...> The genius of the founding fathers is they understood that Christianity could not only stand on its own but would thrive without being written into the laws and founding documents of the country. In fact, it was likely their own “faith” that led them to this conclusion. Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—practiced a faith called Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either. If the founders were dogmatic about anything, it was the belief that a person’s faith should not be intruded upon by government and that religious doctrine should not be written into governance. This site, while much more forceful and not as objective about the approach, makes the case quite plainly, sharing quotes from these thinkers, and ending with the comment: With just these examples, you have the facts necessary to rebut any fundamentalist who proclaim this to be a Christian nation "just as the founding fathers desired". http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html

I'm not.

I'm still waiting for you to either prove this or concede that it's your own personal and potentially misinformed opinion. To be fair, that was more Bascule's point than mine (but I, too, agree with it completely).

I can't say that I'm 100% certain on this, but I'm going to have to say no way. Even people who have allergies to penicillin can usually eat blue cheese, so you do the math. Also, penicillin to treat plague and other similar illness is injected in high concentration. In cheese, it's a tiny unconcentrated amount and won't likely work in the same way since you'd be ingesting/absorbing it via the digestive tract. Again, I can't say for certain, but it's pretty darned unlikely that eating a bunch of blue cheese would help people with plague. In the meantime, here's a super cool magnified photo of penicillium growing on cheese in someone's fridge: http://www5.pbrc.hawaii.edu/microangela/cheese.htm

In fairness, I think you would be willing to concede that the DNC at least focussed more on issues, whereas even Republicans themselves are commenting that the RNC has been relatively content-free and vacuous. Am I mistaken? Btw, ecoli - Dr. Paul was on Colbert Report tonight. Video should be available online by morning.

Yep... More than one got hauled out of the hall.

What a complete answer. Nicely done.

Oh yeah? I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on this one. Prove it. Doesn't matter. This is a pretty clear example of "foot in mouth" disease, and I don't really care about her religion as pertains to this point (only peripherally, anyway). The only way that her religion potentially factors into this is that it misinformed her answer. Either way, whether she's christian, jewish, hindu, buddhist, atheist, or mormon, she was still VERY wrong on one of the simplest (beer and pretzels) issues out there. On my litmus test, this was just extra credit. She'd failed long before I got to the "it was good enough for our founding fathers" stupidity.

H/t - Afarensis

Most of the greater thinkers of that time also believed in a Deist / Pantheist god, not a Theist interventionist god like most of todays believers. Either way, that's far from on topic. Here's the quote from Palin which reinforced my disdain. Palin was asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance?" She responded: "Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance." Now, Mr. Waitforufo: The founding fathers didn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It was written in 1892, and didn't include the phrase "Under God" until 1954. Next... In God We Trust first appeared on a United States coin in 1864, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956. So, yeah. I've got a problem with a person running for the second highest office in our land having a complete misunderstanding and vacuous recognition of this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Ah... welcome to your 20s. The feeling never goes away, you just get used to it. Kidding aside... I think an Obama win would have great impact on what can happen and who can get elected in oh-twelve.

I want to be very clear that this thread is not about "religion," per se, but I found this study to be tremendously interesting. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134209.htm One of the few studies to look at the effects of religious participation on the mental health of minorities suggests that for some of them, religion may actually be contributing to adolescent depression. Previous research has shown that teens who are active in religious services are depressed less often because it provides these adolescents with social support and a sense of belonging. But new research has found that this does not hold true for all adolescents, particularly for minorities and some females. <more at link> These quotes stood out to me: What are your thoughts?

I'm honestly not sure... are you old enough to have voted in any previous? This one is more energized and passionate than any I've seen before, and I've been voting since the early mid-90s myself.

Wow. I'm a patriot, too. So what? Since when did this dialog become about me and not the issues our nation faces?

You've never met a logical fallacy you don't like, have you? To address your primary attack - I CAN"T STAND THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE PANDERING WITH THIS RELIGIOUS NONSENSE! There. I said it. I still agree with many of the other things they're doing, and also recognize that the US is not yet at a point where someone who openly rejects religion could get elected. http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx

Well, I guess the thread title says it all. Wow. I guess she scared a lot of people. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/palin-speech-pulls-in-8-million-for-obama/ Barack Obama's campaign says it has raised more than $8 million from over 130,000 donors following Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin's speech Wednesday night. The campaign also says it is on track to raise $10 million before John McCain takes the podium at the Republican National Convention tonight. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6BkMiFClO-golI3_rj8iiidLNTAD9308008B Barack Obama's presidential campaign said it raised $10 million Thursday following the Republican National Convention speech by rival John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Palin's address, heavily laced with digs at Obama, prompted an outpouring of donations from more than 130,000 donors. <pause for laughter> The Republican National Committee announced earlier Thursday, at mid-afternoon, that it had raised well in excess of $1 million since Palin's speech. Republicans expect Palin to mobilize their donors. <resume laughter>