A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat health & behaviour
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Candidate Friedman vows declawing ban



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old February 22nd 05, 03:38 AM
Cathy Friedmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"kitkat" wrote in message
om...
gaubster2 wrote:
kitkat wrote:


I'm positive that I dont behave as if my opinion were any more or


less

valid...but from what I see...at least from your tone (written tone


that

is...) you *definitely* seem to think that your opinion is *the*


right

and valid one. If you don't intend to come across like that...you


could

truly try to convey that.

Pam
-done keeping busy for now...going to visit very sick cat...




Well...why do you hold the opinions that you hold if you didn't think
they were "right"??


I can hold my opinions and even believe they are right while at the same
time accepting the fact that people think differently.


Yep.


BTW, I hope the sick cat gets better!


Yeah! I'm gonna put up a different post on that topic so it doesn't get
missed...but there HAS BEEN GOOD PROGRESS!!!!!!!


Oh, good - will look for your newest report!

Cathy


  #112  
Old February 22nd 05, 05:11 AM
Priscilla Ballou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Cathy Friedmann" wrote:

"KellyH" wrote in message
...
"gaubster2" wrote in message
oups.com...
Right, and you don't have to say it if you don't want to--in fact,
nobody does. The fact that it is said that way seems to bother you??
Let's say that I think I pay too much in taxes (which I do). But I am
compelled to go along with the plan or else I go to jail. Nobody is
compelling you to say the Pledge of Allegience. See the difference?


Paying taxes and saying the Pledge are completely different. Don't you

have
to say the Pledge in public school? I did when I went. Granted, you could
just mumble along, but you are still expected to say it.


In reality, you don't *have* to say it, though virtually everyone does. And
thinking back, in 33 years of teaching, I can't actually think of a single
kid who opted out. Its main function, IMO, is a way to bring a class
together at the start of a day, along w/ a statement of patriotism.


I have managed to make it to almost 52 years of age without once
reciting the Pledge of Alliegance. And, yes, I live in the US. I went
to private school, where we didn't have to say it, but I very young
decided that I would never say it until it was true. Until we have
liberty and justice for all, no pledge for this one!

Priscilla
--
"And what's this crap about Sodomites? It's always Sodomites this and
Sodomites that. What about us Gomorrahians? We were there too; we
deserve some mention. Sodom always gets the credit, and Gomorrah always
does the work." - JohnN in alt.religion.christian.episcopal
  #113  
Old February 22nd 05, 05:38 AM
Cathy Friedmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Priscilla Ballou" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Cathy Friedmann" wrote:

"KellyH" wrote in message
...
"gaubster2" wrote in message
oups.com...
Right, and you don't have to say it if you don't want to--in fact,
nobody does. The fact that it is said that way seems to bother

you??
Let's say that I think I pay too much in taxes (which I do). But I

am
compelled to go along with the plan or else I go to jail. Nobody is
compelling you to say the Pledge of Allegience. See the difference?

Paying taxes and saying the Pledge are completely different. Don't

you
have
to say the Pledge in public school? I did when I went. Granted, you

could
just mumble along, but you are still expected to say it.


In reality, you don't *have* to say it, though virtually everyone does.

And
thinking back, in 33 years of teaching, I can't actually think of a

single
kid who opted out. Its main function, IMO, is a way to bring a class
together at the start of a day, along w/ a statement of patriotism.


I have managed to make it to almost 52 years of age without once
reciting the Pledge of Alliegance. And, yes, I live in the US. I went
to private school, where we didn't have to say it, but I very young
decided that I would never say it until it was true. Until we have
liberty and justice for all, no pledge for this one!

Priscilla


Well, there's always one in the crowd! ;-P

Cathy


  #114  
Old February 22nd 05, 05:51 AM
Mary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Priscilla Ballou" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Cathy Friedmann" wrote:

"KellyH" wrote in message
...
"gaubster2" wrote in message
oups.com...
Right, and you don't have to say it if you don't want to--in fact,
nobody does. The fact that it is said that way seems to bother

you??
Let's say that I think I pay too much in taxes (which I do). But I

am
compelled to go along with the plan or else I go to jail. Nobody is
compelling you to say the Pledge of Allegience. See the difference?

Paying taxes and saying the Pledge are completely different. Don't

you
have
to say the Pledge in public school? I did when I went. Granted, you

could
just mumble along, but you are still expected to say it.


In reality, you don't *have* to say it, though virtually everyone does.

And
thinking back, in 33 years of teaching, I can't actually think of a

single
kid who opted out. Its main function, IMO, is a way to bring a class
together at the start of a day, along w/ a statement of patriotism.


I have managed to make it to almost 52 years of age without once
reciting the Pledge of Alliegance. And, yes, I live in the US. I went
to private school, where we didn't have to say it, but I very young
decided that I would never say it until it was true. Until we have
liberty and justice for all, no pledge for this one!


You rock, Priscilla. Stay you.


  #115  
Old February 22nd 05, 07:23 AM
-L.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Priscilla Ballou wrote:

I have managed to make it to almost 52 years of age without once
reciting the Pledge of Alliegance. And, yes, I live in the US. I

went
to private school, where we didn't have to say it, but I very young
decided that I would never say it until it was true. Until we have
liberty and justice for all, no pledge for this one!

Priscilla


Good for you!~ I quit reciting it in first grade. I thought it was BS
then.

-L.

  #116  
Old February 22nd 05, 07:25 AM
-L.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


gaubster2 wrote:
snip


Sure thing, I've trumped your pathetic arguments and you've got to

go!


Nope. Just no point in arguing with somebody who is so obviously a
typical bigot.

-L.

  #117  
Old February 23rd 05, 03:49 PM
David Grossmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


gaubster2 wrote:
Cathy Friedmann wrote:
"gaubster2" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cathy Friedmann wrote:


What kind of harm are you referencing? Property rights?


You think the only way to harm a person is via physical harm?

(Hint:
you
used the word "bodily".)


You still haven't answer my question. Typical.

You don't think there's anything wrong w/ promoting prayer in the

public
schools because it would coincide with *your* personal beliefs.

Nevermind
the fact that it wouldn't coincide with many *other* people's

beliefs. If
it's good enough for you, it's good enough for all? (That's a

rhetorical
question, & the answer is nope.)


I never said that you should PROMOTE prayer in schools. I just don't
think it should be BANNED. We're going in circles here and a number

of
you think you have me pegged and you don't. I don't neccessarily
disagree with you.

It appears that you aren't considering the fact that the public is

extremely
diverse in its beliefs, & their tax dollars are funding the public

schools.
Not only is not everyone religious, but of those who are religious,

not
everyone is Christian (gasp!).


I'll go you one further. I think we should shut down the Dept. of
Education because the government school system is an abject failure.
Then nobody can complain that we're wasting their tax dollars

teaching
kids something that the parents don't believe in.

Nevermind the fact that public schools are secular places, not

religious
ones. If you want prayer in school, & if you prefer that prayer to

be
Christian oriented, then feel free to support private Christian

schools. No
problem there.


You and I don't disagree on that point. However, I don't believe

that
schools should neccessarily be secular. Where's the benefit to that?

I have no
problem with a moment of silence in public school so the kids

can
silently
pray, meditate, collect their thoughts, or do nothing. I

have
a
BIG
problem
with an out-loud prayer or the teacher saying "let's pray".

Yep & yep.

Cathy

Yeah, because that is SOOOOOOOO dangerous! Not.


See above. The public schools are secular. Secular, not

religious.
Separation of Church & State, you know??

Here's where you and others step in it. THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE. I DEFY you or anybody to show me where in the
Constitution it states that. Once again, we have freedom OF

religion,
NOT freedom FROM religion. You can practice your life as paganistic

or
as secularistic as you want. And others can live their lives the way
they want. You don't have the right to NOT be offended. Why is
everybody afraid of God anyway?


The phrase "freedom of religion" is NOT in the constitution either, so
according to your logic, if the phrase itself is not in the
constitution, then the principle is invalid. That logic rules out
freedom of religion, doesn't it? I DEFY you to show me where the phrase
"freedom OF religion" is found in the constitution. I want the exact
phrase, please, just as you stated it above, verbatim. If the phrase is
not in the constitution, then per your logic the principle it states
doesn't exist either. You don't have the right to NOT be offended so if
the secularists predominate the schools, tough. Your own words: YOU
don't have the right NOT to be offended so let's go homosexual
marriages, porn-TV, and all the other little goodies! Anyway, here is
an earlier post...

David
The phrase "freedom of religion=AD" is NOT in the constitution.
There are limits to the practice of religion. For example,
bigamy is outlawed in our country and people who believe in
it are often "persecuted" by the state for practicing it.
Parents who refuse medical treatment for =ADtheir children on
religious grounds are sometimes prosecuted for t=ADheir actions.
In the South, those who wish to handle snakes as a =ADshow of faith
are sometimes singled out for "harrassment" by law enf=ADorcement
officials.

There is no such thing as a completely unfettered freedom of
religion in this country and there is nothing in the constit=ADution
that
even implies there is unfettered freedom of religion. There =ADare those



who believe homosexuals should be killed but the law prohibi=ADts them
from acting out on those beliefs. There are some who believe=AD all
Christians should observe the Saturday Sabbath but they are =ADrendered
powerless by the government from imposing that belief on oth=ADers.
Still
others believe heretics should be killed but there are laws =ADthat keep



them from carrying these penalties out. In short, there is n=ADo such
thing as total unfettered freedom of religion in the constit=ADution and



since the phrase itself doesn't even appear in the constitut=ADion any
inference drawn from that particular phrase is invalid.


The phrase itself is an inference, and is in the same catego=ADry as
freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Freedom of the pr=ADess and
speech are not unfettered either, as there are laws that pro=ADhibit
certain kinds of speech in certain circumstances. Certainly =AD"freedom
of
the press" (an inference from the constitution) doesn't mean=AD we are
NOT
free from the press, no more than "freedom of speech" means =ADwe are
NOT
free from speech. We certainly have freedom FROM speech if w=ADe so
desire
and are not required to submit to any speech nor to have to =ADlisten to



any speech we deem offensive.


Just as freedom of speech has its limits (imagine if no one =ADwas
guaranteed freedom ~from~ speech, then atheists would be all=ADowed to
enter churches and speak out during the services without leg=ADal
liability) so does any supposed freedom of religion. Since =ADthe
phrase
is not found in the constitution we must rely on inferences =ADand there



is absolutely nothing in the constitution that demands we MU=ADST have a



religion.


Moreover, there is nothing in the constitution that denies
us the freedom FROM religion. True freedom of religion canno=ADt be had
if
we must choose a religion, even one that denies our basic b=ADeliefs or



principles. Those who infer the principle of freedom of reli=ADgion from



the constitution are wrong when they claim the principle of =ADfreedom
of
religon denies us the freedom from religion. Such a belief i=ADs
mean-spirited and dangerous and must be opposed. Naturally t=ADhose who
don't care about the feelings of others will complain if the=ADy are
opposed and will call such opposition "persecution" but that=AD is okay.



It has always been a tradition of some Christians to scream
"persecution" at every opportunity. We get used to it.


The principles found in the constitution do not prohibit one=AD from
seeking out the religion of their choice, as long as any law=ADs of the
land are not broken, but the priniple is clear that we all h=ADave the
freedom to refuse religion as well. There is no true freedom=AD of
religion when you have no freedom to refuse one. Just as fre=ADedom to
choose good includes the freedom to refuse good (free-will i=ADs a basic



tenent of Christianity) so the freedom of religion inferred =ADfrom the
constitution grants us the freedom to choose no religion.


The phrase "freedom of religion but not freedom from religio=ADn" has
become sort of a mantra among evangelicals but it so obvious=ADly wrong
and mean-spirited that it is not meant to speak truth but to=AD destroy
the real freedom that Christianity was built on. That freedo=ADm -
freewill and the freedom to choose or not to choose a religi=ADon is
inherent within Christianity itself. The founding fathers we=ADre well
acquanted with this Christian principle of free will and the=ADre is
absolutely nothing in the Constitution that denies us the ri=ADght to
practice free will, even if that free will leads us to refus=ADe
religion.
Lastly, there is nothing in the Constitution that claims we =ADare not
free from religion. Our freedoms are not freedoms at all if =ADwe do not



have the basic human right to choose according to our consci=ADence.
Even
pure Christianity gives you that much.


In summary:
Don't let the soi-disant Christians that inhabit the fringe bully
you into silence. These fools think that the Constitution
guarantees only people who believe in God rights. They believe the
constitution guarantees ~only~ freedom OF religion but since the phrase

"freedom of religion" isn't even in the constitution, any inference
drawn from the phrase itself is useless for determing what isn't or
what is allowed.


Just because the constitution doesn't specifically spell out in
excruciating detail that we are allowed certain things doesn't mean we
do not have the right to those things or the freedom from choosing
certain things.


Fallacious Argument A: If the constitution doesn't specifically say we
have freedom FROM X (where X can be anything of importance) than we
don't have freedom FROM X.

Examples..
The constitution doesn't guarantee us freedom FROM porn, therefore we
don't have freedom FROM porn.

The constitution doesn't gurantee us freedom FROM speech so we don't
have freedom FROM speech (athiests could enter churches and exercise
their free speech rights without fear of legal penalties).

  #118  
Old February 24th 05, 01:51 AM
Floppy Hat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There is "pesky evidence"? Such as? Why not share with us this
scientific evidence of the parting of the Red Sea? the burning bush?
and a couple of the etc's.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Article: Cat who put owner in hospital from bite wounds to be destroyed. kaeli Cat health & behaviour 126 May 17th 04 02:26 PM
How declawing saved my cat's life and gave him 6 more years (and counting) He Who Walks Cat health & behaviour 292 January 7th 04 08:04 PM
Declawing: glad I took the time [email protected] Cat health & behaviour 247 November 10th 03 05:12 PM
Unbelievable BS! WRT declawing from the SFVMA [email protected] Cat health & behaviour 6 September 29th 03 04:04 PM
OMG! One more reason to NOT declaw... Sherry Cat health & behaviour 374 August 22nd 03 08:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.