Church Minister Remonstrates Liberalism

[Atlanteax]

I saw this posted on the Gemstone forums. The original author said that he got it in an email. I don't know about the validity of this story, but I'm inclined to think it was true.

I agreed with his analogies (except #3, am Pro-Choice), but his final remonstration was overboard and detracted from his "message".

.

When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:

"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it
enlightenment.
Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Liberalism is a mental Disorder, Amen!"

The response was immediate. A number of liberal legislators walked out during the prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively. The church is now receiving international requests for copies ! of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Atlanteax]

[Latrinsorm]

Those wacky Protestants.

[Ravenstorm]

Interesting how shooting 'abortionist' is a mark of liberalism. Obviously, everything he disagrees with is the fault of everyone except himself and his cronies.

Anyway, according to Snopes this is accurate except it happened in 1996.

Raven

[Ravenstorm]

Actually... correction.

A little more research shows that the original so-called 'prayer' didn't make mention liberalism at all. That's just an addition by someone who's listened to Rush too often.

Raven

[Dwarven Empath]

"We have killed our unborn and called it choice."


Yes we have.

But that's a good thing. Planned parenting teaching's would of been better, but you have to do what you have to do.

They let you smoke cigarettes, but its against the law to jump of a bridge.

To me, both are the same, just one does it quicker. Your choice right?

I am a very very pro-choice person.

I could not even begin to think of a world that wasn't pro-choice. Makes me sick to even think about it.

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, the highest court in the land right now is hearing right to die based on Oregon. I'm quite interested to hear how that turns out, since I know i most definitely would never want to live on dialysis.

-M

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Actually, the highest court in the land right now is hearing right to die based on Oregon. I'm quite interested to hear how that turns out, since I know i most definitely would never want to live on dialysis.

-M

Agreed, I most certainly hope that the Supreme Court reaches a decision where "assisted suicide" is legal.

I fear for anyone that takes that guy seriously.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Actually, the highest court in the land right now is hearing right to die based on Oregon. I'm quite interested to hear how that turns out, since I know i most definitely would never want to live on dialysis.

-M

In most jurisdictions, that's a choice that lies with you right now, hon. Nobody can be forced to undergo dialysis. It requires your consent. A significant number of people decide against it.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by HarmNone
In most jurisdictions, that's a choice that lies with you right now, hon. Nobody can be forced to undergo dialysis. It requires your consent. A significant number of people decide against it.

I don't think that's her point.

Certainly she can't be forced to hook up, but she would have to take suicide into her own hands if she became terminal. In doing so it would negatate anything her beneficiaries would recieve.

The legislation takes assisted suicide into consideration and since it would be state sanctioned, the insurance companies would have to pay out.

If a person is terminal and lucid, it should be their right and those they chose as beneficiaries should not get shafted.

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by HarmNone
In most jurisdictions, that's a choice that lies with you right now, hon. Nobody can be forced to undergo dialysis. It requires your consent. A significant number of people decide against it.

I don't think that's her point.

Certainly she can't be forced to hook up, but she would have to take suicide into her own hands if she became terminal. In doing so it would negatate anything her beneficiaries would recieve.

The legislation takes assisted suicide into consideration and since it would be state sanctioned, the insurance companies would have to pay out.

If a person is terminal and lucid, it should be their right and those they chose as beneficiaries should get shafted.

I'd certainly agree that this is a choice that should lie with the individual. However, it's important to realize that, in some cases the choice DOES lie with the individual, and a person who chooses not to accept dialysis (I've had a few in hospice) are kept comfortable at the end of their lives.

I'd much rather, of course, see them given the right to ask that their end be brought more quickly through medical means. However, since that is currently forbidden them, it is still possible for them to die with dignity and without undue pain.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
If a person is terminal and lucid, it should be their right and those they chose as beneficiaries should get shafted.Assuming this is meant to say "should not" in keeping with the theme of the rest of your post, how do you differentiate between assisted suicide and regular suicide? By which I mean: all life is terminal, and all life is painful. How can you treat a person who refuses extraordinary means of resuscitation and the misguided individual who blew himself up outside the OU football stadium differently in terms of inheritance (or whatever it was you were describing)?

[Warriorbird]

I don't. If they don't harm anyone else more power to them.

[ElanthianSiren]

Dignity is not swelling up like a corpse in the summer due to fluid retention. I have to disagree there. Oregon is a landmark state for their stance IMO.

Latrin, I think it's fairly easy to delineate a person who has a documented, life threatening chronic condition from someone who does not. When your kidneys start to fail due to diabetes 1, that is the beginning of the end. There is no going back. There is only making it a less painful and disgusting way to die without being AMA.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Actually, the highest court in the land right now is hearing right to die based on Oregon. I'm quite interested to hear how that turns out, since I know i most definitely would never want to live on dialysis.

-M

I would never want to live in Oregon.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Assuming this is meant to say "should not" in keeping with the theme of the rest of your post, how do you differentiate between assisted suicide and regular suicide? By which I mean: all life is terminal, and all life is painful.

Stop right there spanky. You're just pulling at philosophical strings when you already know the answer.

Yes, everyone is going to die and everyone experiences pain. You jump over the threshold of ignorance with the question as the pain of everyday life can not be justifiably compared to a person suffering from a terminal disease. Life is terminal over time, a terminal illness cuts into that time drastically.


How can you treat a person who refuses extraordinary means of resuscitation and the misguided individual who blew himself up outside the OU football stadium differently in terms of inheritance (or whatever it was you were describing)?

The person who choses a DNR is making a legally acceptable choice. Were you to ask how is a person accepting a lethal injection of a pain killer any different than a person who choses to take or endanger the lives around them ... well that should be obvious.

One is almost, if not an example of, terrorism. Sure, they may not have had backing from a politically motivated source, but their intent was to gain notice and cause harm ... thus infringe upon another person's life.

The other is deciding not to live in pain only to die when the disease takes total control of the body. We're not talking a nut shot pain, or hammer on the thumbnail pain, we're talking about the pain of death.

Remove your head from your ass and remember that mom, dad, and teacher lied to you when they said that dumb questions did not exist.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Latrin, I think it's fairly easy to delineate a person who has a documented, life threatening chronic condition from someone who does not. My point was that as soon as someone is born, that is "the beginning of the end". I personally consider a life ending in (judging from my family history and place in society) schizophrenia or cancer to probably be painful and extremely disgusting, both in a physical and philosophical sense. This is the McCoy paradox: a life that will end in nothing but agony and torment today is a life that can be saved tomorrow through advances in medical science. I'm sure you're more educated about diabetes than I, but don't you have to concede that it's possible that a miracle cure be found tomorrow that would repair your hypothetical kidneys or even prevent bodily failure from occuring altogether? If so, how can you possibly say that that sort of suicide is any different from a person who, while not physically diseased, simply finds life unbearable?
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
The person who choses a DNR is making a legally acceptable choice.What's legal is utterly unimportant when we're considering what is moral. I hope I don't have to provide examples of this to convince you.
but their intent was to gain notice and cause harm I haven't heard anything since yesterday on the subject, but I was under the impression his death was ruled a suicide and not terrorism. If this has changed, forget I brought him up and just consider a hypothetical physically healthy person who takes his or her own life.
You jump over the threshold of ignorance with the question as the pain of everyday life can not be justifiably compared to a person suffering from a terminal disease.I don't think my or your everyday life contains that sort of pain, no. When I think of the mother who lost her only child to drug use, or the father whose wife killed his three children, I'm not so sure.

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[Tsa`ah]

Stop comparing a criminal act to a humane act and maybe, just maybe, you'll start to see the differences.

We're not talking about grief driven suicide, nor are we talking about mental illness. We're talking about the lucid, but terminal making a choice for themselves that should not have a negative impact on their status post mortum, or their beneficiaries.

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[CrystalTears]

Surprisingly enough, I don't really have a problem with assisted-suicide.

If I were deathly ill and it was just a matter of time, I'd want the death to be quick and painless too, and spare my family the suffering and get them moving on sooner rather than see me deteriorate.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
We're talking about the lucid, but terminal making a choice for themselves that should not have a negative impact on their status post mortum, or their beneficiaries. I think you're using an extremely illogical definition of lucid. If it is true that physical pain is more debilitating than emotional pain, someone cannot possibly be more lucid when affected by the former. If it is not true, an escape from the former cannot possibly be more permissible than an escape from the latter.
Stop comparing a criminal act to a humane act Conversely, I'd say people with a terminal disease are treated a hell of a lot better than people with a mental disease, so preventing the latter from incarceration in a hospital would necessarily be more humane than the former.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

My point was that as soon as someone is born, that is "the beginning of the end". I personally consider a life ending in (judging from my family history and place in society) schizophrenia or cancer to probably be painful and extremely disgusting, both in a physical and philosophical sense. This is the McCoy paradox: a life that will end in nothing but agony and torment today is a life that can be saved tomorrow through advances in medical science. I'm sure you're more educated about diabetes than I, but don't you have to concede that it's possible that a miracle cure be found tomorrow that would repair your hypothetical kidneys or even prevent bodily failure from occuring altogether? If so, how can you possibly say that that sort of suicide is any different from a person who, while not physically diseased, simply finds life unbearable?

I understood your point. In counterpoint, let's take that person off dialysis and see how long they live compared to you. You are looking at the predicament with the eyes of someone who has many years to live a full life. You can't judge one by the other.

Further, kidney tissue does not regenerate. Beyond that, for your position to have any type of "base" in the medical technology field, you would have to openly support stem cell research, which the united states does not, due largely to the same group of people opposed to the right to death.

A chronically-ill person must make the best decisions about life available to them. You, and those who share your view, ask people who are terminally sick to spend spend spend more money to exist in repulsive conditions, then corner them into those conditions by threatening their beneficiaries. It's sad and a travesty, so no, you will not get me to conceed any point you make here.


-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
you would have to openly support stem cell researchEven assuming I flatly didn't support stem cell research, there is and always will be plenty of research being done. Embryonic stem cell research (which I do oppose) is not the be-all end-all of either stem cell research or medical science in general.
You, and those who share your view, ask people who are terminally sick to spend spend spend more money to exist in repulsive conditions, then corner them into those conditions by threatening their beneficiaries.Uh, my contention was "how do you differentiate between assisted suicide and regular suicide?" not "physically sick people should stfu". I've never threatened anyone's beneficiaries, nor have I ever asked a terminally ill person to spend money on anything. And for future reference, I don't kill puppies or punch old ladies in the mouth either.

[HarmNone]

Latrinsorm, have you ever watched someone die, slowly and painfully, from an incurable disease...a disease they did not ask for, did not create, and would not have chosen no matter how many other hardships life handed them?

[Atlanteax]

The only reason suicide has been deemed immoral/illegal is because ever since the dawn of the debter/lender relationship...

... the lenders needed a method to ensure that the debtors does not shrink from their obligations by subsequently killing themselves (and leaving the creditors hanging)

... this contributed to it being LAW that suicide is illegal

... meanwhile, organized religion came along and provided a humane basis of reasoning for the above rational (keeping people from killing themself to avoid having to pay their debt)

... the Church's involvement gained strength as the Church became increasingly involved in politics and also wealthy (and were on the side of being the creditors)

... thus it was in the Church's best interest to ensure that followers of the religion are taught to believe that suicide is IMMORAL

.

This is why the Church is adamantly opposed to assisted suicide

... as it can be logically deducted that once assisted suicide gains acceptance (as a form of relieving individuals from great pain and suffering where medicine cannot realistically intervene)

... then suicide itself would gradually become acceptable

... which would then threaten the moral basis of ensuring that debtors cannot avoid paying their debts by killing themselves

With the Church's argument of suicide being immoral, it remains illegal in law.

.

Of course now, in modern times, separation of Church and State is acknowledged to be an important virtue in a healthy society.

Also, the Church no longer wields such economic clout as it used to in the Classical Period (Roman Empire is best example of a rich and greedy Church institution).

Those with a vested interest in ensuring that suicide remains illegal (ie the banking industry) will try to utilize how the Church views suicide as immoral, so as to preserve the status quo (to ensure that debts cannot avoid their debts).

.

I am of the opinion that suicide is not necessarily "immoral" in that it is the choice of the individual to make ... especially if they believe that their quality of life will not improve but continue to decline.

Meanwhile, I hope that this is a battle that the Church (and the banking industry) will lose.

.

(I suppose that's one of the liberal aspects of my philosophical disposition)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Latrinsorm, have you ever watched someone die, slowly and painfully, from an incurable disease...a disease they did not ask for, did not create, and would not have chosen no matter how many other hardships life handed them? She's not dead yet, but she's certainly dying. I'm not quite sure which one you mean with the way you phrased that.

Moreover, I'm not at all sure how you think that's an appropriate question, nor why you wouldn't bother examining the other side of the coin.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't think HN stated me specifically in her question.

-M

edit: I don't think she meant me specifically because of her background. HN used to be a nurse, I believe.

[Edited on Thu, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
This is the McCoy paradox: a life that will end in nothing but agony and torment today is a life that can be saved tomorrow through advances in medical science. I'm sure you're more educated about diabetes than I, but don't you have to concede that it's possible that a miracle cure be found tomorrow that would repair your hypothetical kidneys or even prevent bodily failure from occuring altogether? If so, how can you possibly say that that sort of suicide is any different from a person who, while not physically diseased, simply finds life unbearable?

Yes and god could come down and touch thier head personally and make them better also, but the likelihood of it happening tomorrow is small.

The pain and misery and degredation that some are willing to force others to exist in so that they can feel better about themselves leaves me at a loss. To justify it by saying a miracle could happen is after a point is just insulting.

[DeV]

And what are the odds that those who don't have the best medical insurance, no medical insurance to even speak of, or are in a desperate financial situation will have that fantasy cure readily at their disposal once it is discovered?

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I don't think HN stated me specifically in her question.

-M

edit: I don't think she meant me specifically because of her background. HN used to be a nurse, I believe.

[Edited on Thu, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

Correct, ES. I didn't mean you specifically. I still hold an RN, but I now am in charge of hospice care. I've watched plenty of people come to the end of their lives.

The question was asked because I find it a bit ludicrous for someone who has never witnessed such a death to propound on how it should be done, to be frank about it.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by HarmNone
Latrinsorm, have you ever watched someone die, slowly and painfully, from an incurable disease...a disease they did not ask for, did not create, and would not have chosen no matter how many other hardships life handed them? She's not dead yet, but she's certainly dying. I'm not quite sure which one you mean with the way you phrased that.

Moreover, I'm not at all sure how you think that's an appropriate question, nor why you wouldn't bother examining the other side of the coin.

As I said, I wasn't discussing ES.

What I meant was exactly what I asked. Have you ever witnessed a prolonged and painful death from incurable disease? There's no hidden meaning in that questions, and nothing should be read into it. The question is simple. The answer should be as well. It's either "yes" or "no", and I find it very appropriate, since you're choosing to moralize for others about whether or not they have the "moral" right to choose whether to die in pain and degradation, or simply, painlessly and with dignity.

You may speak for your own moral stance, but who gave you the right to speak for the moral stance of others?

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by HarmNone]

[Back]

What I find interesting about the whole thing is that...


liberalism

n 1: a political orientation that favors progress and reform 2: an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard

And this is totally off-topic now because its clear the letter was not a message about liberals, and the bit at the end was added as Raven says. But the true definition of Liberalism is markedly similar to the rhetoric of the so-called conservative republican party. In the president’s own words, “What went right and what went wrong?”

To be a conservative means to be cautious, by definition, but invading a country with no WMDs and ties to Al Queda doesn’t seem like a prudent plan.

Although I find some merit to the preacher’s sermon that started this thread, I have taken away much more by investigating what was put forth as didactic diatribe.

[Terminator X]

There was this Spanish kid in my high school named Joe Wright and whenever we used to call him a dirty Mexican he used to utter what should have been the world-reknown coined phrase "I'M NOT NO MEJIIICAN! I'M EEEEEEHHHNNGLEESH!"

Oh well, I guess it's fire and brimstone for me. Sorry Joe :shrug:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
As I said, I wasn't discussing ES. Nor was I. What was that someone posted about assuming?
to propound on how it should be done
since you're choosing to moralize for others about whether or not they have the "moral" right to choose whether to die in pain and degradation, or simply, painlessly and with dignity.Someone's got a bad case of the WBs. Had you read what I posted a bit more carefully, you would have realized that in no way did I ever state "how it should be done". What I was actually doing was discussing how one could logically discern between the assisted suicide of a terminally ill person and the suicide of a physically healthy person.

My best guess is *you* find a non-assisted suicide to be immoral and somehow concluded that not only do *I* as well, but that *I* believe the two types of suicide are identical and therefore assisted suicide is immoral. To which my response is:
You may speak for your own moral stance, but who gave you the right to speak for the moral stance of others?

[CrystalTears]

From a moral standpoint, I understand where Latrinsorm is coming from. Suicide is suicide, and is the act of destroying a life before it's ready to go on it's own, regardless of how soon one person is going to die over another.

So I can understand wanting to know why helping a sick person die sooner is okay but someone taking their own life who is miserable on general principle is not.

Although I don't have a problem with any kind of suicide. If someone doesn't want to be living anymore that badly to want to end it, that's their choice and not my place to make them stay.

[Warriorbird]

I don't have a problem with any kind of suicide. If someone doesn't want to be living anymore that badly to want to end it, that's their choice and not my place to make them stay.

That pretty much covers my views of the matter.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
[quote]Originally posted by HarmNone
As I said, I wasn't discussing ES. Nor was I. What was that someone posted about assuming?
to propound on how it should be done

In one of your quotes, you make reference to a female after a post of mine, which gave the impression it was to me.

-M


last posto n the first page

[Edited on Fri, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

I don't have a problem with any kind of suicide. If someone doesn't want to be living anymore that badly to want to end it, that's their choice and not my place to make them stay.

That pretty much covers my views of the matter.

I, too, agree with that take on the issue.

[Gan]

I think assisted suicide being legal is a great conservation of financial and healthcare resources.

Go Kevorkian!

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
In one of your quotes, you make reference to a female after a post of mine, which gave the impression it was to me.The only post I used "she" in followed a post by Atlanteax. I honestly have no idea why anyone thought I was talking about you (not that I don't care about you).

[Back]

Originally posted by HarmNone

Originally posted by Warriorbird

I don't have a problem with any kind of suicide. If someone doesn't want to be living anymore that badly to want to end it, that's their choice and not my place to make them stay.

That pretty much covers my views of the matter.

I, too, agree with that take on the issue.

I’m going to have to disagree... not for any religious reasons.

Suicide affects more people than just the one committing the act. Namely, family.

Its definitely a complex non-black-and-white issue. We could dissect it all night with so many variables and examples.

I agree that SOME suicides are fitting, but there certainly are many many others that are a waste.

[Warriorbird]

It's an issue of rights within one's life.