Another child dies in Faith Healing Church

[oregonpackfan]

Yesterday, a 16 year old boy in Oregon City died as a result of complications from a simple blockage in his urinary tract. Because of the blockage, he was unable to urinate, and he died from the buildup of toxins in his urine.

A medical examiner determined a simple, out-patient, medical procedure would have cleared up the blockage and saved his life. Because he is a member of the Followers of Christ Church, he and his parents declined any type of medical help. Instead, 60 members of the church gathered around him in group faith healing through prayer.

Last month, a 15 month old girl from the same church died from pneumonia when her parents refused medical care. They insisted that prayer alone would heal her. Doctors maintain that simple antibiotics would have cleared up her pneumonia.

There are dozens of children buried in the church's cemetery since 1950. In a study done in '98, reporters concluded 21 of the children would have survived through simple medical practices.

This begs the question: Should state protective services intervene in the church or should it observe the freedom of religion clause in our government and just stay away?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1213854908157310.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

[BallHawk]

If it's something as simple as antibiotics or a quick surgery then the state should be able to intervene. However, if it's something more complex and the chances of success are less certain than the state should leave that decision in the hands of the parents.

[hoosier]

Yesterday, a 16 year old boy in Oregon City died as a result of complications from a simple blockage in his urinary tract. Because of the blockage, he was unable to urinate, and he died from the buildup of toxins in his urine.

A medical examiner determined a simple, out-patient, medical procedure would have cleared up the blockage and saved his life. Because he is a member of the Followers of Christ Church, he and his parents declined any type of medical help. Instead, 60 members of the church gathered around him in group faith healing through prayer.

Last month, a 15 month old girl from the same church died from pneumonia when her parents refused medical care. They insisted that prayer alone would heal her. Doctors maintain that simple antibiotics would have cleared up her pneumonia.

There are dozens of children buried in the church's cemetery since 1950. In a study done in '98, reporters concluded 21 of the children would have survived through simple medical practices.

This begs the question: Should state protective services intervene in the church or should it observe the freedom of religion clause in our government and just stay away?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1213854908157310.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

"Freedom of religion", in my understanding, has first and foremost meant no official state religion. It also implies a minimal amount of interference between government and religion, but in this case it seems to me that there's a pretty clearcut argument that the risk of endangerment outweighs religious freedom. This sect has the freedom to practice whatever it wants only so long as it doesn't put others at risk or compromise their liberty, and since minors aren't considered full legal subjects capable of making decisions in their best interests, the parents or guardians would be responsible for ensuring their health. If they fail to do so, the state can step in.

[Deputy Nutz]

Well, at least these bastards are killing themselves off before it gets out of hand.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Yesterday, a 16 year old boy in Oregon City died as a result of complications from a simple blockage in his urinary tract. Because of the blockage, he was unable to urinate, and he died from the buildup of toxins in his urine.

A medical examiner determined a simple, out-patient, medical procedure would have cleared up the blockage and saved his life. Because he is a member of the Followers of Christ Church, he and his parents declined any type of medical help. Instead, 60 members of the church gathered around him in group faith healing through prayer.

Last month, a 15 month old girl from the same church died from pneumonia when her parents refused medical care. They insisted that prayer alone would heal her. Doctors maintain that simple antibiotics would have cleared up her pneumonia.

There are dozens of children buried in the church's cemetery since 1950. In a study done in '98, reporters concluded 21 of the children would have survived through simple medical practices.

This begs the question: Should state protective services intervene in the church or should it observe the freedom of religion clause in our government and just stay away?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1213854908157310.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

"Freedom of religion", in my understanding, has first and foremost meant no official state religion. It also implies a minimal amount of interference between government and religion, but in this case it seems to me that there's a pretty clearcut argument that the risk of endangerment outweighs religious freedom. This sect has the freedom to practice whatever it wants only so long as it doesn't put others at risk or compromise their liberty, and since minors aren't considered full legal subjects capable of making decisions in their best interests, the parents or guardians would be responsible for ensuring their health. If they fail to do so, the state can step in.

I would have to agree. Especially since we don't have freedom of religion. I think the mormons or anyone that wants a plural marriage would agree.

And, there is no good reason against it...or rather, no good legal reason against plural marriage.

[Bretsky]

send the parents to jail for stupidity

[red]

isn't this a clear case a child neglect?

i said the same thing in the last thread. the parents and pastor should be sent to jail

and how are these people that dumb? all those kids since the 50's have died, yet they still believe prayer will heal them.

i almost agree with nuts, at least they're doing it to there own to help stop the spread of stupidity

[MJZiggy]

When are these people going to realize that perhaps God's way of saving these kids is to give the doctors the tools and knowledge to do it for Him?

I think they should plug the parents so they can know how their child died needlessly.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

When are these people going to realize that perhaps God's way of saving these kids is to give the doctors the tools and knowledge to do it for Him?

I think they should plug the parents so they can know how their child died needlessly.

God called this special child to heaven. Who are you to question his ways?

[mraynrand]

God called this special child to heaven. Who are you to question his ways?

Mr. Bigguns: the reliable source for discerning the will of God.

[MJZiggy]

Especially since he keeps offering to show me what he's compensating for...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

God called this special child to heaven. Who are you to question his ways?

Mr. Bigguns: the reliable source for discerning the will of God.

Are you questioning the will of god. If their is a god, then didn't what transpire because that is how god wanted it?

Perhaps god imbued tyrone with the ability to see his role in our lives. Are you suggesting that god couldn't do that?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Especially since he keeps offering to show me what he's compensating for...

God made my body. Everything god makes is beautiful. I want you to see god's beauty.

Don't shun what god has created.

[MJZiggy]

Thanks, if I wanna see what God created, I'll go take that Grand Canyon/Yosemite trip I've always wanted to do.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Thanks, if I wanna see what God created, I'll go take that Grand Canyon/Yosemite trip I've always wanted to do.

Perfect. I live in AZ..i'll meet you there...show you the 15th wonder of the world (a little modesty). :oops:

[mraynrand]

God called this special child to heaven. Who are you to question his ways?

Mr. Bigguns: the reliable source for discerning the will of God.

Are you questioning the will of god. If their is a god, then didn't what transpire because that is how god wanted it?

Perhaps god imbued tyrone with the ability to see his role in our lives. Are you suggesting that god couldn't do that?

Why ask me? You already seem to have the answer, Mr. 'Fifteenth Wonder.'

[MJZiggy]

Thanks, if I wanna see what God created, I'll go take that Grand Canyon/Yosemite trip I've always wanted to do.

Perfect. I live in AZ..i'll meet you there...show you the 15th wonder of the world (a little modesty). :oops:

So you're bringing Victoria Falls with you? That's quite a feat...

http://www.hillmanwonders.com/

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Thanks, if I wanna see what God created, I'll go take that Grand Canyon/Yosemite trip I've always wanted to do.

Perfect. I live in AZ..i'll meet you there...show you the 15th wonder of the world (a little modesty). :oops:

So you're bringing Victoria Falls with you? That's quite a feat...

http://www.hillmanwonders.com/

Well, my "output" does seem to flow like the falls.

Forgive me. :cry:

[MJZiggy]

I think that one might have been unforgivable. TMI. Blech.

[mraynrand]

I think that one might have been unforgivable. TMI. Blech.

Agreed. With stuff like this from Tyrone "Mr. Fifteenth Wonder" Bigguns, one wonders if he shouldn't change his avatar and name to Herbert Marcuse and completely entertain his 'Polymorphous Perversity' in pursuit of the 'Pleasure Principle.'

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think that one might have been unforgivable. TMI. Blech.

Agreed. With stuff like this from Tyrone "Mr. Fifteenth Wonder" Bigguns, one wonders if he shouldn't change his avatar and name to Herbert Marcuse and completely entertain his 'Polymorphous Perversity' in pursuit of the 'Pleasure Principle.'

this coming from the guy extolling liberals to have a sense of humor?

There ain't much funny about German philosophers...nor sociology.

Though, from a guy who touts the virtues of Rand, not surprised that you find anything but the standard missionary position outside the norms.

Though, ya gotta respect any dude who can bag a woman 40 years his junior..regardless of politcal persuasion.

[mraynrand]

I think that one might have been unforgivable. TMI. Blech.

Agreed. With stuff like this from Tyrone "Mr. Fifteenth Wonder" Bigguns, one wonders if he shouldn't change his avatar and name to Herbert Marcuse and completely entertain his 'Polymorphous Perversity' in pursuit of the 'Pleasure Principle.'

this coming from the guy extolling liberals to have a sense of humor?

There ain't much funny about German philosophers...nor sociology.

Though, from a guy who touts the virtues of Rand, not surprised that you find anything but the standard missionary position outside the norms.

Though, ya gotta respect any dude who can bag a woman 40 years his junior..regardless of politcal persuasion.

That's right, 15th wonder, I'm lockstep with Ayn, right? If you've noticed it's pretty clear I'm not an atheists (like Rand). Certainly Rand would have nothing to do with 'missionaries' of any kind. Conservatives typically don't kiss and tell either, nor report their exploits (or fantasies, in your case) on the internet. But back to Rand. I don't have to believe everything she wrote to appreciate some of it. Think NUANCE, 15th. You libs are supposed to love that stuff.

[Zool]

Conservatives typically don't kiss and tell either

Cause their shenanigans are usually illegal?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think that one might have been unforgivable. TMI. Blech.

Agreed. With stuff like this from Tyrone "Mr. Fifteenth Wonder" Bigguns, one wonders if he shouldn't change his avatar and name to Herbert Marcuse and completely entertain his 'Polymorphous Perversity' in pursuit of the 'Pleasure Principle.'

this coming from the guy extolling liberals to have a sense of humor?

There ain't much funny about German philosophers...nor sociology.

Though, from a guy who touts the virtues of Rand, not surprised that you find anything but the standard missionary position outside the norms.

Though, ya gotta respect any dude who can bag a woman 40 years his junior..regardless of politcal persuasion.

That's right, 15th wonder, I'm lockstep with Ayn, right? If you've noticed it's pretty clear I'm not an atheists (like Rand). Certainly Rand would have nothing to do with 'missionaries' of any kind. Conservatives typically don't kiss and tell either, nor report their exploits (or fantasies, in your case) on the internet. But back to Rand. I don't have to believe everything she wrote to appreciate some of it. Think NUANCE, 15th. You libs are supposed to love that stuff.

Avatar says it all. Spin away my friend, spin away.

Don't kiss and tell. When would they have the time...to busy ferreting out what other people are doing behind closed doors..and then condemning them...all the while doing the same thing.

[mraynrand]

Don't kiss and tell. When would they have the time...to busy ferreting out what other people are doing behind closed doors..and then condemning them...all the while doing the same thing.

If you really believe that, I feel for ya. Most conservatives are too busy with their work, spouse, children, church, and volunteering to worry about 'ferreting' out other's behaviour behind closed doors. Anyway, we're much more worried about the crap the far lefties do out in the open.

Again, about the Rand issue - I guess the Bigguns can't handle nuance, even with something as uncomplicated and trivial as an avatar. Judge a book by it's cover is where you're coming from, I gather.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Don't kiss and tell. When would they have the time...to busy ferreting out what other people are doing behind closed doors..and then condemning them...all the while doing the same thing.

If you really believe that, I feel for ya. Most conservatives are too busy with their work, spouse, children, church, and volunteering to worry about 'ferreting' out other's behaviour behind closed doors. Anyway, we're much more worried about the crap the far lefties do out in the open.

Again, about the Rand issue - I guess the Bigguns can't handle nuance, even with something as uncomplicated and trivial as an avatar. Judge a book by it's cover is where you're coming from, I gather.

Really. Guess those laws on sodomy, republicans worrying about sex lives of others, etc...are just my imagination. Can't imagine any republicans/conservs interested in somone's sex life...perhaps you need to explain that to mr. starr.

Nuance: Not much nuance when you name yourself after rand. Perhaps you should really figure out the meaning of nuance..but, then again, nuance isn't really something conservatives understand or employ. Right and wrong, black and white...etc.

BTW, i guess those conservs aren't judging libs who do stuff out in the open...nah, they aren't judging a book by its cover. :roll:

[mraynrand]

Don't kiss and tell. When would they have the time...to busy ferreting out what other people are doing behind closed doors..and then condemning them...all the while doing the same thing.

If you really believe that, I feel for ya. Most conservatives are too busy with their work, spouse, children, church, and volunteering to worry about 'ferreting' out other's behaviour behind closed doors. Anyway, we're much more worried about the crap the far lefties do out in the open.

Again, about the Rand issue - I guess the Bigguns can't handle nuance, even with something as uncomplicated and trivial as an avatar. Judge a book by it's cover is where you're coming from, I gather.

Really. Guess those laws on sodomy, republicans worrying about sex lives of others, etc...are just my imagination. Can't imagine any republicans/conservs interested in somone's sex life...perhaps you need to explain that to mr. starr.

Nuance: Not much nuance when you name yourself after rand. Perhaps you should really figure out the meaning of nuance..but, then again, nuance isn't really something conservatives understand or employ. Right and wrong, black and white...etc.

BTW, i guess those conservs aren't judging libs who do stuff out in the open...nah, they aren't judging a book by its cover. :roll:

Most conservatives is what I wrote. I know a lot of conservatives and none of them are political activists. there's a difference between being concerned about morality issues and 'ferreting' them out in some sort of home invasion, which seems to be what you're thinking of. Regarding legislation, would you suggest that legislation not address any issues of morality? If not, then by what criteria does one draw the line?

Again about the avatar: So I should just assume that you're really just a crack smoking back guy? Really, your position on the avatar issue makes you look the fool.

Right and Wrong: is there right and wrong, Bigguns? Please tell us whether you believe in right and wrong. And if so, as I suggested above, please enlighten us on how you decide what is right and what is wrong. and if you feel there is no right or wrong, how can you judge anything or anyone?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Don't kiss and tell. When would they have the time...to busy ferreting out what other people are doing behind closed doors..and then condemning them...all the while doing the same thing.

If you really believe that, I feel for ya. Most conservatives are too busy with their work, spouse, children, church, and volunteering to worry about 'ferreting' out other's behaviour behind closed doors. Anyway, we're much more worried about the crap the far lefties do out in the open.

Again, about the Rand issue - I guess the Bigguns can't handle nuance, even with something as uncomplicated and trivial as an avatar. Judge a book by it's cover is where you're coming from, I gather.

Really. Guess those laws on sodomy, republicans worrying about sex lives of others, etc...are just my imagination. Can't imagine any republicans/conservs interested in somone's sex life...perhaps you need to explain that to mr. starr.

Nuance: Not much nuance when you name yourself after rand. Perhaps you should really figure out the meaning of nuance..but, then again, nuance isn't really something conservatives understand or employ. Right and wrong, black and white...etc.

BTW, i guess those conservs aren't judging libs who do stuff out in the open...nah, they aren't judging a book by its cover. :roll:

Most conservatives is what I wrote. I know a lot of conservatives and none of them are political activists. there's a difference between being concerned about morality issues and 'ferreting' them out in some sort of home invasion, which seems to be what you're thinking of. Regarding legislation, would you suggest that legislation not address any issues of morality? If not, then by what criteria does one draw the line?

Again about the avatar: So I should just assume that you're really just a crack smoking back guy? Really, your position on the avatar issue makes you look the fool.

Right and Wrong: is there right and wrong, Bigguns? Please tell us whether you believe in right and wrong. And if so, as I suggested above, please enlighten us on how you decide what is right and what is wrong. and if you feel there is no right or wrong, how can you judge anything or anyone?

1. Elected officials represent you..do they not. If we don't hear you admonishing them..then that is tacit approval.

2. Legislation. How do you intend to determine morality? I'm sure that at some time laws against sodomy, miscegenation, etc. were considered moral.

But, i'm all for it. Should we make laws against adultery? What about lying.

3. Avatar. My avatar is clearly a satire. Is yours. Nice try, but you lose on this one..well, lose again. Clearly no one takes me seriously as a crack smoking fictional tv character. Not much nuance there my lack of understanding of nuance friend. Is your avatar one of satire. No..it represents...according to you..some of your beliefs.

Let me spell it out for you, Rand is real person..tyrone bigguns is a character. See the difference.

4. Right and wrong. I leave that up to you conservatives...you never fail to tell us what is right and wrong.

As for judging..well, i always thought the point was that god was suppose to do that...not me.

[mraynrand]

Don't kiss and tell. When would they have the time...to busy ferreting out what other people are doing behind closed doors..and then condemning them...all the while doing the same thing.

If you really believe that, I feel for ya. Most conservatives are too busy with their work, spouse, children, church, and volunteering to worry about 'ferreting' out other's behaviour behind closed doors. Anyway, we're much more worried about the crap the far lefties do out in the open.

Again, about the Rand issue - I guess the Bigguns can't handle nuance, even with something as uncomplicated and trivial as an avatar. Judge a book by it's cover is where you're coming from, I gather.

Really. Guess those laws on sodomy, republicans worrying about sex lives of others, etc...are just my imagination. Can't imagine any republicans/conservs interested in somone's sex life...perhaps you need to explain that to mr. starr.

Nuance: Not much nuance when you name yourself after rand. Perhaps you should really figure out the meaning of nuance..but, then again, nuance isn't really something conservatives understand or employ. Right and wrong, black and white...etc.

BTW, i guess those conservs aren't judging libs who do stuff out in the open...nah, they aren't judging a book by its cover. :roll:

Most conservatives is what I wrote. I know a lot of conservatives and none of them are political activists. there's a difference between being concerned about morality issues and 'ferreting' them out in some sort of home invasion, which seems to be what you're thinking of. Regarding legislation, would you suggest that legislation not address any issues of morality? If not, then by what criteria does one draw the line?

Again about the avatar: So I should just assume that you're really just a crack smoking back guy? Really, your position on the avatar issue makes you look the fool.

Right and Wrong: is there right and wrong, Bigguns? Please tell us whether you believe in right and wrong. And if so, as I suggested above, please enlighten us on how you decide what is right and what is wrong. and if you feel there is no right or wrong, how can you judge anything or anyone?

1. Elected officials represent you..do they not. If we don't hear you admonishing them..then that is tacit approval.

2. Legislation. How do you intend to determine morality? I'm sure that at some time laws against sodomy, miscegenation, etc. were considered moral.

But, i'm all for it. Should we make laws against adultery? What about lying.

3. Avatar. My avatar is clearly a satire. Is yours. Nice try, but you lose on this one..well, lose again. Clearly no one takes me seriously as a crack smoking fictional tv character. Not much nuance there my lack of understanding of nuance friend. Is your avatar one of satire. No..it represents...according to you..some of your beliefs.

Let me spell it out for you, Rand is real person..tyrone bigguns is a character. See the difference.

4. Right and wrong. I leave that up to you conservatives...you never fail to tell us what is right and wrong.

As for judging..well, i always thought the point was that god was suppose to do that...not me.

What a barrage of floating abstractions and stolen concepts! It occurs to me that you really can't think straight.

1) Elected officials represent me? Really? Thanks for the primer on representative government. You're ready to teach 2nd grade.
2) Legislation against lying - in certain forms - exists. Ever heard of slander or libel? primitive. Maybe you're not ready for 2nd grade.
3) My avatar is a painting of a fictional character, John Galt. He doesn't exist. There is no 'Mraynrand' either. Ever see the movie "Good Will Hunting?" Recall the second scene between the Robin Williams character and the Matt Damon character and what Williams says about a painting? If not, check it out. See the difference? Obviously not.
4) I'd be happy to help you with right and wrong, because I really think you're lost. You don't even know the difference between judgment among men and judgment by God. That's lost. Recall Christ saying "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." You know, separate magisteria? I'll help you out by putting it in terms a lib can comprehend: It's like separation of church and state. For someone who makes generalized statements about all the religions of the world in his tag line, you would think you could get the judgment part right.

Looks like you need remedial life lessons Bigguns, but it's too boring for me to joust with someone who is more challenged cognitively and common-sense-wise than a kindygartner.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Don't kiss and tell. When would they have the time...to busy ferreting out what other people are doing behind closed doors..and then condemning them...all the while doing the same thing.

If you really believe that, I feel for ya. Most conservatives are too busy with their work, spouse, children, church, and volunteering to worry about 'ferreting' out other's behaviour behind closed doors. Anyway, we're much more worried about the crap the far lefties do out in the open.

Again, about the Rand issue - I guess the Bigguns can't handle nuance, even with something as uncomplicated and trivial as an avatar. Judge a book by it's cover is where you're coming from, I gather.

Really. Guess those laws on sodomy, republicans worrying about sex lives of others, etc...are just my imagination. Can't imagine any republicans/conservs interested in somone's sex life...perhaps you need to explain that to mr. starr.

Nuance: Not much nuance when you name yourself after rand. Perhaps you should really figure out the meaning of nuance..but, then again, nuance isn't really something conservatives understand or employ. Right and wrong, black and white...etc.

BTW, i guess those conservs aren't judging libs who do stuff out in the open...nah, they aren't judging a book by its cover. :roll:

Most conservatives is what I wrote. I know a lot of conservatives and none of them are political activists. there's a difference between being concerned about morality issues and 'ferreting' them out in some sort of home invasion, which seems to be what you're thinking of. Regarding legislation, would you suggest that legislation not address any issues of morality? If not, then by what criteria does one draw the line?

Again about the avatar: So I should just assume that you're really just a crack smoking back guy? Really, your position on the avatar issue makes you look the fool.

Right and Wrong: is there right and wrong, Bigguns? Please tell us whether you believe in right and wrong. And if so, as I suggested above, please enlighten us on how you decide what is right and what is wrong. and if you feel there is no right or wrong, how can you judge anything or anyone?

1. Elected officials represent you..do they not. If we don't hear you admonishing them..then that is tacit approval.

2. Legislation. How do you intend to determine morality? I'm sure that at some time laws against sodomy, miscegenation, etc. were considered moral.

But, i'm all for it. Should we make laws against adultery? What about lying.

3. Avatar. My avatar is clearly a satire. Is yours. Nice try, but you lose on this one..well, lose again. Clearly no one takes me seriously as a crack smoking fictional tv character. Not much nuance there my lack of understanding of nuance friend. Is your avatar one of satire. No..it represents...according to you..some of your beliefs.

Let me spell it out for you, Rand is real person..tyrone bigguns is a character. See the difference.

4. Right and wrong. I leave that up to you conservatives...you never fail to tell us what is right and wrong.

As for judging..well, i always thought the point was that god was suppose to do that...not me.

What a barrage of floating abstractions and stolen concepts! It occurs to me that you really can't think straight.

1) Elected officials represent me? Really? Thanks for the primer on representative government. You're ready to teach 2nd grade.
2) Legislation against lying - in certain forms - exists. Ever heard of slander or libel? primitive. Maybe you're not ready for 2nd grade.
3) My avatar is a painting of a fictional character, John Galt. He doesn't exist. There is no 'Mraynrand' either. Ever see the movie "Good Will Hunting?" Recall the second scene between the Robin Williams character and the Matt Damon character and what Williams says about a painting? If not, check it out. See the difference? Obviously not.
4) I'd be happy to help you with right and wrong, because I really think you're lost. You don't even know the difference between judgment among men and judgment by God. That's lost. Recall Christ saying "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." You know, separate magisteria? I'll help you out by putting it in terms a lib can comprehend: It's like separation of church and state. For someone who makes generalized statements about all the religions of the world in his tag line, you would think you could get the judgment part right.

Looks like you need remedial life lessons Bigguns, but it's too boring for me to joust with someone who is more challenged cognitively and common-sense-wise than a kindygartner.

1. Well, is see you chose the high road...basically admitting that i'm right..or you would counter. So, you are admitting that repubs are interested in what is going on in our bedrooms..ferretting out behavior. ANd, if you don't admonish them..then clearly you agree with them. Clearly electing those type officials doesn't mean you like what they stand for..right? :roll:

2. Lying. Clearly i meant all lying. If i lie, that is breaking morality, no? THerefore shouldn't i be punished. Funny, now you are making distinctions for lying...but, i seem to recall one of the commandments that didn't make that distinction.

3. Avatar: Was referring to Mr. Any Rand. BUt, you are right..i missed it. Like her husband, you are weak and ineffectual. Are you also a floral arranger. LOL

the point, which you have dropped is the one you stated. Rand is a real person...as is MR. Rand...Tyrone is clearly a satire. Therefore, one makes huge distinctions between the two and also assumptions. Try to stick to your own arguments..it would be helpful.

4. THanx, exactly. THe point was that I leave it up to you to tell me...as you conservatives are so inclined to let us know what is right and wrong...morally.

And, then apply your morality to the law.

Judging: Clearly you asked about me...and since i'm not an official of the law..i have to think you are asking about me..and how I judge. which i answered...i leave that up to god.

Like you, i tire of you inability to figure things out. BUt, it is to be expected from someone who worships a 3rd rate thinker. Yep, i remember when i was a junior in high school and thought rand was smart. Just like i remember reading Jonathan Livingston Seagul when i was 12 or so..and thinking that was great literature.

Unfortunately, i guess for you..you never progressed.

[the_idle_threat]

Hey man, no need to bag on Jonathan Livingston Seagull. :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hey man, no need to bag on Jonathan Livingston Seagull. :lol:

You're right. Cheap shot against Richard Bach.

Guess i just have some pent up rage at the Wisco ed system that forced me to read crap literature. Prolly some damn lib mandated a christian tome!!

[mraynrand]

Like you, i tire of you inability to figure things out. BUt, it is to be expected from someone who worships a 3rd rate thinker.

That's better than 'worshipping' a crack smoker. Worship? Again, this is absurd hyperbole. You just don't get it, even after I carefully explain it to you, over and over.(But, since you are obviously so above Rand, please direct me to your writings that shame hers. If she's third rate, then you must not even register. One can only speculate where your satirical and lyrical poetry describing your voluminous excretions is published - perhaps you are a regular letter writer to Hustler?)

I recall your first 'treatise' on Rand. I printed it out for a philosophy prof friend of mine ( a guy who writes peer reviewed and published essays on Thomistic Metaphysics) and we laughed our asses off at your total gibberish. It's clear that I cannot alter your thinking in any way shape or form - and looking at your body of writing on this site, it's clear that you never concede a point (or at least very rarely). So I shall no longer attempt to engage you - it's a waste of our time. I'll just read your books as they come out - please don't forget to let us know when they are published.

To repeat one final time for anyone else who might be paying attention (because I really don't care what "15th wonder" thinks) - It's possible to like and appreciate some aspects of Rand, without buying into everything - or even most of it (Rand's views present all kinds of problems, but that's beyond my point here). Rand's work is a good jumping off point for anyone who hasn't studied any philosophy yet. It's relatively accessible to those who have not yet studied philosophy. Rand herself admired and borrowed from Spinoza and Aristotle, and reading Rand might whet your appetite for more formal and far deeper philosophical material. What was important about Rand is that she served as a counter to extremely confused but popular 20th century philosophers like John Rawls and Richard Rorty. Also, recall that Rand lived a lot of her life early in the Soviet Union and abhorred communism - a lot of her writing demonstrates visceral hatred of communism. She also bristled against a culture in the U.S. that thought that ethics were normative and reality conditional - a culture that thought that drug use could provide true insight into reality. A good example of her thinking regarding this subject is the essay "Sullivan versus Kant." It's not so difficult and formal (nor exceptionally deep) as to be inaccessible to non-philosophy majors. And finally, an analogy to Johnathan Livingston Seagull is probably appropriate. Among the philosopher greats, Rand is but a footnote, still, if one is to tackle philosophy, like reading great literature, one typically passes from the simple to the complex.