Ideological idiocy - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

lurkette · 05-06-2005, 07:10 AM

OK, this is the kind of bullshit I was talking about in the Abortion thread (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=88444)

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...ine/index.html

Religious right would kill to stop safe sex

Here's more so-crazy-it-can-only-be-a-bad-dream-and-not- the-actual-country-that-enfranchised-us news for women: As we get closer to approval for a vaccine that will prevent human papillomavirus (HPV), the STD thought to cause around 70 percent of cervical cancer cases, some sectors of the religious right have begun to make protest noises. Apparently, disease-prevention of this nature -- in addition to leading to improved health for our mothers, daughters, grandmothers, sisters, friends, and selves -- could mean just the green-light we've all been waiting for to go out and rut like bunnies.

HPV, which doesn't always produce symptoms and often goes undetected, is a terrifyingly common condition. According to the CDC, over 50 percent of sexually active men and women contract it in their lifetimes, and by age 50, more than 80 percent of women will have had the virus. While many cases of genital HPV disappear of their own accord, it's the main risk factor in contracting cervical cancer; in other words, most of the 10,370 American women who the American Cancer Society predicts will be diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer in 2005 got it because they had been infected with HPV.

Because it is a wily virus that can slip past condoms, HPV has long been a darling of the abstinence-only brigade, which uses it as Exhibit A in its argument that there is no such thing as "safe sex" short of abstaining entirely.

But two vaccines, which could be licensed as early next year, have recently brightened the picture. Both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline have announced that in clinical trials their HPV vaccines had prevented around 90 percent of new infections. The idea is that women would be vaccinated before they become sexually active, never contract HPV, and thus dramatically lower the risk of getting cervical cancer.

If the vaccines got approved, there is the possibility that HPV would cease to be a threat to women, and the right would lose one of its major weapons in the war against premarital sex. Perhaps that explains why some groups are in such a bad mood over such good medical news.

In an April article in New Scientist, Bridget Maher of the Christian lobby Family Research Council ("Defending Family, Faith, and Freedom") is quoted as saying that "giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."

The HPV vaccine is new to the list of things that the religious right perceives to be "licenses to engage in premarital sex." But it's in good company -- joining other morality-busters like condoms, the right to safe abortions, sex education, dancing, rock music, and the theory of evolution -- as threats to American moral codes.
---------------

How can they be serious? They have this idealized little world in their heads where nobody has sex except with their Christ-recognized and disease-free spouse. Yup, that would be lovely, but there is a REAL WORLD out there where people are free (for the time being) to do what they will with their own bodies and lives, including have sex with *gasp* more than one person, and *gasp* outside of marriage! They are living in a fantasy world and want to ensure that the rest of us live in that same fantasy, regardless of the physical realities of the universe.

Since they obviously have no respect for actual human life once you're outside the @$#!@$# womb, unless it conforms to their ideals of behaviors and morality, I can only hope (and this is ironic coming from me) that the market pressures to profit from medical cures overcomes the influence of the religious right and this vaccine is made widely available. I'm beyond hoping that anybody's going to recognize any kind of ethical responsibility to provide a cure to a potentially deadly disease just because we have it and it would be the humane (and human) thing to do.

There's a word for people who do not live in reality: psychotic.

Lebell · 05-06-2005, 07:30 AM

The idea of using natural consequences as a deterent to "immoral" behavior goes back millenia and is unlikely to change anytime soon. But it is important to realize that it is usually unsafe behavior causing a moral rule to develop, not the other way around.

For example, eating pork in the ancient world was hazardous to your health, hence the Jewish and Islamic moral rules against it. Likewise dozens of other moral prohibitions, including the ones against sex outside of marriage.

But now, the moral rule is taking over, excluding any reason for it's existance, including the spread of disease.

IMO, these people are acting sinfully to want to deny a vaccine that could prevent disease in order to further their own moral agenda.

I would say that I am ashamed that they call themselves Christian, but I know that the religion they practice is not at the heart of their problem.

Charlatan · 05-06-2005, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I would say that I am ashamed that they call themselves Christian, but I know that the religion they practice is not at the heart of their problem.

I think this is key in understanding where some of these "fanatics" are coming from...

raveneye · 05-06-2005, 07:47 AM

I don't see what their problem is: you can give the vaccine at age two. How is that going to promote promiscuity? Both boys and girls should get it.

There are 250,000 deaths per year worldwide from cervical cancer, in women mostly in their 30s and 40s; I think this is a good example where we want to "err on the side of life."

alansmithee · 05-06-2005, 08:38 AM

I think that the title of the article cited is horribly misleading, if not outright lying, but that's beside the point. Things like this do nothing but hurt their cause, and makes them look like fools. There is no logical way not to support the development of this vaccine.

---
And as an aside, remember there are many on both sides of the ideological spectrum who don't live in reality, or who would like to force their morality on others.

liquidlight · 05-06-2005, 09:34 AM

I hate contradictory arguments like this, because they only make sense to the fanatics that support them.

I hope that the vaccines are approved and not only reduce the cases of HPV, but lead to other discoveries that could alleviate the suffering of millions.

What's next, a cure for AIDS is bad too?

kutulu · 05-06-2005, 09:53 AM

It figures. These people would probably fight an AIDS vaccine because it would be less of teh gheys would die.

j8ear · 05-06-2005, 02:09 PM

The idea of with holding a vaccine for the reasons presented is disturbing.

Here is what my favorite libertarian had to say on the matter:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAgitator

Beyond Parody

A vaccine against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, is on the horizon. But the moral right is already gearing up to oppose its distribution. Why? Apparently because HPV is sexually transmitted, and vaccinating women against might -- are you ready for this? -- encourage women to have premarital sex.

From the New Scientist:

"Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.

So to prevent theoretical additional occurences of premarital sex, Maher's okay with unnecessarily subjecting young women to fucking cancer? Holy moral rectitude, Bridget. You have to wonder, would the Family Research Council oppose distribution of an AIDS vaccine, too -- because it might spark an increase in gay sex?

I suppose it could be worse:

"We found that some Asian women in Britain are afraid even to get tested for HPV infection, because they say if it is positive they will be killed, never mind that their husbands probably gave it to them," says Szarewski. She feels that such attitudes may mean that HPV vaccination may be a non-starter in such communities.
Jesus.

I ask you, which is worse?

The American left won't let agri-firms develop biotech products that could save millions of lives in the developing world because it upsets their delicate notions of what's "natural" (never mind how many of the world's poor have succumbed to malaria because of the green left's objections to DDT).

or,

The American right is ready to oppose distribution of a cancer vaccine to the developing (and developed, for that matter) world because it might lead to marginal increases in premarital sex (never mind how many of the world's poor have succumbed to AIDS because of the relious right's objections to condom distribution).

The answer is that they're two sides of the same coin.

I'd wager that self-righteousness has killed more people the world over than war, famine, and natural disaster combined.

From here: The Agitator

He has it spot on.

-bear

Supple Cow · 05-08-2005, 10:12 PM

I haven't been participating in this forum again lately because I am not feeling very motivated to contribute anything worthwhile. I even stopped reading most of the new threads, which is why this is the first time I am reading of this. I had no idea about the vaccines for HPV... all I can say is WTF. As a young, sexually active, unmarried woman, there are two things that I have nightmares about from time to time: (1) Pregnancy, and (2) HPV. Let me tell you that these are no laughing matter to someone like me. It's one thing to tell me that I'm immoral because I value a woman's life above the potential life of her baby, because at the end of the day, nobody can make me NOT get an abortion if I want one (which I probably wouldn't). It's another thing to withhold a valuable health resource from me because it might encourage me to be free with my body before I have a ring on my finger. Obviously I made this decision with my body before I knew I could be safe from HPV. This is only more insulting because I know that I am responsible and take every other precaution when it comes to my sexual activity. For all the precautions I take, contracting HPV and having warts in my special place would be right up there with cancer. OH WAIT. It would increase my risk of that, too.

Some strains of HPV can't even be detected by testing men so how the hell am I ever supposed to know I'm safe from it? I can't. At least I thought I couldn't. Apparently, I just mayn't.

This is utterly infuriating.

Free Speech · 05-12-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by liquidlight

I hate contradictory arguments like this, because they only make sense to the fanatics that support them.

I hope that the vaccines are approved and not only reduce the cases of HPV, but lead to other discoveries that could alleviate the suffering of millions.

What's next, a cure for AIDS is bad too?

With all of the anti-Christian zeal being exhibited around here, I'd like to clarify a couple of points that have been distorted into an unrecognizable form:

1. Maher does not speak for all Christians.
2. The opposition to the vaccine is not solely from Christians.
3. Her point is valid, even if you don't like it. An apt comparison would be if the availability of a Tetanus vaccine lulled people into re-using hypodermic needles, thereby causing an uptick in the incidence of hepatitis.

And, as a matter of fact, the AIDS cocktail (although not a cure) HAS been bad in some regards, because it has led to a resurgence of risky sexual behavior.

That said, I think opposition to the vaccine is wrong. However, in this thread, it's just being used as an excuse for Christian-bashing.

chickentribs · 05-12-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Speech

With all of the anti-Christian zeal being exhibited around here, I'd like to clarify a couple of points that have been distorted into an unrecognizable form:

1. Maher does not speak for all Christians.
2. The opposition to the vaccine is not solely from Christians.
3. Her point is valid, even if you don't like it. An apt comparison would be if the availability of a Tetanus vaccine lulled people into re-using hypodermic needles, thereby causing an uptick in the incidence of hepatitis.

And, as a matter of fact, the AIDS cocktail (although not a cure) HAS been bad in some regards, because it has led to a resurgence of risky sexual behavior.

That said, I think opposition to the vaccine is wrong. However, in this thread, it's just being used as an excuse for Christian-bashing.

1. He and other-over the-top zealots do and will continue to speak for the church until your national organizers denounce Mahr's rhetoric and quit taking money from these clowns.
2. I haven't seen any other religions "Abstinence or Else" rhetoric in my schools. Do tell.
3. For her point to be valid you believe we should let people die instead of allowing the possibility that they may someday commit sin. Please. Wasn't Christ going to be the only one who would die for our sins? Oh well, what's the murder of 100,000's Women - many of them Christians - as long as we can scare little girls into getting married young.
-There is nothing APT about comparing making love to Heroin addiction, at least not the way I do it.
-I think the millions of men who are alive today thanks to AZT would disagree that thier deaths would be worthwhile to stop boys from kissing each other.
-thank you for at least offering up your disagreement with this. I appreciate it.
-If it makes you feel any better, I would disagree with any group that values no lives other than people who believe the way they do. Do it in name of your Church, Country, Race. whatever... It's all the same hate and fear.

Seaver · 05-12-2005, 10:44 PM

I agree. I'm by no means a bible-thumper but I've grown to just ignore these threads. Every single one starts off bad and plummits to being a christian hate-fest.

These people speak for us in the same way the American Socialist League speaks for everyone who opposes the war. They may sorta-believe the same thing but I doubt they really like each other.

Free Speech · 05-13-2005, 05:57 AM

This is EXACTLY the kind of post that's so detrimental to honest discourse. One where someone spreads enough shit around that the original poster doesn't want to correct everything, and everyone else gets bored with the post that does the correcting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickentribs

1. He and other-over the-top zealots do and will continue to speak for the church until your national organizers denounce Mahr's rhetoric and quit taking money from these clowns.

It's a "she," it's "Maher," and I never said I was a Christian. And I don't think all of the "national organizations" as you call them, should waste their time with Maher. All it will do is give her more publiciity.

Quote:

2. I haven't seen any other religions "Abstinence or Else" rhetoric in my schools. Do tell.

Tell what? That abstinence is safer than having sex?

Quote:

3. For her point to be valid you believe we should let people die instead of allowing the possibility that they may someday commit sin. Please. Wasn't Christ going to be the only one who would die for our sins? Oh well, what's the murder of 100,000's Women - many of them Christians - as long as we can scare little girls into getting married young.

The first part is not true, not what I said, and absolute bullshit. The rest of it is a figment of your tortured imagination, and belongs in paranoia.

Quote:

-There is nothing APT about comparing making love to Heroin addiction, at least not the way I do it.

Sorry you didn't understand the comparison. Everyone else did, even if they disagreed with it. By the way, I never said anything about heroin addiction, either.

Quote:

-I think the millions of men who are alive today thanks to AZT would disagree that thier deaths would be worthwhile to stop boys from kissing each other.
-thank you for at least offering up your disagreement with this. I appreciate it.

I can see that. Once again, the part about worthwhile deaths is a distortion. Actually, a fabrication.

Quote:

-If it makes you feel any better, I would disagree with any group that values no lives other than people who believe the way they do. Do it in name of your Church, Country, Race. whatever... It's all the same hate and fear.

This should be directed at someone else. Seaver's right--In the future, I won't respond to fabrications and distortions of this magnitude.

Lebell · 05-13-2005, 06:11 AM

My tolerance for this is low since it tends to spiral out of control.

It gets civil NOW.

You have been warned.

lurkette · 05-13-2005, 10:52 AM

As the original poster, I'd like to pipe up:

1. I've re-read all the posts, and, really, I don't see any "anti-Christian zeal" being spread around, at least not until after the post decrying "anti-Christian zeal."

2. As FreeSpeech says, Maher does not speak for all Christians, and those of us who are upset about the Family Research Council's opposition to the vaccine are not angry at all Christians, just the ones who want to enforce their vision of morality on the rest of us.

I'm sorry if anything I said came off as anti-Christian. What I am is anti-ideology. I object to some people's faith in very literal and narrow interpretations of some portions of one of the many religious texts floating around the globe being placed above what common sense, ethics, and human decency would have us do in complex situations like this.

[edit]
Incidentally, I get equally pissed when people on the left do the same thing - essentially hewing to the "bible" of liberal doctrine and supporting policies that are in step with liberal dogma even when there's no evidence to suggest that those policies actually work to accomplish anything. Pisses me off when people don't use their brains, that's all.

Charlatan · 05-13-2005, 11:03 AM

Personally I don't see an anti-Christian slant to this thread at all... but then I am frequently labelled as anti-christian...

I think, as I echoed above, Lebell put it best.

Quote:

I would say that I am ashamed that they call themselves Christian, but I know that the religion they practice is not at the heart of their problem.

What lurkette is reacting to is good old ORTHODOXY... those who cannot see the forest for the trees... In my view, there is nothing more dangerous than orthodoxy (except when that point of view has a pulpit from which to spew their diatribe).

Willravel · 05-13-2005, 11:32 AM

I hope those who protest saving of lives and suffering in the name of God (any God) feel great shame. This isn't anti-Christian, it's anti-people who want others to suffer. There are people like that in every religion, and I hope they feel shame for how they treat other people.

As a Christian, I pray to God for a cure.

05-06-2005, 07:10 AM	#1 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Ideological idiocy OK, this is the kind of bullshit I was talking about in the Abortion thread (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=88444) http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...ine/index.html Religious right would kill to stop safe sex Here's more so-crazy-it-can-only-be-a-bad-dream-and-not- the-actual-country-that-enfranchised-us news for women: As we get closer to approval for a vaccine that will prevent human papillomavirus (HPV), the STD thought to cause around 70 percent of cervical cancer cases, some sectors of the religious right have begun to make protest noises. Apparently, disease-prevention of this nature -- in addition to leading to improved health for our mothers, daughters, grandmothers, sisters, friends, and selves -- could mean just the green-light we've all been waiting for to go out and rut like bunnies. HPV, which doesn't always produce symptoms and often goes undetected, is a terrifyingly common condition. According to the CDC, over 50 percent of sexually active men and women contract it in their lifetimes, and by age 50, more than 80 percent of women will have had the virus. While many cases of genital HPV disappear of their own accord, it's the main risk factor in contracting cervical cancer; in other words, most of the 10,370 American women who the American Cancer Society predicts will be diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer in 2005 got it because they had been infected with HPV. Because it is a wily virus that can slip past condoms, HPV has long been a darling of the abstinence-only brigade, which uses it as Exhibit A in its argument that there is no such thing as "safe sex" short of abstaining entirely. But two vaccines, which could be licensed as early next year, have recently brightened the picture. Both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline have announced that in clinical trials their HPV vaccines had prevented around 90 percent of new infections. The idea is that women would be vaccinated before they become sexually active, never contract HPV, and thus dramatically lower the risk of getting cervical cancer. If the vaccines got approved, there is the possibility that HPV would cease to be a threat to women, and the right would lose one of its major weapons in the war against premarital sex. Perhaps that explains why some groups are in such a bad mood over such good medical news. In an April article in New Scientist, Bridget Maher of the Christian lobby Family Research Council ("Defending Family, Faith, and Freedom") is quoted as saying that "giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." The HPV vaccine is new to the list of things that the religious right perceives to be "licenses to engage in premarital sex." But it's in good company -- joining other morality-busters like condoms, the right to safe abortions, sex education, dancing, rock music, and the theory of evolution -- as threats to American moral codes. --------------- How can they be serious? They have this idealized little world in their heads where nobody has sex except with their Christ-recognized and disease-free spouse. Yup, that would be lovely, but there is a REAL WORLD out there where people are free (for the time being) to do what they will with their own bodies and lives, including have sex with gasp more than one person, and gasp outside of marriage! They are living in a fantasy world and want to ensure that the rest of us live in that same fantasy, regardless of the physical realities of the universe. Since they obviously have no respect for actual human life once you're outside the @$#!@$# womb, unless it conforms to their ideals of behaviors and morality, I can only hope (and this is ironic coming from me) that the market pressures to profit from medical cures overcomes the influence of the religious right and this vaccine is made widely available. I'm beyond hoping that anybody's going to recognize any kind of ethical responsibility to provide a cure to a potentially deadly disease just because we have it and it would be the humane (and human) thing to do. There's a word for people who do not live in reality: psychotic. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

05-06-2005, 07:30 AM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	The idea of using natural consequences as a deterent to "immoral" behavior goes back millenia and is unlikely to change anytime soon. But it is important to realize that it is usually unsafe behavior causing a moral rule to develop, not the other way around. For example, eating pork in the ancient world was hazardous to your health, hence the Jewish and Islamic moral rules against it. Likewise dozens of other moral prohibitions, including the ones against sex outside of marriage. But now, the moral rule is taking over, excluding any reason for it's existance, including the spread of disease. IMO, these people are acting sinfully to want to deny a vaccine that could prevent disease in order to further their own moral agenda. I would say that I am ashamed that they call themselves Christian, but I know that the religion they practice is not at the heart of their problem. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-06-2005, 09:34 AM	#6 (permalink)
liquidlight AHH! Custom Title!! Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.	I hate contradictory arguments like this, because they only make sense to the fanatics that support them. I hope that the vaccines are approved and not only reduce the cases of HPV, but lead to other discoveries that could alleviate the suffering of millions. What's next, a cure for AIDS is bad too? __________________ Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

05-08-2005, 10:12 PM	#9 (permalink)
Supple Cow Americow, the Beautiful Location: Washington, D.C.	I haven't been participating in this forum again lately because I am not feeling very motivated to contribute anything worthwhile. I even stopped reading most of the new threads, which is why this is the first time I am reading of this. I had no idea about the vaccines for HPV... all I can say is WTF. As a young, sexually active, unmarried woman, there are two things that I have nightmares about from time to time: (1) Pregnancy, and (2) HPV. Let me tell you that these are no laughing matter to someone like me. It's one thing to tell me that I'm immoral because I value a woman's life above the potential life of her baby, because at the end of the day, nobody can make me NOT get an abortion if I want one (which I probably wouldn't). It's another thing to withhold a valuable health resource from me because it might encourage me to be free with my body before I have a ring on my finger. Obviously I made this decision with my body before I knew I could be safe from HPV. This is only more insulting because I know that I am responsible and take every other precaution when it comes to my sexual activity. For all the precautions I take, contracting HPV and having warts in my special place would be right up there with cancer. OH WAIT. It would increase my risk of that, too. Some strains of HPV can't even be detected by testing men so how the hell am I ever supposed to know I'm safe from it? I can't. At least I thought I couldn't. Apparently, I just mayn't. This is utterly infuriating. __________________ "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." (Michael Jordan) Last edited by Supple Cow; 05-08-2005 at 10:17 PM..

05-13-2005, 06:11 AM	#14 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	My tolerance for this is low since it tends to spiral out of control. It gets civil NOW. You have been warned. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-06-2005, 07:47 AM	#4 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	I don't see what their problem is: you can give the vaccine at age two. How is that going to promote promiscuity? Both boys and girls should get it. There are 250,000 deaths per year worldwide from cervical cancer, in women mostly in their 30s and 40s; I think this is a good example where we want to "err on the side of life."

05-06-2005, 08:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	I think that the title of the article cited is horribly misleading, if not outright lying, but that's beside the point. Things like this do nothing but hurt their cause, and makes them look like fools. There is no logical way not to support the development of this vaccine. --- And as an aside, remember there are many on both sides of the ideological spectrum who don't live in reality, or who would like to force their morality on others.

05-06-2005, 09:53 AM	#7 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	It figures. These people would probably fight an AIDS vaccine because it would be less of teh gheys would die.

05-12-2005, 10:44 PM	#12 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I agree. I'm by no means a bible-thumper but I've grown to just ignore these threads. Every single one starts off bad and plummits to being a christian hate-fest. These people speak for us in the same way the American Socialist League speaks for everyone who opposes the war. They may sorta-believe the same thing but I doubt they really like each other.

05-13-2005, 10:52 AM	#15 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	As the original poster, I'd like to pipe up: 1. I've re-read all the posts, and, really, I don't see any "anti-Christian zeal" being spread around, at least not until after the post decrying "anti-Christian zeal." 2. As FreeSpeech says, Maher does not speak for all Christians, and those of us who are upset about the Family Research Council's opposition to the vaccine are not angry at all Christians, just the ones who want to enforce their vision of morality on the rest of us. I'm sorry if anything I said came off as anti-Christian. What I am is anti-ideology. I object to some people's faith in very literal and narrow interpretations of some portions of one of the many religious texts floating around the globe being placed above what common sense, ethics, and human decency would have us do in complex situations like this. [edit] Incidentally, I get equally pissed when people on the left do the same thing - essentially hewing to the "bible" of liberal doctrine and supporting policies that are in step with liberal dogma even when there's no evidence to suggest that those policies actually work to accomplish anything. Pisses me off when people don't use their brains, that's all. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

05-13-2005, 11:32 AM	#17 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I hope those who protest saving of lives and suffering in the name of God (any God) feel great shame. This isn't anti-Christian, it's anti-people who want others to suffer. There are people like that in every religion, and I hope they feel shame for how they treat other people. As a Christian, I pray to God for a cure.