Are you all happy?

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:


Christina Websell wrote:

Surely it cannot be OK to refer to black people by that word, or is it
another over the pond thing?

(Only if used by one black person to another, and only among other
members of the black community!)

Just repeating myself here, it's not completely agreed-on by all members
of the black community that this is OK. Some are very offended, or saddened,
to hear young black people (usually men, but not always) addressing each
other with a word that has such a brutal history. On the other hand, young
people have their own experience and that word has taken on other meanings
in their culture (ie, young hip-hop culture - or maybe I should say
*youngish*, since that music has been around for more than 2 decades).

--
Joyce

There is no alternative to being yourself.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes:



cshenk wrote:
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes:


Christina Websell wrote:
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in
message ...
The attempts to limit access to birth control (not just
abortion, although that should never have become a political
issue). When a woman no longer has the right to control the
functions of her own body, but must bow to male politicians,
we are at war, even though many women seem unaware of it!
(The mainstream media has not given much space to all the
state laws recently passed, aimed at defunding and disarming
"Planned Parenthood".)
This is happening in America? the land of the free? Surely not
puffs out cheeks No wonder some of you who are citizens say the
USA is not civilized. Not only is it OK for vets to damage your
cats and dogs for convenience (as that's all it is) but denying
contraception to women on top of that? I never heard of such a
thing. I'm really shocked. Wayne, are you positive that you
have this correct?

"Wayne"? (But yes, I'm sure - several states have passed
legislation denying insurance coverage for birth control
measures.) The most egregious are those which allow EMPLOYERS to
determine whether their company's group insurance plans should
cover it, based upon the employer's PERSONAL views. And a number
of states allow pharmacists to determine whether or not they
choose to fill prescriptions, allowing them to refuse if it does
not coincide with their personal religious beliefs, regardless of
the patient's doctor!

The Catholic church has insurance for it's members and should not be
required to provide free abortions or conraception to those who
chose to use it's insurance.

What happened to "separation of church and state"? Not ALL American
women are Catholic - even among Christians, there are many
denominations, not all of which share the same views. (And believe
it or not, we also have Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Wiccans,
agnostics and atheists among our population - what gives any other
religion the right to dictate to them?)



All the groups you meantion also reject a woman's right to abortion. I
do not have a problem with a woman having an abortion. I have a
problem with *forcing* a religious organization to have it as part of
the healthcare plan they have to add to all employees for free. It
should be an opton.



--

"cshenk" wrote:

I have a problem with *forcing* a religious organization
to have it as part of the healthcare plan they have to add
to all employees for free.

Why should someone be able to make themselves special by playing the
religion card? We're not supposed to have any second-class citizens.
When properly interpreted, the First Amendment provides that one may do
for religious reasons, all that, and only that, which his neighbor may
do for non-religious reasons -- or for no reason at all.

Unless the authorities are willing to allow anybody to opt out of such
coverage for any reason or for no reason, they have no constitutional
right to allow only the religious to opt out. I know that religious
exceptions have a long history -- but that just means that the courts
haven't done their job very well for a very long time.
--

Wayne M.

cshenk wrote:
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes:



What happened to "separation of church and state"? Not ALL American
women are Catholic - even among Christians, there are many
denominations, not all of which share the same views. (And believe
it or not, we also have Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Wiccans,
agnostics and atheists among our population - what gives any other
religion the right to dictate to them?)


All the groups you meantion also reject a woman's right to abortion.

Not true!!!! (I'm not sure about Mormons, and some of the more
reactionary Christian groups may do so, but I can assure you the others
do not - especially agnostics and atheists.)

Wayne Mitchell wrote:
"cshenk" wrote:

I have a problem with *forcing* a religious organization
to have it as part of the healthcare plan they have to add
to all employees for free.

Why should someone be able to make themselves special by playing the
religion card? We're not supposed to have any second-class citizens.
When properly interpreted, the First Amendment provides that one may do
for religious reasons, all that, and only that, which his neighbor may
do for non-religious reasons -- or for no reason at all.

Unless the authorities are willing to allow anybody to opt out of such
coverage for any reason or for no reason, they have no constitutional
right to allow only the religious to opt out. I know that religious
exceptions have a long history -- but that just means that the courts
haven't done their job very well for a very long time.

AMEN!!!!!

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


cshenk wrote:
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote in rec.pets.cats.anecdotes:



What happened to "separation of church and state"? Not ALL American
women are Catholic - even among Christians, there are many
denominations, not all of which share the same views. (And believe
it or not, we also have Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Wiccans,
agnostics and atheists among our population - what gives any other
religion the right to dictate to them?)


All the groups you meantion also reject a woman's right to abortion.

Not true!!!! (I'm not sure about Mormons,


Most of my family are Mormons. I haven't asked them what they think about
abortion yet. I'm too busy convincing my aunt that homosexual and paedophile
aren't the same thing.
I suspect they won't be in favour of abortion as it's encouraged in the
church to have a lot of children.
I did try for about a year once to be a Mormon. It's not for me.

Christina Websell wrote:


Most of my family are Mormons. I haven't asked them what they think about
abortion yet. I'm too busy convincing my aunt that homosexual and paedophile
aren't the same thing.

Wow. Some people are a little slow to pick up on new ideas, aren't they?
"New" being sometime in the last 40 years.

--
Joyce

Something you'll never hear an 8-year-old say:

"Nana, will you spit on your hankie and wipe the gravy off my face?"

"The Other Guy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:07:42 -0000, "Christina Websell"
wrote:

I'm too busy convincing my aunt that homosexual and paedophile
aren't the same thing.

Plenty of proof that most pedophiles aren't homosexual,
and ARE often related to the victims.


I spent 21 years in a child protection team so I'm fairly up to speed on
that.

"Bastette" wrote in message
...
Christina Websell wrote:


Most of my family are Mormons. I haven't asked them what they think
about
abortion yet. I'm too busy convincing my aunt that homosexual and
paedophile
aren't the same thing.

Wow. Some people are a little slow to pick up on new ideas, aren't they?
"New" being sometime in the last 40 years.


We will never agree to disagree on this. If she says "I wouldn.t let one of
those rear a child" one more time I swear I'll go for her throat...
I've tried and tried to explain that sexuality has nothing to do with good
parenting but she cannot see it.
If it's mentioned again - and I try to avoid it - I'll still challenge that
ridiculous belief.

Christina Websell wrote:
"Bastette" wrote in message
...
Christina Websell wrote:


Most of my family are Mormons. I haven't asked them what they think
about
abortion yet. I'm too busy convincing my aunt that homosexual and
paedophile
aren't the same thing.
Wow. Some people are a little slow to pick up on new ideas, aren't they?
"New" being sometime in the last 40 years.


We will never agree to disagree on this. If she says "I wouldn.t let one of
those rear a child" one more time I swear I'll go for her throat...
I've tried and tried to explain that sexuality has nothing to do with good
parenting but she cannot see it.
If it's mentioned again - and I try to avoid it - I'll still challenge that
ridiculous belief.

Agreed! Having been involved in church music for much of my life (hence
knowing many "gay" organists and choirmasters) I'd rather see those
friends raising kids than some "natural" parents. Many of my friends
were involved in an organization that ministered to street kids - not
just runaways, as I had assumed, but "throw-aways". (Apparently, some
parents, when they discover a son or daughter is gay, simply abandon them!)