David Santucci All very good questions. I'm a fan of homeschooling myself, because even though I think most religious parents do "brainwash" their kids--and I speak from experience having grown up Catholic--I also think parents, not the State, are the ones with the right and the responsibility to teach their children morals and religious/spiritual beliefs (or a lack thereof). That's a parent's right. My wife is atheist, and I'm not, and we raised our son to evaluate things for himself and to think for himself. He is agnostic, leaning toward believing there is probably "something." But we've been very careful not to try to force any particular belief on him, instead exposing him to many different viewpoints and theories. (I wasn't given that courtesy.)
David Santucci What would be coercive about it? If people decide to turn away from religion of their own free will, and no one is forcing them to, how is that coercive? Of course I don't expect religion to ever fully die out, because there will always be people brainwashing their children with religion, converting them from the moment they're born, and only some of them later decide to de-convert back to their original state of atheism. The brainwashing of religion is a very powerful thing to overcome--I mean, who wants to spend all of eternity in agonizing torture if they're wrong? I'm not actually atheist myself. Just anti-organized religion. I think it will probably be hundreds of years, or longer, before most people are atheist or non-religious.
David Santucci No, Gustavo. I don't believe in using force to coerce anyone to do anything. That is the same thing that religious people want to do to others. Freedom is a two way street. Now if you want to educate people until religions die out naturally, that's another story. But "washing them away from the face of the Earth" implies using force to impose your beliefs on others. Two wrongs don't make a right.
David Santucci My guess is they did not act alone. And I agree with Jack Aspen, how convenient if this guy can never talk again. (As soon as he's well enough, there will be some medical reason he cannot answer questions by writing his answers down, either, if I was a betting man.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
David Santucci We'll have to agree to disagree. The details, or definition, of MY marriage is no more a public institution than my bathroom is a public restroom. It's mine and my wife's and no one else's. She's an atheist, and we got married in the drive-through in Vegas over 17 years ago, while she was already pregnant. My marriage certainly does NOT fit the "Biblical" definition of marriage, and anyone claiming to have ownership over the "public institution" of marriage to such a degree that say they can place restrictions upon whom, or how, I may marry--they can go f*** themselves. You only have the right to define marriage for yourself. Not for everyone. Same with gay people. They just want the freedom to define their own, not yours or mine.
David Santucci (cont'd from previous) You cannot say religious liberty is more important than sexual liberty. They are one and the same. Liberty is Liberty and it is a two way street. You cannot have one without the other. Either everyone has the freedom to believe as they wish, and behave as they wish--provided they are not hurting anyone or infringing on the freedoms of others--or there is no such thing as Liberty at all. You can't piecemeal it out. Liberty for all, or Liberty fails. So this is the problem with this debate. You can evangelize all you want, up until the point where you start writing laws forcing other people to live according to beliefs they do not share. That's where your religious Liberty ends. At other people's doorstep.
David Santucci I have very good friends who are Muslim; I bought my car from them in fact. Most honest car dealer in the world and he and his wife are the nicest, sweetest people you will ever meet. Wouldn't harm a fly. Nor would they attempt to force their beliefs on anyone. The reason I used that as an example is because many Christians are afraid of Islam and/or Muslims. I used that example to make the point that no one should be able to define marriage for you, or for me, based on their own personal religious beliefs. Nothing more. Lastly I apologize; we were both posting so fast, you actually did finally answer my question while I was writing my last reply. So thank you. However.... (cont'd in a moment)...
David Santucci Thaelman, what on earth did I say that makes you go insulting me with assumptions that I have some prejudice against Muslims? Seriously, you are starting to annoy me with your crap. So yet again you have danced around my question. Why? Is it because if you answer my question you will be forced to admit that no one should be allowed to force their religious beliefs and practices upon the entire population? Don't bother answering. I am done wasting my time with your ignorance and self-righteous belief that you should have the right to dictate to other people how they should live their lives.
David Santucci Also -- on the topic of people making assumptions -- Not only am I not a Liberal, you should also know I have been happily married to my wife for 17 years now. And ever since gay people started getting married, my marriage is exactly the same as it was. My wife nags me for leaving the toilet seat up and thinks I change channels too quickly, and my son still rides his skateboard, and all of us will still love each other until the end of time. You know why? Because what strangers choose to do with their own lives, and however they choose to define their own relationships, IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS AND IT DOES NOT IMPACT ME OR MY FAMILY. Or my faith. Stick that in your culture and smoke it.
David Santucci That's irrelevant. You and he are making assumptions about what Muslims might want to do or not want to do. Also irrelevant. I asked a question and I expect an answer. IF Muslims decided to write such laws, would that be OK? If you fail to answer "No" then I am going to assume both of your answers are Yes, you would be perfectly fine with it if Muslims someday write laws defining marriage for everyone.
David Santucci I said no such thing. I was referring to the fact that you seem to think that's what they want. Nobody wants you to change your beliefs. They just want you to stop trying to use the law to enforce your beliefs upon their lives. You want to know why the voters in Maine and Maryland voted to legalize same sex marriage? Because the law contained protections for churches and clergy, respecting their right to not perform or recognize same sex marriages if they want to. You can still whine about people wanting to force their culture on you all you want, but that doesn't make it true. The problem is, religious folks are used to forcing everyone to do things their way, and those days are coming to an end. Time to personalize your faith.
David Santucci Brytney, as long as marriage is a contract recognized under the law, that bestows benefits and legal privileges to those who choose to enter into it, you cannot tell some people they're not allowed to choose to enter into that contract simply because they are a little different than the next person. You should do some research on a case called "Loving v. Virginia." Just a few decades ago it would've been illegal for me to choose to marry you because of the color of our skins. Because, people said, it was against the Bible and natural law, an abomination unto the Lord for whites and blacks to marry each other. Why should someone else be allowed to tell you who you're allowed to marry? If you want a theocracy, I hear Iran is a nice one.
David Santucci Thaelman, I asked you a question. Are you are afraid to answer it? Someday, when there are lots and lots more Muslims in this country--enough to vote a majority and win a state election--if they decide that they want to write a law defining marriage for everyone based on the Qu'Ran, and suddenly all Christian marriages and all other non-Muslim marriages are rendered invalid in the eyes of the law, DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE FREE TO DO THIS? Keep in mind, the Muslims will say they're justified in preserving the traditional definition of marriage per the Qu'Ran, because they will tell you their holy book is the one, true word of God. Do you think it would be OK for Muslims to write laws defining marriage for you, me, and everyone?
David Santucci But here's the problem. This is a free country. If you had your way, you'd use government to define marriage for everyone based on a Biblical definition of marriage. Well guess what? Some people don't believe in the Bible, and don't want your religion shoved down their throats. Freedom is a two way street. The problem isn't that gay people want to force you to accept them, or their way of life. The problem is that people like you want to force other people to live their lives according to your beliefs, denying them the freedom to have their own. Someday, when there are enough Muslims in America to make it possible, do you think it would be OK for them to write laws making all non-Muslim marriages invalid under the law? Ponder that.
David Santucci I don't know, but I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that he's insane just because the story describes uncommon events. I used to work at a company where we had a surgical laboratory and I did the purchasing of the human cadaver parts the doctors used in their training sessions. (The costs paid for body parts were actually "donations" to the non-profits who were middle men; they obtained cadavers from hospitals. You know that "do you want to donate your body and/or organs?" question when you got your drivers' license?) Anyway, one whole body, if cut up for parts, is worth several thousand dollars. If this hospital was harvesting bodies illegally (people who hadn't donated theirs), they could be making a lot of extra dough.
David Santucci You said your Christian religion was being washed away by gay culture. Well, is it, or isn't it? Do you need a lot of buddies who believe the same way you do in order to validate your beliefs? Or do they stand on their own? Why do you care what the rest of the world thinks or believes if you are secure in your personal faith? "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for Thou art with me." So whose world are you living in? Do you choose to live in a world of your own crafting? Or do you tremble in fear at the shadow cast by other men?
David Santucci I find it ironic, this notion of a "nation without God." I thought God is everywhere at all times, inseparable from His creation...? I can't even have coffee without God because every subatomic particle of my coffee is part of the fabric of the Infinite Eternal consciousness of it All.... It tells me people think of God as a very limited entity, only going where He's wanted, really much more like a person than an omnipresent omnipotent deity. It also tells me their own faith is weak and fragile, dependent upon the actions and beliefs of others, unable to stand on its own with conviction within oneself. Christians these days are such pussies with all their whining.
David Santucci http://www.ripoffreport.com/political-cover-ups/north-mississippi-me/north-mississippi-medical-cent-z8efd.htm He posted this Ripoff Report in 2007 telling his story... For a "crazy person" he has really good grammar.
David Santucci He posted his story back in 2007 on Ripoff Report. He seems to have pretty good grammar for a "crazy person." http://www.ripoffreport.com/political-cover-ups/north-mississippi-me/north-mississippi-medical-cent-z8efd.htm I actually think he did these Ricin letters because he wanted to get caught so he could get national exposure for his story about the body parts in the fridge at the hospital, since he claims nobody would listen or publicize his story.