georgesbluegirl

If the earth's temperature warms by 2 or 3 degrees, millions of acres of land will flood and displace far more people in third-world low-lying lands than could be fed. Bye, Bangladesh.

Also worth pointing out that the term "global warming" is somewhat inaccurate - the issue we are dealing with is more correctly called "anthropogenic climate change." There has been debate in the last decade or so about the cyclic nature of climate change (which is the rule rather than the exception for nature anyway), but there is certainly a scientific consensus at this point that, since the Industrial Revolution, climate has been heavily affected by the anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases. Keep in mind too that climate change doesn't necessarily mean warming everywhere - some places are expected to first get much cooler while sea levels rise and temperatures become higher on average.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that. Prisoner abuse and torture = unjust, awful, and inhumane.

So am I gathering that a lot of people think the ideal is that women should stay home?

Women in the house and the men out at work? All-white suburbs? General homogeneity? No thanks. While the idea of "a simpler time" is appealing, it really wasn't so, no matter how much nostalgia we have for the idea.

I'm a little confused why people think this points to the fact that women are unfit for the military. The problem of this soldier was not that she was a woman and therefore "weaker," but that she clearly had emotional problems, perhaps a depressive disorder (which men are the victims of just as often). And the police officer example doesn't make much sense...how would that officer being a man have changed anything? There are plenty of women in traditionally "male-dominated" jobs who keep up with or out-perform the guys. As somebody who used to dream of flying in the Navy, I'm glad the government has realized (at least to a degree; women still aren't allowed in a bunch of key divisions) that it's just plain dumb to keep half the population of the country from sending its best and brightest to fight for it.

By "person" do you mean "woman?" Because submission is for everybody, not just those of the female persuasion. Submission to God, submission to one another in a marriage...

Sorry to divert the topic further, but it's worth pointing out that Jesus probably had prominent followers who were women who were simply not given a great amount of attention in the Gospels (remember: inspired by God, written through the lens of the men of the time). "Mary Magdalene" as she is talked of today is actually a synthesis of three figures from the Gospel - one of them was a wealthy woman who was one of Jesus' biggest supporters (thanks for making one of the strongest women in the Bible a whore, Pope Gregory...) And yes, the fact that women aren't ordained (I'm Catholic) has always really bothered me. I asked a bishop about it once and the response I got was "if God wants it to happen, it will." Well sure, but we need to start using our brains too. God leaves a lot of the management up to us...plus back in the day (waaaay back) women used to be deacons. I think you'll see that return in the Catholic Church in the next fifty years, there's a good amount of support for it.

FYI - every catholic diocese keeps at least one exorcist around...

The Tibetan exile is a such a tragedy. Something has to give soon. I'm planning on going to Dharamsala in the next year or two, and may actually eventually be in Tibet.

I don't think you're giving me enough credit here. Not only did I not hear the NPR piece, but I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. I saw the movie, which had no internal commentary. I have done further research, and a bit of contemplating. These are my reactions. Again I emphasize, if you haven't seen the movie, then please refrain from commenting on how you think the movie depicts Christians. None of the people in the film come off as unfeeling, unkind, mean, etc. We see them trying to do a good thing for their community and their church. What I'm talking about is the literal production that comes out of those desires to do something good. Personally, I think all the money spent on Hell House could be much better spent on an outreach program in Dallas.

I don't know if, ultimately, good has been done. Assuming I was a naive young person, I might leave "Hell House" believing that all homosexuals are God-hating, diseased sinners, that human sacrifices are a common occurrence, that I'd better not get raped because I'll have to deal with it all on my own (no friend, comfort or angelic voice over the shoulder in that scene, just a demon), and that I should be very afraid of the shy, quiet kid everyone makes fun of because he'll probably kill me one day - why show compassion to a crazy person? Clearly, I'm being extreme. But those are the views of horrible, tragic situations that are presented at Trinity - and, after some research I've been doing, seem to be commonly presented in "Hell Houses" held at churches around the country.

don't have time to go into the "gray" but: again, you haven't seen it. it is FAR from portraying christians as monsters. it shows incredibly intimate details of several lives, including a man who has been left by his wife, and who cares for his children (one of them epileptic), a girl who had been raped and managed to forgive her rapist through the performance of a scene, etc. the film shows clearly the level of support that people gain from the church. it's extremely balanced. just because NPR talks about or comments about something doesn't mean it's bad.

you did point it out before - i just don't agree, it's as simple as that. i also think God leaves room for shades of gray.

matt, why would you attack the production of the film without having seen it? the film is presented with NO narrative. directed by george ratliff out of cantina productions, this was an indie flick. if you look at reviews for it, you'll see that it got many extremely positive reviews from christian audiences/reviewers - in other words, the doc simply presents an event as best in its power and lets the audience be the judge of the subtext, consequences, and overall meaning. which is what more documentaries should seek to do. the film "hell house" is extremely level. i actually thought that it may have been produced by trinity church itself at the end of it. basically, i just don't think that scaring people into religion is an incredibly worthwhile tactic, nor, in this instance, a way to generate compassion for those struggling. i still have very big problems with depicting an anguished, mentally unstable girl being dragged off to hell when her rapists totally disappear from the picture. plus i just helped run/acted in a haunted house for the local community, and there were multiple scenes in "hell house" that we wouldn't have DREAMED of depicting. granted, hell house charged admission, but still...there were some kids in there that i thought were way too young to be seeing some of it.

other than the problems i have that i stated before, such as the one-sidedness of many of the scenarios...i just don't see this as an effective way to get people to legitimately experience anything real. i think if you freak people out enough, maybe they will decide to join the church - but how many of them are actually going to continue to want to be there? i think in the long run, positive action rather than negative action like these "scare tactics" makes a much more lasting impression, and thus leads to committments that are more real.

to answer your question, smalcald, the "dragging off to hell" is shown in the haunted house. i have to run for a bit, i'm interested in what people discuss in the interim!

i have had many interesting conversations about the dalai lama on worthy. he remains one of my great heroes. i'd love to have this seperate conversation if you guys want, but with all due respect (and no offense meant!) can we stick to the topic? i'm really interested to hear what people have to say about this.

it's an interesting idea, absolutely. however, for me, its execution was extremely problematic - for example, a girl who is given a date-rape drug at a rave, is (we are told) brutally raped, wakes up and remembers her father abusing her, then commits suicide with a demon over her shoulder whispering that she is worth nothing, etc. why do the rapists vanish with no admonishment in this production? why do those who taunt a shy boy and call him "retard" get off scot-free when he commits suicide and gets dragged off to hell?

i just saw a documentary film called "hell house," about a christian "haunted house" outside of dallas that depicts scenes of school violence, abortions, rape, abuse, AIDS, etc. instead of the traditional fare. while i've heard of/been to "alternative" halloween events, this surprised me and, frankly, i was incredibly turned off by the entire production. are similar "haunted houses" more common than i realized?

not this one. the big mistake the pro-life movement has made is in NOT emphasizing the sanctity of ALL life. by the way, as a matter of semantics: "pro choice" is not the same thing as "pro abortion."

Just because someone with Parkinson's is on meds doesn't mean their motions are controlled. Since I'm assuming nobody here knows Fox, I think it's disrespectful and mean to accuse him of "faking" something that has afflicted him and caused him intense pain for years. I would also argue that testifying/appearing without taking meds is completely legitimate and not an "exaggeration" at all, since it's a representation of the true nature of the disease without the medicine that Fox can afford but others can't.

that's horrible. you know, he kept it a secret for years - most of the cast of "spin city" had no idea at all, and thought he was simply being a prima donna on mornings he wasn't "ready" to shoot. and i've seen video of him testifying before congress without meds. absolutely shocking. that rush apologized is good. that he even said what he said in the first place? i am newly floored by his disrespect.

i wasn't disagreeing about you with the paper trail, butero! i was glad to see most people are on the same page - it's just there are a few people who think the notion is stupid and unnecessary. as for felons, i agree with you there too. society should forgive crimes once a sentence/parole is complete. what i DON'T agree with, however, is the implication (this is from others, not butero in particular) that the democrats are the only ones to ever try to manipulate the voting system. that's just plain naive.

personally, it confuses me to no end why people scoff at dems - and lots of others - for asking for a paper trail. i can't imagine why we wouldn't want that! because that's the majority of the democratic voter base? remarks like that are just mean-spirited. it's not like both parties haven't tried their own tricks in the past. i do go to school in new england, though, and sometimes miss hearing things like that...haha. also, this is kind of a seperate issue. actually a completely seperate issue. buy why don't you believe convicted felons should be able to vote? what about rehabilitation?