http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/feeling-strains-baptist-colleges-cut/20060722172309990006?ncid=NWS00010000000001Here’s a link about Colleges breaking off from their Baptist sponsors. It seems the conventions are trying to get the colleges to make wrong decisions, like having science teachers teach the literal bible as truth in science class.
Dr. Crouch and his trustees decided it was time to end the college?s 63-year affiliation with the religious denomination. ?From my point of view, it was about academic freedom,?? Dr. Crouch said. ?I sat for 25 years and watched my denomination become much more narrow and, in terms of education, much more interested in indoctrination.??Georgetown is among a half-dozen colleges and universities whose ties with state Baptist conventions have been severed in the last four years, part of a broad realignment in which more than a dozen Southern Baptist universities, including Wake Forest and Furman, have ended affiliations over the last two decades. Georgetown?s parting was ultimately amicable. But many have been tense, even bitter.In Georgia and Missouri, disputes over who controls the boards of Baptist colleges led to prolonged litigation. In Tennessee, a clash over whether Belmont University in Nashville could appoint non-Baptists to its board led the Tennessee Baptist Convention to vote in May to remove the entire board. Belmont?s trustees are still running the university, and while negotiations are continuing, the battle for control could end up in court….David W. Key, director of Baptist Studies at the Candler School of Theology at Emory, put it more starkly. ?The real underlying issue is that fundamentalism in the Southern Baptist form is incompatible with higher education,?? Professor Key said. ?In fundamentalism, you have all the truths. In education, you?re searching for truths.??
The heart of common knowledge is so different from Christian dogma that Christians are trying to stymie education any way they can — even to the detriment of their own children. So obvious is the difference between fact and fiction that the colleges themselves are deserting over it. This kind of thing is a definite victory for those who want the world to progress. If we are to move into the 21st century we must dismiss the mythos of the 15th. These colleges are the means to the evolution of the Baptist theology — and that’s good for everyone.
mxracer
Of course the reading material is not going to harm the boy, and denying him the book is probably futile anyway – but I don’t see that as the point. The kid is still the responsibility of the parents, and we are aware that they wish him not to read HP. As a responsible adult should we not respect the parents’ wishes regarding prohibited material irrespective of our personal opinion?
I was going to try to spin the situation to an theist child wanting to read some holy book, but I doubt any self-respecting atheist would have any problem in letting the kid explore such material.
reluctantatheist said:
I have been reading the comments and think I know what was being referred to.
The laps in reasoning would be this statement:
Or better known as sexist and poisoning the well. Now apply the members only reasoning to what ?phreedm? said and it follows.
Sorry about the html. I’m still a new to it.
A-atheist:
Hey, I thought it was still the slavery discussion.
& I thought she had a valid point.
It is still a man’s world. I should know, being 1.
Look at this way: I get ci_alis & via_gra advertisments in my bulk email folder all the time.
I don’t think there are too many spammers peddling female contraception.
There’s clearly a double-standard in our society.
I recall, growing up, that if guys went about tomcatting, it was considered ‘sowing their wild oats’, but if a woman did it, well, I shan’t repeat the slur here.
& really, abortion IS a woman’s issue. It’s all about the woman. Sure, a man has some say in it, but he’s not subjected to the same stresses as the woman is: he’s not experiencing hormonal imbalances, swelling up, getting kicked in the tummy and having someone else sit on his bladder. Tack on stretch marks, swollen mammaries, not to mention the long hours involved in pushing out the little squirt.
I’m so glad I’m a guy, after re-reading that.
So I’m going to have to go w/Bones: she’s a woman, got a good point.
Some items ARE gender-specific. That’s not sexist. That’s the way life is.
“Apologies to all, but many men are the biggest fucktards when it comes to abortion. If men got preggers, abortion would NOT be an issue. It’d be legal, common, and available to all.”
Bravo Bones! And consider this: If men got preggers-tampon companies would sponser football, and we’d all get a week’s vacation-once a month!
Yes, reluctant, it is still a man’s world, and you can tell by how fucked up it is (that’s my quote)! But seriously, has anyone ever read Raine Eisler’s “The Chalice and the Blade”? It poses an excellent theory on how religion reacts to the equality of women with what she called an “androgenous” backlash that always includes war. War, Ms. Eisler says, is religion’s way of oppressing women by giving men the warrior personna–strong, wise, protector and leader. And women become the weak, feeble minded baby machines that require the protection (and ownership) of the male-dominant society. Unfortunately we are now suffering through a contemporary example of her theory.
Ms. Eisler gives a great deal of historical evidence, as well as the history of the forced indoctrination of male dominace into what was an eglaitarian western culture, including the cultures responsible for the brutal shift of society (one being the “Hebrews from the south”). It’s an eye-opening read.
PS-I’m not a man-hater-I’m just a realist.
Jonboy: Thanks for taking the time to list all the bible passages referencing slavery. It sure looks to me like the bible is just a reflection of the common beliefs of the time and not the result of the teachings of some god. What has happened to the god that inspired those writings they are in dire need of a rewrite to reflect current times, come on an all powerful god that truely wanted us to follow specific rules would be hovering over us giving out new rules constantly and not just appearing to a few people 2 thousand years ago and leaving it at that.
Thanks Jon for helping to show that the bible could not be inspired by a god.
pixel/Heathen-
This is a 14 year old, not a 6 year old, big difference. There is no ethical decision here, it’s Harry F’n Potter being read by a high school freshman/sophomore.
Growing up my best friends folks were southern babtist and the father made sure jesus was my savior even though both my parents were agnostic. He also took me shooting even though my parents would not allow me to own a gun and owned none themselves. The religous will attempt to indoctrinate your kids into their belief system without your permission.
I am glad to see baptists losing some of their influence on education.
Hey DVanWechel,
thanks for the input. Help me think this out a little bit. I don’t have children and I’m not sure we’re going to have them either. I think my comment has more to do with what I think would be a better use of energy for the pro-life movement and my frustration with health insurance than it does with forcing insurance companies to pay for maternity. Our health insurance covers $2 of my wife’s birth control. Two dollars. We have Blue Cross “Blue Advantage” in NC. It’s pretty much a standard for small business owners and the coverage ain’t so great, but the cost to move to the next better plan is quite a bit more.
A couple of questions come up for me… is education analogous to healthcare in that we who do not have children pay the cost of education through taxes even though we don’t have kids? Or, on the flip side, does education offer such a significant benefit to our society that we the childless ultimately benefit in having a good labor pool of educated people and an educated population? In the same way, does our culture benefit from enhanced healthcare where we the childless benefit from having a healthier population?
The cost implications are enormous. A friend of mine wife got pregnant before they added maternity. He now had to choose between an abortion or paying $1200 a month for nine months. They chose to have the child, but he went out of business. People screw up their birth control and birth control isn’t always 100%. People get pregnant. Sometimes it makes people choose between having a kid and having their business. When looking at those cost implications, if pro-life people want to do something very pragmatic, they should be working on better healthcare.
“Apologies to all, but many men are the biggest fucktards when it comes to abortion. If men got preggers, abortion would NOT be an issue. It’d be legal, common, and available to all.”
In no way was this meant to bash men. I happen to love men, or at least most of them. My original wording was that “men are…” and I changed it to “many men….” because I didn’t want to group everyone toegether. I’ll rephrase it a bit….If guys like BUSH could’ve gotten preggers when he was younger, abortion would be, as someone said, just as available as via_gra and his friends. Hell, it would be covered by insurance!
Phreedy, as far as your take on it….
can you imagine if we women got together to try and ban via_gra or cia_lis? It’s morally wrong because if god wanted you screwing around, he’d make sure you could. Don’t you remember that bible quote :
Ye who fail to rise up shall never rise! (Bones 7:26)
Whatdaya think would happen? After all, it just encourages more sex. If we let it go on, pretty soon, everyone will be having sex!
Could we outlaw it (even though the FDA approves it) like they’ve done with RU-486?
There are more choices in life than just the choice of pregnancy that affect the cost of health care. Do you choose to climb ladders, use power tools, or drive a car? Mishaps while performing any of these activities can result in significant medical costs. Or would you choose not do these things so that your health insurance will be less? People climb ladders, drive cars, use power tools, and get pregnant. I think it would be silly to expect people to live in plastic bubbles so that health insurance costs less. As far as insurance goes, the cost of my insurance is based in part on whether I have children or not. So, as someone with children, I really do pay more into the health care system, although I would not call it significant.
Spanders, you make good points. I do believe society in general does benefit from healthy and educated children (although some would probably say we are failing on both fronts). Should I feel slighted that someone who has five children get more benefit out of the education system than myself who has two? I certainly don’t. Should I feel slighted that the health insurance for my healthy children is higher to pay for children who are not? I certainly don’t.
On a personal note, when my wife was pregnant she had pre-term labor. The resulting medical expenses were in the 10′s of thousands, just to prevent early birth. While that may seem like a lot of money, it would pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands in cost if they had been born too early. That does not include long term health costs as a result of premature birth. So you see, it was much more inexpensive to provide appropriate health care during pregnancy, than what could have been afterward without it. Or do you sentence children to die to save a few bucks, or that the parents could not afford it? In the end, we have two perfectly healthy and intelligent children. That’s a good start to becoming contributing members of society.
Spanders,
All are interesting questions, and good points. I completely understand your frustration with the health insurance industry ? I am self-employed as well.
I don’t believe public education is analogous to health care in that there would be severe implications to keeping a segment of our population ignorant because they could not afford private education. Yes, those of us without children do benefit from having a population who, for the most part, has equal opportunity when it comes to education. The benefits of this, I think, are obvious.
I also believe our society benefits from a population that is healthy, which is why I would support some sort of a national government-subsidised health care program. But, there are components of health care that I do not believe should qualify for subsidies ? maternity coverage being one of them.
It seems to me that because the cost implications of having a child are so great, individuals who wish to have children should consider how this would affect them (and more importantly, their child) before getting pregnant, or in the case of an accidental pregnancy, having the child. If an individual has to choose between their business or having a child ? it would seem the answer is obvious ? do not have a child until that individual is financially capable of doing so.
I realize the problems are often times more complicated than this, and circumstances are as varied as the people involved. But as a generalization, there is almost always a choice in this matter, as difficult as that choice may be.
And finally, you’re absolutely correct! If pro-life people wish to make a bigger difference, bettering health care is a far more pragmatic endeavor. I believe few things hurt our society more than condemning the young, or the poor to a life of poverty by forcing them to have an unintended child. As those who have children know, the maternity part is cheap in comparison to the costs involved in raising a child ? including the health care costs. Making health care more affordable and bettering health education (especially sex education) would all go a long way to making sure more WANTED babies are born, and that the parents of those children aren’t forced into poverty because they chose to have children.
Tommy_godLess,
In most cases, pregnancy is not an accident that can result in catastrophic heath problems, as you have attempted to compare it to. And, I realize that maternity coverage is only a component of the high cost of health care. But as I stated above, most insurance companies offer coverage for maternity as an extra. And, if you work for a corporation, or small business for that matter, you understand that if the company selects a plan for their employees that contains maternity coverage, the cost for everyone is significantly higher. Why should employees who do not wish to have children pay higher rates because there may be some employees who do?
And the cost is significant, whether you believe so or not. Just ask Spanders how much it is to add maternity coverage to his healthcare plan.
Also, I think you’re missing my point. You chose to have children. And therefore, you have to accept the financial burden they may create.
To expand a little on my last point…
In choosing to have children, you understand that there is a certain financial burden that comes with having them (health insurance companies understand this also). Unlike working with power tools or climbing a ladder or driving a car ? you do not expect the ladder to collapse and create a financial burden in the way of health care costs and you don’t plan to have an accident that you know will create a financial burden (at least I hope not).
You can’t compare pregnancy to accidental circumstances ? at least, in most cases.
DVanWechel,
is there anything to both being calculated risk? We expect that birth control will work, that condoms won’t break and so on much like expect our ladders not to fall apart, our cars not to fall apart and become dangerous.
Personal experience has taught me that the less money you have, the more risk you take. For instance, as a kid we had an old wooden ladder that was fairly wobbly rather than the sturdy fiberglass ladder that would have been better. I had a brown pinto hatchback (oh yeah, I was the lady killer) that the power steering cut out on from time to time (it actually blew antifreeze through the vents too). I was much less safe than let’s say, someone with a new Honda. In the same way, those without resources have less educatin and are exposed to far more risk for accidental pregnancy.
I think part of my frustration is the disparity in care between those who are provided health care by their companies or have the resources to afford good care. It works in direct opposition to need. It seems to me that the better job you get the more money you make and the more coverage you get. Those with the resources to pay for good health care don’t have to while those who can’t afford health care don’t have the money to pay for good care.
I guess my main thoughts are that while having children is a choice, I believe that the less well off you are, the more high risk you are for accidental pregnancy. It’s likely not the best point and I think I’m just frustrated with health care. Much of this, actually is driven by religious ideas of taking care of the poor that I can’t seem to reconcile with the free market system that encourages personal responsibility with reward. As you can tell, I don’t have many good answers. I’m frustrated and I appreciate you letting me vent a bit.
spanders i think your point is accurate.as for not having good answers your not alone.some of the posts have touched on slavery.coming
from a family that owned slaves i can tell you that church and gov’t had laws to required proper treatment of slaves.contrary to media
most owners obeyed the laws.so slaves
actually had decent healthcare.
back to baptist/college break.does anyone think there might be some closet atheist/agnostic influence here.
I’m not trying to say that pregnancy is an acccident. The point I’m trying to make in my comparison is that we all make choices that can result in unfortunate medical events. Getting pregnant is usually a choice. Climbing a ladder is usually a choice. Problems during pregnancy and falling off a ladder are usually unexpected events. And yes, falling off the ladder would be specifically classified as an accident. I’m just saying that unfortunate events in either case can result in significant medical costs. Maybe I’m not being very clear, or my analogy is bad, or that our perspectives are signifficantly different.
Back to my situation, if my wife wasn’t provided the needed maternaty coverage, the long term medical costs to my insurance company would have been much higher. I would suspect that long term health care costs (paid by insurance companies) for children and adults who have health issues as a result of not getting proper maternal care is coming out of the same type of pot you are paying into now for your own coverage. So I think that it is be prudent to have an interest in proper maternal care regardless of a choice to not have children. That’s my perspective though.
I do certainly believe that the added coverage is significant. I’m afraid to ask how much it actually is.
But is it expensive because, as an option, it is usually only paid for by those only intending to get pregnant, and not neccesarrily by all those that do get pregnant? That would seem to lessen the cost sharing effect of insurance, thereby making it more expensive for the few that do chose it and not by all those that need it. I think it is unfortunate that maternaty care is considered optional coverage by insurance companies. I think it’s even more unfortunate that all pregnant mothers don’t have access to proper maternity care. I wish I knew how to fix that.
Coming from someone who does not have children that sure does sound odd to me.
Believe me, I do know it, and have accepted it, painfully at times.
Reason, it’s hard to say, but that is an entertaining thought. This is my favorite quote from the article…
?It?s good to go to a college that?s religious, but it doesn’t really matter to me,?? said John Sadlon, a sophomore. ?What matters to me is getting my education.??
Certainly a step in the right direction. Education is important. Fundamentalism shouldn’t get in the way.
Thanks to A-Atheist for pointing out the pertinent comment from Bones that phreedm had a problem with. I think you were probably correct.
I, however, completely agree with Bones, and in fact, made much the same statement quite some time ago, without getting much support. I’m glad to see others feel the same way. But I don’t see it as a projection that only those directly involved in an issue should have a say in it. The final say on the abortion issue has to go to the woman though, because it’s her body.
Though the man can argue that the baby is half his, he is not going to half -risk hhis life to half-carry it, or half deliver it. And in many cases, I would even dare to conjecture that he did not even do his half to avoid the pregnancy to begin with.
DvanW
I think it was you who made a comment about not having kids till one could afford them. That’s like saying one shouldn’t own a house till one can pay cash for one outright. You can never really afford to have kids.
That said, I think maternity benefits should be universally covered, but perhaps those who choose to not need them should get some kind of perk—like insurance companies do with safe drivers and lower rates. Because not all pregnancies are planned, and some accidents are not careless ones. All of mine were planned, but only one happened WHEN it was planned. It’s not a cut-and-dried deal.
If RU486 was available-and easily so- and abortion was available and covered by insurance, maternity coverage could possibly be lessened.
But as spanders pointed out, you can’t get it once the deed is done.
HNZ,
Good point, but any rational person can see there is no content in HP that a 14 year old isn’t able to handle. It’s targeted at that age group.
Dvan/tommy/karen,spanders:
I think the point Dvan is trying to make is that the cost of children is subsidized onto everyone in the same insurance group. This doesn’t promote any personal responsibility. And Dvan isn’t talking about having 20% down prior to procreation, but being able to provide the care the child needs, w/o looking for handouts that are paid for by everyone else (in the form of tax reductions/tagging along on group health insurance, etc).
The analogy is similar to vehicle insurance, if you cause less damages & take less risk, you pay less for the same product as someone else. People who do not procreate should not be expected to foot the bill for others who do.
This is one reason why children shouldn’t be a tax reducing item, if anything you should have to pay more in taxes for each child you have, for the additional burden you place on the ‘system’. I don’t buy 6 cars, b/c I can’t afford them, I sure as shit shouldn’t have 6 children and expect everyone else to foot the bill. This is bad fiscal behavior.
“This is one reason why children shouldn’t be a tax reducing item, if anything you should have to pay more in taxes for each child you have, for the additional burden you place on the ‘system’. I don’t buy 6 cars, b/c I can’t afford them, I sure as shit shouldn’t have 6 children and expect everyone else to foot the bill. This is bad fiscal behavior.”
Hear hear!
Did anybody hear the story about Jim Bob and his wife who have 14 kids and another one on the way? The poor little tax deductions clawing and fighting for a mere speck of attention. Think Jim Bob supports his whole family w/o help from state and federal systems? It’s our tax money supporting their breeding rights.
Span, Karen, Tommy,
Sorry for somewhat hijacking this thread… I’ll just say, true, there are no easy answers. And we can definitely agree to disagree. : )
Hey DVan… I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I just like a forum to explore ideas and I appreciate the discussion. That and I’m pissed at the state of health care in this country, but that’s another discussion in itself.