Nightingale

Well, the problem used to be that "if you weren't Italian, you can't be pope". Now, with two non-italians in a row, it breaks that tradition and gives everyone an equal chance, rather than giving the cardinals an opportunity to present JPII's appointment as an anomaly.

I'd definitely like to see a more prominant role for women. The church virtually ignores half the population. JPII was against even female altar servers and eucharistic ministers. If you're male and want to serve the church, you can be a priest, deacon, acolyte, etc. If you're female, well, you can be a nun, and nuns don't really do anything that a regular person can't do, since nuns focus mainly on prayer and community service. It's as if the church is saying that women aren't good enough to take on the responsibilities of a priest. A priest is the most important local position, and women are denied the opportunity. The church's attitude towards women is one of the things that is driving younger people, especially young women, away. Women look at the church and realize that they really don't have much of a role in it. Also, I believe that priests should be allowed to marry. The church states now that priests and nuns should be basically married to the church. However, that wasn't always the case. Priests were originally allowed to marry. However, this became a problem, because priests didn't own property. Therefore, there was nothing for the children to inherit, so priests began giving their sons church property, because at the time, inheritence was very important. The church didn't like this much, and changed the rules to say priests can't marry to get rid of the whole inheritence issue. There's no real religious reason that priests can't marry, and the historical one isn't really valid anymore. The protestants seem to have balanced marriage and serving the church, and there's no reason why catholics can't do the same. There are also many reasons to lift that restriction. 1. People wouldn't have to make the difficult choice between church and family/marriage/love. 2. Priests would be better equipped to counsel their parishoners on life, because they wouldn't be so far removed from it. The current system is like a flight instructor trying to teach someone to fly a plane when the instructor himself has never done it but just read a book on the subject. They have no practical knowledge, which can lead to spouting off ideals that are not always practical in reality. 3. It would open the priesthood to married men, and, with the priest shortage, a larger pool of candidates, there will be more priests. 4. It would probably cut down on the sexual abuse of parishoners by priests. Having normal outlets for sexuality can cut down on abnormal behavior. (take a look at how many men with normal sex lives go into jail and end up hooking up with other men when they wouldn't have done so otherwise). There are a lot of other reasons. those are just the big ones. Those are the two main things I'd like to see the church change.

I'm both pleased and disappointed with the choice of pope. I'm pleased because he's not italian. JPII was the first non-italian pope in 400 years, and if they went back to an italian pope at this point, it would be many years before another country got a chance again for fear of breaking tradition. JPII would have been looked back on as an anomaly, and it would be much harder to break the tradition again. Benedict XVI is German, which does demonstrate a bit of change in the church. However, I think Benedict is going to be repeating the same stuff that JPII was, and there will be no change in the church. I'm disappointed in this, because when something ceases to change, it usually dies. Many people now (myself included) have a very hard time relating to the church.because it is so far removed from our reality.

My grad school didn't require GRE. Many private universities don't. Some have a "minimum" score that can be waived. They let you take three or four classes before taking the GRE, and if you get good grades, they don't care what your GRE score is. Pick your school first, if you haven't already. You might not even need to take it.

I think this guy goes way beyond the boundaries of left/right and into the realm of fanatics and extremists. This isn't a view that most right wingers or Christians hold, just like most Muslims didn't support the terrorism of 9/11. When we get out onto the radical fringe of a party or a religion, we're not dealing with the majority any more, we're dealing with radical groups and individuals that do not generally speak for the whole.

if that virus is going to get loose, they shouldn't destroy it, they should include it in next year's flu shot.

I'm 26. my parents still pay my car insurance, but I pay everything else. The only reason they pay my insurance is that my dad's name is on the pink slip of my car, along with mine. so, if I hit someone, he could get sued, so they keep the car insurance really high, to protect themselves. They know I couldn't afford that much insurance, so they pick up the tab. I've told my dad to just take his name off the car and I'd cover the insurance myself then, but he doesn't want to. Perhaps, instead of making your kids get their own policies, you could keep them on yours, and have them pay you, so the premiums would be lower for them than if they had their own policy.

Anyone who knows me well already knows the answer to that question.

I think he's encouraging the country to be scared, and that he's using that fear to take away some of our freedom, which is exactly what the terrorists want.

Nope. Not even when joking.

Exploring religions is a good thing. Choosing one for your child to follow, especially when you seem so uncertain yourself, may not be. My parents forced me to go to church as a child and teen. The second I could make my own choice, I stopped going. Through high school, there was something about the religion that didn't sit right with me, but I wasn't permitted to step back and examine it because I was constantly being thrown into the middle of it. I resented that lack of a choice so much that I'm not sure if I stopped going because I wanted to stop going, or if I stopped going because of the negativity associated with being forced to attend. Forcing a child to do something that should be done out of a desire to do it usually ends up with the opposite effect that the parents want. I have a brother and 13 cousins, who were all raised with forced church attendance like me. None of us attend church, and when we talk about it, we all associate the negative feelings of being forced in our childhood with our cutaway from religion. Parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles are quite upset at us. Now, I've been able to distance myself from the negative feelings about religion that came about by forced church attendance, and I've really examined a lot of religions as deeply as I can, and have drawn my own conclusions and follow the path of my own choosing. My brother and cousins have not, though. They stick with the "I hate church" mantra and see no reason to look any deeper. I think my reaction would have been different as a child if, when I said "I don't want to go to church." instead of forcing me to go, my parents and I had talked about why I didn't want to go, and perhaps tried to do something about my root issues rather than not addressing them at all. Perhaps attending a different church, a dialogue with a priest or minister, or just a simple explanation would have changed things. I don't know, and obviously, my parents didn't bother to find out.

I think the most dangerous would be any that requires faith and leaves no place for logic or reason.

some females can get pregnant as early as age 8. carrying a child at that age can be very dangerous physically, and what the heck would it do to her emotionally?

If a woman is raped and beaten and picked up by an ambulance, she has no say in where she is taken. None. the ambulance must take her to the nearest hospital that provides emergency care, whether it's a catholic hospital or not. If she is injured enough, she may have to stay in the hospital for a few days. Insurance companies won't pay for an elective transfer to another hospital. A woman shouldn't be put in a position where she would need to get a friend or family member to sneak medicine into a hospital. If she's in that hospital more than 72 hours without access to emergency contraceptives, if she wants them when she's released, they won't help because too much time has passed. Whether to take EC or not should be HER choice, not the hospital's, doctor's, or state's. No one should force her to take EC, but nobody should prevent her from doing so either. It should be her decision and hers alone.

From Miller: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158. The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

From the way the amendment is phrased, it seems like the "well regulated militia" line is more of an explanation behind the purpose of the amendment rather than a restriction on it. From US v. Emerson A textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms. A distinguishing characteristic of the Second Amendment is the inclusion of an opening clause or preamble, which sets out its purpose. No similar clause is found in any other amendment. While states' rights theorists seize upon this first clause to the exclusion of the second, both clauses should be read in pari materia, to give effect and harmonize both clauses, rather than construe them as being mutually exclusive. The amendment reads "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Within the amendment are two distinct clauses, the first subordinate and the second independent. If the amendment consisted solely of its independent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," then there would be no question whether the right is individual in nature. Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized. And, well, I think these guys say it pretty eloquently, too: “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.” — Alexander Hamilton “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which might be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Tench Coxe “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” — Noah Webster “No free men shall be debarred the use of arms.” — Thomas Jefferson “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” — Richard Henry Lee “The great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun. . . . Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?” — Patrick Henry

I think some allowances for maturity or lack thereof need to be given, as well as a consideration of the nature of the relationship. Was it high school or college kids just having fun, or was it a serious relationship? Oh...Rebecca- It isn't the act of cheating itself that disgusts me, it's the lack of respect that the cheater is showing towards his/her partner.

I think the corset piercings are really beautiful. Something I'd try myself if it wouldn't hurt like hell. I damn near passed out after getting two piercings in one day...twelve or more like those pictures...um...no.

Ditto. I've never cheated, and I've never understood people that do. When I'm with someone, it's because I want to be, and I'd rather be with that person than anywhere else. When you start wanting someone other than your partner, it might be time to take a hint and re-evaluate your current relationship. I see no point whatsoever to cheating. If you want to be with someone else, do it, but end the other relationship first (unless you have an open relationship, which is different and plays by its own rules). You need to observe the boundaries that you've set within your relationship. To fail to do so shows a total lack of respect for yourself and your partner.

Just because it's the way you've always done things doesn't make it the right way.

If guns were illegal, then only criminals would have them. It would be a very scary place to be if the law abiding citizens are unarmed and the criminals have guns.

The pharmacist who caused this issue ought to lose his license. He not only refused to fill the woman's prescription, he refused to transfer it to another pharmacy, preventing her from getting her medicine, period.

I agree with you that seatbelt laws and the majority of narcotics laws are stupid and an attempt to protect an individual from their own moronic activity. If people want to do stupid things, let them do stupid things. I have no problem with anyone doing drugs or consuming alcohol in their own home. Now, if they are driving under the influence and it causes a car accident, that endangers other lives, that of people who have chosen not to take the risk of using drugs or alcohol while driving. I think our alcohol and narcotics laws are overly strict. I don't think people should be allowed to smoke in public places, such as government buildings, public parks and streets, etc. Second hand smoke puts other people at risk. If smoking were confined to the smoker, I would have no problem with anyone smoking. However, when I have to breathe the smoke from someone else's cigarette while waiting in line to get a passport, that's not cool. And yes, that actually happened. I have no problem with any private establishment, such as a bar or restaurant or store permitting smoking. They own the place, it's their choice and the government needs to stay out of it. If there is enough of a demand for non smoking bars and restaurants, the market will supply them. I choose not to go to restaurants or bars that allow smoking, but that is my choice, and I will not force my choice on someone else, but I will not have them forcing their choice to smoke on me either. Their freedom to smoke in public places should end where my right to not smoke begins. I think any person of any gender should be able to marry any other person of any gender. Mainly because it's none of my business who anybody sleeps with or marries, provided that all parties are consenting adults. Other people's marriages don't affect me in the least, so I don't feel as though I have any right to restrict them. I also don't think there should be any tax benefits for getting married, because your choice to marry or not marry should not entitle you to more or less taxes. Marriage should be something the government mostly stays out of, as it is primarily a religious issue anyway.

they bury him 4-6 days after death.

pretty much.