A Day Which Will Live in Infamy?

[Skysooner]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/01/13070876-republican-likens-contraceptive-mandate-to-pearl-harbor-911?lite&__utma=14933801.1457152994.1342540859.1343912731.1 343924025.11&__utmb=14933801.5.10.1343924025&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342540859.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utm ccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12= Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=ww w.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Ear ned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=121287304

A House Republican lawmaker likened the implementation of a new mandate that insurers offer coverage for contraceptive services to Pearl Harbor and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly (R), an ardent opponent of abortion rights, said that today's date would live in infamy alongside those two other historic occasions. Wednesday marked the day on which a controversial new requirement by the Department of Health and Human Services, which requires health insurance companies to cover contraceptive services for women, goes into effect.

"I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that's Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that's the day of the terrorist attack," Kelly said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates."

Republicans cried foul when the Obama administration first announced the new rule, reasoning that it would force employers with a religious affiliation to act in a way that contradicts their beliefs. The outcry included criticism from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and President Obama subsequently announced a compromise in which employers wouldn't be forced to offer insurance plans that cover contraception, but insurance companies would be required to offer coverage to women who wish to purchase it.

Republicans rejected the compromise, and subsequently attempted several times to advance legislation to reverse the mandate. The imbroglio contributed to Democratic charges of a GOP-led "war on women."

"This is a right that every American should be outraged, outraged about what this administration and Secretary Sibelius has set forth here on August the 1st," New York Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R) said at the same press conference as Kelly. "And as Mike said, August the 1st is a day that we as American will look at as the largest assault on our First Amendment rights."

Bit of a stretch here. This isn't meant to be a discussion about government mandates, etc. However, I would think the anti-abortion crowd would applaud fewer unwanted pregnancies. The mandate is a whole other issue. Still to compare it to Pearl Harbor and 9/11?

[soonercruiser]

And that's not even mentioning the 50 Million potential workers, consumers, and tax-payers that have already been aborted.
Are we a great nation, or what???
:emptiness:

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Employment Division v Smith

The First Amendment forbids government from prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion. The healthcare law is not a law specifically aimed at prohibiting religious reason. The First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes. This covers Obamacare's taxes which go to pay for birth control, just like it covers taxes that pay for national security, even if those taxes are paid by a pacifist or someone like myself, opposed to the war.

[Curly Bill]

I must admit that abortion is the big issue I don't follow typical conservative thinking on.

...or maybe I do! As a conservative I don't feel I have any business getting involved with a woman and her reproductive choices, unless I happen to be the father.

[Curly Bill]

That being said (see my above post) I sure as hell don't think any of my tax dollars should go towards any kind of contraception, providing abortions, etc...

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

I must admit that abortion is the big issue I don't follow typical conservative thinking on.

...or maybe I do! As a conservative I don't feel I have any business getting involved with a woman and her reproductive choices, unless I happen to be the father.No one is forcing them to use it, just giving her options right?

[yermom]

contraceptives are cheaper than babies

and abortions are one of the things i agree with conservatives on ;)

[cleller]

Well, I think I read here that the Pearl Harbor attack wasn't a real attack on the USA, so that should lessen the blow some.

I'm with Curly Bill on the abortion thing. Very conservative, don't care what women choose to do. We've got enough trouble without unplanned or unwanted births.

[rock on sooner]

contraceptives are cheaper than babies

and abortions are one of the things i agree with conservatives on ;)

There are so many different situations that exist...has to be a choice
for the mom, cannot be anything else. I believe that only that person,
her god, her conscience, nothing or no one else. For gov't to say, for
the opposite of gov't to say just is NOT right. It is her choice, period!

[soonercruiser]

So, what do you guys think of Hillary spending $Billions for forced contraception and abortion overseas; and, tying it to getting foreign aid?
That's our tax dollars too!

[Curly Bill]

So, what do you guys think of Hillary spending $Billions for forced contraception and abortion overseas; and, tying it to getting foreign aid?
That's our tax dollars too!

I'm all for forced contraception. I see lots of people everyday that should not be allowed to reproduce!

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

So, what do you guys think of Hillary spending $Billions for forced contraception and abortion overseas; and, tying it to getting foreign aid?
That's our tax dollars too!
Link please?

[okie52]

Birth control should be given away on every street corner.

[virginiasooner]

Can someone here PLEASE EXPLAIN why contraception is bad? Doesn't contraception PREVENT ABORTIONS?

[Midtowner]

According to the Catholic Church in Africa, contraception spreads AIDS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

[yermom]

he's not wrong, he's just an *******.

[KantoSooner]

As I read it, the government is mandating provision of an option; that's all. If the option's there, you can choose to avail yourself, or not.
No one is forcing a person to act against their religious convictions.
This is one more example of churchs (in this case The Church) failing to comprehend that they now exist in a world that does not accept their monoploy to interpret truth and reality.

[virginiasooner]

According to the Catholic Church in Africa, contraception spreads AIDS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

And the altar boys were asking for it . . .

[AlboSooner]

We would be wise to realize the Church, or religious institutions have faced these "modern" issues before. It is shortsighted to think that religious institutions are facing some modern realities, where their antiquated worldviews don't fall in-line with the new individualist and pluralist moralities.

For example Corinth in the first Century resembled our modern culture. Corinth was a wealthy, sports-crazed, multicultural, diverse, and perverse city. You had Greeks, Italians, Europeans, Asians, Jews, Arabs, living there. Not only were they culturally diverse, but also there were many religions practiced and many didn't even practice religion. Corinth had a famous slogan "All thing are lawful to me," which is the equivalent of "I have the right to do what I want."

I believe the idea that the church has not faced these "modern" issues before stems from a position of a-priori opposition to anything religious, induced by ignorance (or let me use the more sophisticated term "agnosticism"). In the area of meta-physics, there is nothing new under the sun. It has been done, tried, debated, long before we were born.

When it comes to their own church, the Church has absolute authority to define moral realities.

I have an issue with selective piety. I respect the consistent person, who holds a view and doesn't change their views to suit any given argument.
I don't think this line of thought is logically consistent: The government doesn't have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body, unless she decides to abort her 9-month old baby, unless she decides to be a prostitute, unless she decides to do drugs, unless she decides to pay her willing workers less than minimum wage, unless she decides not to wear her seat belt, and so on.

But you say, things are not black and white. You are correct. That's why subjective morality which stems from negating Divine authority and presence, leads us into a mess. You cannot have objective morality without God. History has proven that the Church is right in this position. No matter how modern we think we are, how enlightened we think we are, how evolved we think we are, the sad reality is that we are recycling old ideas with a pseudo-modern twist to them.

[KantoSooner]

Yo, Albo, The point is that a whole lot of us don't accept the existence of your diety and thus of whatever writings/positions/conclusions purport to flow from him/her. To live in a society composed of more than one religious group, you kind of have to drop the 'It's God's Will' argument.
You go do your thing, I'll do mine. You don't own objective reality, I don't have the whole picture, either. Therefore, forebearing from imposing our opinions on others is really the best way to go.
Oh, and morality does just hunky dory without presupposing a 'god'.
Peace.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I do not think I should pay for someone else's contraceptive device or birth control pills. I think they should be a reimbursable insurance expense and you pay for the prescription and get reimbursed through your FSA plan. All these so called "free" parts of the plan are not free and the costs are born by others.

[yermom]

you aren't paying for someone's FSA?

hell, i think you are paying more toward everyone's FSA than for their health insurance

[olevetonahill]

you aren't paying for someone's FSA?

hell, i think you are paying more toward everyone's FSA than for their health insurance

I'm On Veterans Welfare, What is FSA?

[yermom]

Flexible Spending Account

you set aside pre-tax money to buy stuff medical stuff like glasses or OTC medicine and lose it if you don't use it by the end of the year

it's income that doesn't get taxed, so we are all subsidizing everyone's FSA, basically

[virginiasooner]

I do not think I should pay for someone else's contraceptive device or birth control pills. I think they should be a reimbursable insurance expense and you pay for the prescription and get reimbursed through your FSA plan. All these so called "free" parts of the plan are not free and the costs are born by others.

Do you even KNOW how much a monthly prescription for BC costs? And BC is used for other things -- like prevention of anemia in women, hormone regulation, etc. Count me as a member of the "free birth control for everyone" club. And insurance companies would rather pay for 25 years of birth control for one woman, than a half dozen unplanned pregnancies. Paying for BC is pocket change for insurance companies, and cash cows for pharmaceutical corps (because a woman would be taking it for around 30 years). It should not come out of an FSA plan (which are ripoffs, IMHO).

[olevetonahill]

Flexible Spending Account

you set aside pre-tax money to buy stuff medical stuff like glasses or OTC medicine and lose it if you don't use it by the end of the year

it's income that doesn't get taxed, so we are all subsidizing everyone's FSA, basically

Is that an Employer deal? Part of your insurance?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Is that an Employer deal? Part of your insurance?

You set aside a portion of your pay tax-free to pay for medical aspects, it is use or lose. It used to be up to $5K (I think) but O'bummer lowered that to $2500.

VASooner - you want all the prescriptions free, where do you draw the line. I wants some Viagra, someone may want something else, perhaps a cancer drug that costs 40K per does should be included? Where do you draw the line? None of it should be free, preventitive care should be covered, there should be some costs born by all parties.

I do not want to ever pay for someone's abortion that isn't medically neccessary to live (i.e. tubal pregnancy). Certainly, never, ever as a contraceptive action.

[TitoMorelli]

You set aside a portion of your pay tax-free to pay for medical aspects, it is use or lose. It used to be up to $5K (I think) but O'bummer lowered that to $2500.

VASooner - you want all the prescriptions free, where do you draw the line. I wants some Viagra, someone may want something else, perhaps a cancer drug that costs 40K per does should be included? Where do you draw the line? None of it should be free, preventitive care should be covered, there should be some costs born by all parties.

I do not want to ever pay for someone's abortion that isn't medically neccessary to live (i.e. tubal pregnancy). Certainly, never, ever as a contraceptive action.

You're missing the whole point. You're supposed to keep your hands out of their vaginas. You don't get to tell them to keep their hands out of your pockets to pay for their vaginas.

[olevetonahill]

You set aside a portion of your pay tax-free to pay for medical aspects, it is use or lose. It used to be up to $5K (I think) but O'bummer lowered that to $2500.

VASooner - you want all the prescriptions free, where do you draw the line. I wants some Viagra, someone may want something else, perhaps a cancer drug that costs 40K per does should be included? Where do you draw the line? None of it should be free, preventitive care should be covered, there should be some costs born by all parties.

I do not want to ever pay for someone's abortion that isn't medically neccessary to live (i.e. tubal pregnancy). Certainly, never, ever as a contraceptive action.

That part makes no sense whatever.
You set aside Money for your use, then if you dont use it you lose it?
WTF is up with that? Why not let it carry over till the following years, Then If ya get hard hit with Med bills ya got it as a back up?

Or aM I missing something here?

[olevetonahill]

You're missing the whole point. You're supposed to keep your hands out of their vaginas. You don't get to tell them to keep their hands out of your pockets to pay for their vaginas.
If My Money going in their Vags, then Moren just MY HANDs are going to follow it in there

[soonercruiser]

You set aside a portion of your pay tax-free to pay for medical aspects, it is use or lose. It used to be up to $5K (I think) but O'bummer lowered that to $2500.

VASooner - you want all the prescriptions free, where do you draw the line. I wants some Viagra, someone may want something else, perhaps a cancer drug that costs 40K per does should be included? Where do you draw the line? None of it should be free, preventitive care should be covered, there should be some costs born by all parties.

I do not want to ever pay for someone's abortion that isn't medically neccessary to live (i.e. tubal pregnancy). Certainly, never, ever as a contraceptive action.

THIS ^^^^

They will soon be prescribing Viagra for all old me in retirement homes and long-term care facilities.
One pill a night is cheaper than buying bed rails to keep them from rolling out of bed and hitting the floor!
After all, it's all about the $$!

[SCOUT]

That part makes no sense whatever.
You set aside Money for your use, then if you dont use it you lose it?
WTF is up with that? Why not let it carry over till the following years, Then If ya get hard hit with Med bills ya got it as a back up?

Or aM I missing something here?
What you are describing is a Health Savings Account. In order to participate in an HSA, you have to have what is called a High Deductible Healthcare plan. I believe the lowest deductible allowed is $1,250 per year. The Affordable Care Act is not favorable to HSA's.

[AlboSooner]

Oh, and morality does just hunky dory without presupposing a 'god'.
Peace.

Objective morality does not. Nietzsche was honest in his evaluation that without God, good and evil cease to exist. Dawkins, despite being a neophyte when it comes to philosophy, affirms to same thing.

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. " ~ Richard Dawkins

A world without God cannot give you objective morality, but only subjective morality. In a world with subjective morals the person with the biggest gun, or biggest bank account, wins.

It shows bias when we reduce the argument of religious people to just "It's God will." The positions we hold have existential value.

[KantoSooner]

Sorry. A universe without good or evil is not the same thing as saying human beings must have no good or evil. Simple empathy and intelligent self interest produce precisely that which is otherwise called 'morality'. You simply don't need a bunch of old men in skirts prattling on about an iron-age myth system to get to right and wrong.
Hitchens is a bit better on this than the misinterpretation of Dawkins above. ( recommend 'God is not Great'.

The universe doesn't have to care for me to care. (and isn't that really the crux? I'm an independent moral actor, responsible for my actions. That's kind of what being 'human' is all about.) And, what is more, I don't require either bullying threats of hell or slimy bribes of eternal life or 72 virgins to motivate my morality. Good acts are, in themselves, enough.

[Skysooner]

You go do your thing, I'll do mine. You don't own objective reality, I don't have the whole picture, either. Therefore, forebearing from imposing our opinions on others is really the best way to go.
Oh, and morality does just hunky dory without presupposing a 'god'.
Peace.

There are definitely many studies to support the fact that morality doesn't originate with religion. The morality of both atheists and church goers in the important things is remarkably equivalent.

[rock on sooner]

If My Money going in their Vags, then Moren just MY HANDs are going to follow it in there

You wish....:smile:

[AlboSooner]

Evolution is blind to metaphysical truths. It is highly imaginative and requires quite the faith to say that out nothing, we get morality. You have to stretch the limits of credulenceto say that an inanimate, indifferent Universe gave rise to morality.

I never argued that an atheist cannot have morals, I only said without God you cannot have objective morality. There cannot be a human independent moral actor, unless you hold the position that human beings are not contingent. That is a tough position to defend, ok it's an impossible position to defend.

In regards to Dawkins, he understands the Universe to be the begetter of humanity (through evolution), and if the maker is blind to good and evil, it must mean good an evil are creations of humans. In reality, Dawkins marginalizes good and evil.

In essence the Bible is right when it says God created mankind in His image, which means we are all born with morality inscribed in our souls. This explains the resemblance in morals between atheists and believers. Only the believer has a logical framework for objective morality, while the atheist has to try really really hard to establish the necessity of even subjective morality.

There are mores that go against evolutionary ambitions.

Nietzsche explains this well:
"Hatred, delight in mischief, rapacity and ambition, and whatever else is called evil belong to the marvellous economy of the conservation of the species. To be sure a costly, lavish, and on the whole very foolish economy - which has, however, preserved the species, as is demonstrated to us."

Jesus turned that around and said the weak shall inherit the kingdom of God. To the believer, Christ not only offers eternal life, but also a meaningful existence on this earth. Through His death he justifies the sinner, and through His resurrection He defeated death. So, not only God is just in punishing sin, but also merciful in giving salvation freely. To this day, God has never sent anybody to Hell. Sadly, many choose to do so themselves. In the words of CS Lewis, "There are two kinds of people: those who say to God your will be done, and those to whom God says in the end, your will be done."

[yermom]

That part makes no sense whatever.
You set aside Money for your use, then if you dont use it you lose it?
WTF is up with that? Why not let it carry over till the following years, Then If ya get hard hit with Med bills ya got it as a back up?

Or aM I missing something here?

it has always seemed shady to me for those reasons. who gets the unused money at the end of the year? why not just make eligible items deductible?
the HSA thing sounds like a much better deal to the individual, that must be why it's not available as easily.

[Skysooner]

In essence the Bible is right when it says God created mankind in His image, which means we are all born with morality inscribed in our souls. This explains the resemblance in morals between atheists and believers. Only the believer has a logical framework for objective morality, while the atheist has to try really really hard to establish the necessity of even subjective morality.

The Bible also wants us to stone our children to death if they talk back to us. You can't have it both ways (having objective morality and having bs like that in there as well). It stretches the bounds of credibility to pick and choose. I don't believe in the risk/reward of the Bible. I have a very objective morality that has come through observation and practice. I treat people well, and I get treated well in return. There are many facets to it that I won't go into.

You have your faith in the God of the Bible. I have a faith in a universal consciousness but not the one espoused in the Bible. Whether this makes me agnostic or atheist I don't know, and I don't really care. Many of the wars and bad things done to people in history have been done through the tenets of religion as practiced by people at those times. In the best of all possible worlds (Panglossian I know), religion would be a great benefiter of humanity. Unfortunately that is not the way it in many instances. There are many great people who are both religious and non-religious.

Edit - Read this back after I posted it. It came out a bit harsher than I intended. I was in organized religion as an adult for many years (not as a child). I eventually left due to issues with people's actions vs. their words. I still have many friends that are religious, and they are great people.

[rock on sooner]

it has always seemed shady to me for those reasons. who gets the unused money at the end of the year? why not just make eligible items deductible?
the HSA thing sounds like a much better deal to the individual, that must be why it's not available as easily.

The entire issue about using it or losing it has to do with the fact
that the $$$ are pretax. If folks put bunches of bucks in pretax and
then didn't use it like they should, they'd beat the tax system for many
dollars. If it rolls forward then it'd go on forever, so the incentive of
using it or losing it kinda keeps it in line.

[yermom]

why is it pre-tax in the first place?

why am i paying for someone's glasses or ibuprofen?

[SCOUT]

it has always seemed shady to me for those reasons. who gets the unused money at the end of the year? why not just make eligible items deductible?
the HSA thing sounds like a much better deal to the individual, that must be why it's not available as easily.
The employer actually gets to keep the money that is not used in the calendar year. It is intended to offset people who have over spent. FSA's allow people to collect reimbursements from their FSA even if they have not yet contributed the money to the account. For example, suppose someone intends to put $5,000 over the course of 2012. They then have $5,000 in medical expenses in January. They can be reimbursed for the full $5,000 in January. If they leave the company in March, the employer is just out that money.

HSA's have the additional flexibility because they are administered by the individual instead of the employer.

[SCOUT]

why is it pre-tax in the first place?

why am i paying for someone's glasses or ibuprofen?
Over the counter medicine is no longer eligible for FSA's

[StoopTroup]

But if you can get your Doctor to prescribe the high dose prescription Ibuprofen it is. I believe I've seen a 800 mg Ibuprofen.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/drugs/images/multum/Ibuprofen%20800%20mg-QUA.jpg

[KantoSooner]

Albo, an indifferent universe in fact supports the morality of the individual actor. When faced with a blank slate, an intelligent being realizes that behaviior that one would have done unto yourself is really the only long term solution. (and to address any potential 'land grab' here, 'the golden rule' is not rooted in christianity. It preexisted that first of all great monotheisms, Zoroastrianism.) And that actions in concord with that are 'good'. It's really that simple. See? No god, no conscious universe. No mystical bearded white men sitting on clouds who know, oh so much more than us (sort of like cosmic daddies or kings). Ta dah!
Peace out, bro.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

.
http://i.imgur.com/YVOwZ.png

[okie52]

He sent that just to Christians....I knew we were special.

The atoms, molecules, matter, etc....just always existed. No God? Einstein sure was fooled..

13,700,000,000 is too low...god only knows how many times the cycle has repeated itself.

[Midtowner]

reductio ad absurdum.

Spek to you good sir.

[KantoSooner]

He sent that just to Christians....I knew we were special.


...or just the only ones in the room who needed to have the joke explained.

Oh, and the Einstein quote to which you refer was a forgery by a pathetic evangelist desperate for some of the great man's reflected glory.

[Mississippi Sooner]

But if you can get your Doctor to prescribe the high dose prescription Ibuprofen it is. I believe I've seen a 800 mg Ibuprofen.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/drugs/images/multum/Ibuprofen%20800%20mg-QUA.jpg

One time I asked my doctor for prescription strength Ibuprofen. He said, "I don't know why anyone needs a prescription for that. Just buy the generic over the counter kind and take 3 if you want 600 mg or 4 if you want 800 mg. It's the very same drug, but it's cheaper, and you don't need a doctor visit."

[pphilfran]

But if you can get your Doctor to prescribe the high dose prescription Ibuprofen it is. I believe I've seen a 800 mg Ibuprofen.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/drugs/images/multum/Ibuprofen%20800%20mg-QUA.jpg

That will help drive costs down...

[okie52]

...or just the only ones in the room who needed to have the joke explained.

Oh, and the Einstein quote to which you refer was a forgery by a pathetic evangelist desperate for some of the great man's reflected glory.

Hehheh...If you atheists would just fill the rest of us in on the beginning we could put all of this nonsense to rest.

Which Einstein quote was the forgery?:




"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."5

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."6

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

[yermom]

well, Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics, not sure why he couldn't be wrong about God too ;)

[KantoSooner]

I'm at work now. I'll get the quote for you.

and re, beginnings: who made God? Or is that a tad circular, too?

[KantoSooner]

stille at work, but here are a couple quote from Einstein that pretty well sum up his beliefs:

. . I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment—an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it.[

[KantoSooner]

and

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it

**************

The comments about 'Spinoza's God' which he also used to describe his views refers to Baruch Spinoza who's thoughts on the topic can be summed up as 'god may be believed in as a matter of faith only and anything more regarding god's character, wishes or demands can not be comprehended by man.'

[okie52]

and

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it

**************

The comments about 'Spinoza's God' which he also used to describe his views refers to Baruch Spinoza who's thoughts on the topic can be summed up as 'god may be believed in as a matter of faith only and anything more regarding god's character, wishes or demands can not be comprehended by man.'

I didn't quote Einstein as believing in a personal God...in fact I have said quite the contrary. He would also never be counted as an atheist either.

[okie52]

well, Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics, not sure why he couldn't be wrong about God too ;)

He could have been...probably the most impressive thing regarding Einstein on his beliefs was the humility he displayed (and truly believed) in his infantile grasp of the universe...which, of course, would still be better than most of us even 60 years after his death.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Albo, an indifferent universe in fact supports the morality of the individual actor. When faced with a blank slate, an intelligent being realizes that behaviior that one would have done unto yourself is really the only long term solution. (and to address any potential 'land grab' here, 'the golden rule' is not rooted in christianity. It preexisted that first of all great monotheisms, Zoroastrianism.) And that actions in concord with that are 'good'. It's really that simple. See? No god, no conscious universe. No mystical bearded white men sitting on clouds who know, oh so much more than us (sort of like cosmic daddies or kings). Ta dah!
Peace out, bro.

Well that's settled. At least we still have the intellectual superiority of the atheists.

[okie52]

I'm at work now. I'll get the quote for you.

and re, beginnings: who made God? Or is that a tad circular, too?

Don't know. I don't know who/what made matter, either. I only suspect. How about you?

[KantoSooner]

No clue. It all seems to end up in 'Yeah, but what came before that..." type of a thing.

[yermom]

He could have been...probably the most impressive thing regarding Einstein on his beliefs was the humility he displayed (and truly believed) in his infantile grasp of the universe...which, of course, would still be better than most of us even 60 years after his death.

i'm referring to "God does not play dice."

[okie52]

i'm referring to "God does not play dice."

And....?

[soonercruiser]

One time I asked my doctor for prescription strength Ibuprofen. He said, "I don't know why anyone needs a prescription for that. Just buy the generic over the counter kind and take 3 if you want 600 mg or 4 if you want 800 mg. It's the very same drug, but it's cheaper, and you don't need a doctor visit."

But, here in Oklahoma, some know how to game the system very well.
Some free and reduced fee clinics in Oklahoma do dispense 6-800 mg Mortin on a doctor's Rx.
These clinics get it cheap....sometimes from the excess drug company pool, or excess turned into the County Pharmacy system from hospitals and other care facilities.
I've done it (Rx) and I have seen it.

[StoopTroup]

I think it's all Texas fault by forcing young girls to get a guardacil shot.

[StoopTroup]

That will help drive costs down...

You might take note that this kind of thing happens a lot. Many OTC drugs were originally prescription drugs that were later allowed to be OTC drugs so yes they do actually have a purpose. You don't want to take more than 2000 mgs of Ibuprofen a day on a regular basis but my understanding is a large dose like this can be
Beneficial. Sure you can take 4 200 mg pills but they also have coating to keep your stomach from creating an ulcer. So unless you really know about why they have higher doses, I wouldn't just roll my eyes and think what you did in your quote. It's possible depending on the drug that you'd be making an uneducated mistake.

Also, one of the things some Docs think is that many OTC drugs are very dangerous. Example: Acetimemiphen (Tylenol). How many years was it on the market before they started telling people they should limit taking it regularly or in doses that might cause liver damage?
Every one of these OTC drugs usually state that you should consult a physician if your reason for taking the product continues. Why? Maybe all you need is a 800 mg dose twice a day for 4 days?

Just a thought.

[soonercruiser]

You might take note that this kind of thing happens a lot. Many OTC drugs were originally prescription drugs that were later allowed to be OTC drugs so yes they do actually have a purpose. You don't want to take more than 2000 mgs of Ibuprofen a day on a regular basis but my understanding is a large dose like this can be
Beneficial. Sure you can take 4 200 mg pills but they also have coating to keep your stomach from creating an ulcer. So unless you really know about why they have higher doses, I wouldn't just roll my eyes and think what you did in your quote. It's possible depending on the drug that you'd be making an uneducated mistake.

Also, one of the things some Docs think is that many OTC drugs are very dangerous. Example: Acetimemiphen (Tylenol). How many years was it on the market before they started telling people they should limit taking it regularly or in doses that might cause liver damage?
Every one of these OTC drugs usually state that you should consult a physician if your reason for taking the product continues. Why? Maybe all you need is a 800 mg dose twice a day for 4 days?

Just a thought.

The max daily dosage for Motrin is 3200 mg.
Taking 800mg, 4 times a day should only be used for a big "anti-inflammatory" kick for 3-6 weeks.....such as acute muscle pain in a TMJ patient.....under a doctor's care!
Beyond that time frame, like other anti-inflammatories, the doc should check liver enzymes to be sure there are no changes.

Obvioulsy, there are much more effective drugs for "pain" which do not have the same significant side effects.
But, high dose anti-inflammatory drugs are very effective for treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain.
(Long-term steroid use for inflammatory disease is a whole separate issue.)

[pphilfran]

You might take note that this kind of thing happens a lot. Many OTC drugs were originally prescription drugs that were later allowed to be OTC drugs so yes they do actually have a purpose. You don't want to take more than 2000 mgs of Ibuprofen a day on a regular basis but my understanding is a large dose like this can be
Beneficial. Sure you can take 4 200 mg pills but they also have coating to keep your stomach from creating an ulcer. So unless you really know about why they have higher doses, I wouldn't just roll my eyes and think what you did in your quote. It's possible depending on the drug that you'd be making an uneducated mistake.

Also, one of the things some Docs think is that many OTC drugs are very dangerous. Example: Acetimemiphen (Tylenol). How many years was it on the market before they started telling people they should limit taking it regularly or in doses that might cause liver damage?
Every one of these OTC drugs usually state that you should consult a physician if your reason for taking the product continues. Why? Maybe all you need is a 800 mg dose twice a day for 4 days?

Just a thought.

What?

Which would be the most cost effective? Is there any difference in the treatment or success of said treatment?

Doc tells ya to buy otc x pain killer and take 4 twice a day...

Doc writes a scrip for x(4) that you get filled at pharma and you take one, twice a day...then you turn in the receipt from x(4) to your insurer since it will cover some of your annual deductible...