18th October 2011

“It should not be considered shameful to call yourself a secularist. Rather it should be a badge of honour.”

Paul Cliteur

6 Responses to “18th October 2011”

  1. Dan Says:

    I don’t know about a “badge of honor.” In fact I’d say that it’s a bare minimum to be a tolerant person – it’s the political equivalent of the Golden Rule.

  2. electrabotanical Says:

    Cliteur? Is that the guy who named the… nevermind!

  3. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Wearing secularism as a badge of honor is perhaps dangerous. There is no “A” in Coexist.

    “The equal toleration of all religions…is the same as atheism. –Pope Leo XIII, “Imortale Dei”
    http://www.secularthinking.com/quotes_religious_tolerance.php

    Paul Cliteur makes for a nice follow-up to yesterday’s discussion:
    “For multiculturalists, European civilization has been fundamentally on the wrong track since the Enlightenment. The Holocaust, Nazism, communism, slavery – these are seen not as deviations from the generally benign development of Western culture but as inevitable products of the European mind, which is inherently oppressive.” ~ Paul Cliteur
    http://www.signandsight.com/features/1174.html

  4. Jeff Says:

    Once more, I hate to kill joy, but unless we pick up the title and wear it as a badge of honor, it will continue to be dangerous for us to do so.

    Sinjin, Sorry about yesterday. I don’t particularly want anyone to buy me health insurance – that would be a waste of at least 25% of the dollars spent, because that’s how much the insurance company would take off the top for administration and profit. What I want isn’t health insurance – it’s health care. I believe pretty strongly that health care is a human necessity. The research is great, and yep, we could save a lot of lives if (when?) we succeed, but… At 56, I already have a brother pushing up daisies due to inadequate health care caused by insurance – a procedure repeatedly denied until it was too late to do him any good.

    I find it pretty funny that the two most satisfied types of health care “consumers” (I hate that word in this context) in the US are the two with the most socialized systems: Veterans and Elderly. I find it so amusing that the folks who scream the loudest about how our veterans deserve the best (socialized medicine via the VA), scream the loudest when any attempt is made to get the rest of the system up to those standards.

    I also find the folks that scream about how bad the Canadian system is have no experience with it. The CBC held a contest to name the Greatest Canadian, several years before the latest round of health care debates here in the US. The hands down winner was the Tommy Douglas, Governor of Saskatchewan in 1946, who created a system in his province called Medicare, which was adopted in 1961 and revamped in 1984 into the current Canadian health system.

    I understand, and even sympathize with, what you are trying to do with your suggestions. It just seams to me that the major argument against national health care comes down to “It costs too much”, which is the same as saying to all the folks like me, on the outside of the system looking in, “My money is worth more than your life.” I know that you didn’t say that – nobody would. But when you talk about how much money could be saved by curing certain diseases, that’s just another way of saying the same thing. Those cures are wonderful – but if I don’t have access to them when I get sick for financial reasons, I’m worm food none the less.

    Once again, I’m sorry if it seemed I was attacking you personally. It wasn’t meant that way, although it was phrased as such. It’s just that I wish someone (Oh, whatever, wouldn’t it have been nice had it been the President?) had the guts to say it out loud. However, since the money is on the side of the Doctors, Hospitals, Pharmaceutical and Insurance Companies, the voices of the 47 million of us with our noses pressed against the glass of the doctor’s office door didn’t get heard very well.

    So endth the rant…

  5. R j Says:

    jeff at 1846……..
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    jeff, i wouldnt call your words a rant…..more of a

    statement, to my mind, and nicely put.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    electra at 1430…………..

    yes dear, Paul Cliteur IS the guy who gave his name to

    that particular part of the anatomy………..but only after

    EXHAUSTIVE research into it’s structure and function ,

    which left him a broken ( but smiling ) old lech.

    co-incidentally, he was the cousin of Alours

    Menstrual ( MON-STROOL- ALL ) who ALSO

    left his name to the science of biology. a true

    pioneer.

  6. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Hi Jeff! No problem, I was concerned I had offended you on the other hand. When I think about the savings for not having those diseases I am thinking about health care for everyone.

    I fear the present system removes from possibility that we ever get to health care for all. I agree that providing for the physiological and safety needs of all people furthers the advance of civilization.

    I think it was Cap’n that mentioned reducing military spending and I’m all for that.

    The fundamental Constitutional tenet of providing for the common defense ought to include:

    Personal security
    Financial security
    Health and well-being
    Safety net against accidents/illness and their adverse impacts

    The Heritage Foundation website describes: “America’s common defense is therefore the primary responsibility of the United States government—a responsibility that in the end makes it possible for us safely to enjoy our many freedoms. By providing for the common defense, the Constitution secures the inalienable rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

    I believe this wholeheartedly but I take it a bit further than they do for sure. For me “common” is a far more expansive term that specific military protections.

    Our vulnerabilities as humans in a civil society are all over the place. We need the police for personal security, the Federal Trade Commission for consumer protection and competition jurisdiction in broad sectors of the economy, we need protection from disease and injury and a safety net from losing our basic security for having had a disease or illness.

    Common Defense because that which brings us down isn’t specific. It is the cumulative effect of a wide vareity of threats. We spend too much on military defense precisely because we have other threats that are destroying far more people every year than all our human enemies combined.