markomalley

Garth: Heating bill? This is in Washington DC...Can you imagine the AC bill...particularly considering that the church you're seeing is the eigth largest Catholic church in the world ((shudder)) Bliss: Sorry, didn't mean to offend. But a lot of folks (including Catholics) have never seen an ordination before... Robin: The stole (sash) is the symbol of the clerical office. The candidates had already been ordained transitional deacons a year ago...that's why they are vested in the way they are in the first several photos. The order of the diaconate (deacons) wear it from left shoulder to right side. The order of the presbyteriate (priests) wear it suspended from their neck, crossed across their chest in the front. The order of the episcopate (bishops) wear it suspended from their neck straight. The priests and bishops secure it in its appropriate position by a cincture (rope) tied around their waist. The deacon's stole goes over the cincture. The cincture symbolizes chastity (not celibacy, but chastity). The stole always has a small cross in the center of it. As the cleric dons the stole, he kisses the cross and says the following prayer: Restore unto me, O Lord, the stole of immortality, which was lost through the guilt of our first parents: and, although I am unworthy to approach Your sacred Mysteries, nevertheless grant unto me eternal joy. You'll note about halfway down, you see the bishop (Cardinal McCarrick) raising his hands in prayer. He is, at this point, praying the prayer of ordination. At that point, the candidates become priests. The two photos thereafter are when the new priests are assisted in donning the vestments proper for the priesthood. It makes sense that the stole resembles the Jewish stole, considering the origins of Christianity...

Just got back from the Washington Archdiocese Ordination. 12 new priests!!! Thought you all would enjoy some of the pictures. No commentary, other than to note that the magnification on the camera was on max: thus the graininess. Enjoy!!!

Is there something I need to hear about??? Details, please. Evidencary photos should also be required! Now is that Gspotters...are you making an analogy to L-dotters. Or is that a reference to the g-spot. Enquiring minds want to know...

Great, greasytech, you apparently are personally responsible for causing a DDOS on their server farm. Way to go!

The principle epitomized in Mt 25:31ff show the charity we should be extending to those without. But this is a completely different issue than sloth. Again, the principle of subsidiarity should be viewed, both in light of the 2 Thes citation and the Matt 25 citation. First, a person has a responsibility to take care of himself and his family. If he is unable to do so, then extended family, local community, other members of his particular Church, &tc., should step up to the plate, out of charity and concern for their brother. Cf Gen 4:9. Note that, in the context of the Bible, the State has no role in this function: it is far more localized, as it should be. In addition, this is witness to our treatment of those who CANNOT take care for themselves...not those who WON'T take care or simply DON'T take care.

Presumably on the issues discussed during the campaign or issues identified as planks on the candidate's platform, this would be the implication: - For example, if a candidate identifies himself as anti-death penalty in his platform and is elected, one would think that he should stay that way: that's what the voters elected. Yes, he should be consistent with how he ran. But what about issues that were not forseen during the previous election cycle: - What happens if there is a massive pandemic that could result in 25% of the populace dying from some here-to-fore unknown disease? - What happens if the country is attacked by a previously unrecognized threat agent? (i.e., what if we are bombed by Sweeden?) Should the incumbant place himself in a holding pattern until the polling results are in, so he understands the opinion of his consituency? What about the occasional issues (particularly with members of the defense, intelligence, and foreign relations committees in both houses), where they receive information during closed session that they wouldn't receive from public sources...he might vote in a seemingly unexplicable way... Cases like the above are why I think it is important to understand and be comfortable with the philosophy/ spirituality of a candidate. There are, every session, instances that come up where the candidate didn't make his position known. There are instances where he learns new information after being elected that might cause him to change his mind. If the candidate's mindset, the basis upon which he makes his decisions known, is communicated to the voters and if he acts consistent with that mindset, the voter can be left with the thought, "if I were in his shoes and knew what he knew about it, I very well might make the same decision." If the candidate is totally poll-driven, he might be wrong. And you won't know what he's going to do if he is confronted with a situation where he does not have the guidance of polls (or where it is apparent that the populace does not have all the information needed to make an intelligent decision). I personally (regardless of others on this thread) am interested in what anybody who chooses to <i>constructively</i> inject input has to say, regardless of what kind of spirituality they embrace. I reserve the right to respectfully disagree, but being exposed to other perceptions is a good method to get smarter. ---------------------------- BTW, Jesus was a good Jewish boy. There is much to learn based on that fact. It might be a good thing to have one thread per topic...so that way it doesn't derail too badly.

Dancing, The question though that is pertinent to this thread is how does one's attitude, based upon one's spirituality (Christianity in particular), impact your views of political issues, political parties, etc.? Does this inherently color your views toward such issues as: - Social assistance programs - Crime and punishment - War and national security - Healthcare, abortion, euthanasia - Taxation - Environmental protection And then, if I'm the political candidate...who happens to embrace a particular form of spiritiuality...should I cite that spirituality as my justification for my beliefs...or should I just embrace the views as my views...leaving their origins as an "unstated" I don't think the topic is really about what the "Christian" political position is about any one of those views...rather, is it appropriate to identify your position as the "christian" position...or just the position that you have taken?

Abi, Something's wrong here. We are not supposed to agree on what is, essentially, a political topic. :blink: The only proviso I'd put toward physicians performing "pro bono" work is if they are getting some type of protection against lawsuits. Even more extensive than the tort reform you are speaking of. Without that, I could understand completely why they wouldn't care to do any charity work: help a person out from the goodness of your heart, donate your time, your staff's salary, supplies, lab work, drugs -- and then end up defending a multimillion dollar lawsuit as your reward...even if you won such a suit, you'd still spend a pretty penny defending it. BTW, one thing I neglected to mention above was the practice of insurers -- as well as large corporations -- to settle out of court rather than to mount an extensive defense. What will happen is that a plaintiff's attorney will approach a defendant, file a lawsuit, massive press coverage, flurries of motions, and then the defendant will settle. Because even to win costs a HUGE amount of money. It is cheaper on them if they settle a claim for 100-200 thousand -- even if the claim is baseless -- rather than to spend a million in legal fees to win the case in court. Plaintiff's attorneys know this and leverage that strategy to their advantage. Because face it: a filing and a couple of letters to earn a payout of 40-50% of 100,000 is easy money. So the malpractice insurer will settle out of court, because it's easier on them. Then they turn around and raise rates to recoup the cost of the settlement. The "people" are the ones getting stuck with the bill, in the end. I'm sure Dr. Sudo, if he read this thread, could tell us some horror stories about this kind of stuff.

Honestly, I don't support Wicca as a practice. But it is offensive to me to think that somebody's religious practice cannot be acknowledged on their headstone, regardless of what that practice is.

Believe me, Abigail, I know it's getting worse and worse. My wife's insurance scheme went from being one of the best coverage levels in the state (far better than my retired military stuff) to being almost unusable. In fact, it's being dropped next open season...so that we can just depend upon mine. For that very reason. I don't know what I'd do if I wasn't retired military. As to affordable, I've said it before and will say it again: we need to examine the components of cost involved. Malpractice insurance is the one I hear about more. I understand the average malpractice premium is almost $200,000 now (for a doctor...I have no idea what the liability insurance costs are for facilities). There are a number of OB/GYN's who have simply quit practicing in my state due to the costs involved...and my state isn't hardly unique. I also understand that the number of Emergency Rooms is decreasing...because of, again, the liability issues involved. What's the implication for us, the consumer: our costs go up. These businesses (medical practices, hospitals, etc.) are going to pass those costs on up to us. In addition to the obvious increases, there are others, as well: in order to protect themselves against potential malpractice suits, more tests, including more tests that may not be absolutely necessary for a diagnosis, are being ordered. I've heard the term used: "defensive medicine." Perhaps a doctor really only needs to run one blood test for a diagnosis...just to be absolutely sure, though, that doctor may order a battery of 20, have the person do a diabetis test, get radiographic images, and so on: to confirm the suspicion. Good medicine? Yeah, maybe. Needed all the time? probably not. But those costs get passed on to medical insurers (or must be borne by underinsured people themselves). Then you have the law I cited above: while in the case of your client, it is appropriate, it is also misused by people who treat the ER as their primary care provider. There have been times where I've gone (for myself or as escort for another) to an ER for a bona-fide condition (broken bone, gunshot, trauma requiring stiches, and so on) and I've seen the place piled to the ceiling with people waiting to see a doctor for a kid with a cold. Literally. By law, the ER can't turn the kid away automatically. The kid has to be seen by a doctor and released...and, to avoid a possible lawsuit, they will often run the standard battery of tests to make sure they have the correct diagnosis. When the people don't pay up: the costs have to be borne somewhere. So you, me, and other paying customers end up having those costs added in. Compounding matters, it also leads to longer lines. Why do these folks go to an ER as a PCM? Because of the costs of a private practice doctor. Why those costs? See above. That's why you've always heard me advocate tort reform. It isn't the be-all and end-all, but I truly believe it is the nexus to the problem of costs. Malpractice insurance and liability insurance is high why? Because of lawsuits and awards. Defensive medicine is practiced because of that reason, as well, further adding to costs. Even if you wanted to go with a socialized medicine scheme (NHS or Hillarycare or any other scheme), you'd still have to control the lawsuit costs...or none of the professionals would play. But if that added cost from lawsuits could be brought under control, it might help stem the spiral, thus eliminating one of the primary factors making socialized medicine attractive in the first place.

This is the doctrinal basement. We generally try to be a little more polite down here (at least most of us). Get a cup of espresso and listen to some jazz. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.

Abi, In re your friend, if she was denied bona-fide emergency care at an emergency room, that emergency room may be in violation of Federal law. See the linked article for more information. You may want to ascertain the actual facts of the matter...but if what you implied is, in fact, the case, you may want to get the widower to contact a lawyer. Because, again, if his late wife was denied bona fide emergency care by an emergency room, there'd likely be a good possibility of a h3ll of a lawsuit. (Of course, it's far easier to carp about the need for socialized medicine and use this as an example to tug at people's heartstrings rather than assert those rights that do exist) OK...back to lurking mode on this thread...

Well, Groucho, give him a break. System Administration duties, if done well, can take up a lot of time!!!

I believe you are mistaken here, Dancing. The verse you're referring to here, (2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat. ) is obviously an exhortation against sloth. St. Paul clearly shows this as the tradition he left, through his own example cited in vv 6-9. He reiterates this point very clearly in vv 11-14. The rather obvious interpretation that this is referring to sloth (i.e., laziness) is the consistent understanding of this verse pointed out by numerous Church fathers throughout the early history of the Church: St. Ignatius, in his letter to the Magnesians (circa 110 AD), said: Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for “he that does not work, let him not eat.” For say the [holy] oracles, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.” (Ep. Magn. IX) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (circa 2c): 1. But let every one that cometh in the name of the Lord be received,2481 and afterward ye shall prove and know him; for ye shall have understanding right and left. 2. If he who cometh is a wayfarer, assist him as far as ye are able; but he shall not remain with you, except for two or three days, if need be. 3. But if he willeth to abide with you, being an artisan, let him work and eat; but if he hath no trade, 4. according to your understanding see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. 5. But if he willeth not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that ye keep aloof from such. The Apostolic Constitutions (around 400 AD): LXIII. Let the young persons of the Church endeavour to minister diligently in all necessaries: mind your business with all becoming seriousness, that so you may always have sufficient to support yourselves and those that are needy, and not burden the Church of God. For we ourselves, besides our attention to the word of the Gospel, do not neglect our inferior employments. For some of us are fishermen, some tentmakers, some husbandmen, that so we may never be idle. So says Solomon somewhere: "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways diligently, and become wiser than she. For she, having neither field, overseer, nor ruler, prepareth her food in the summer, and layeth up a great store in the harvest. Or else go to the bee, and learn how laborious she is, and her work how valuable it is, whose labours both kings and mean men make use of for their health. She is desirable and glorious, though she be weak in strength, yet by honouring wisdom she is improved, etc. How long wilt thou lie on thy bed, O sluggard? When wilt thou awake out of thy sleep? Thou sleepest awhile thou liest down awhile, thou slumberest awhile, thou foldest thy hands on thy breast to sleep awhile. Then poverty comes on thee like an evil traveller, and want as a swift racer. But if thou beest diligent, thy harvest shall come as a fountain, and want shall fly from thee as an evil runagate." And again: "He that manageth his own land shall be filled with bread." And elsewhere he says: "The slothful has folded his own hands together, and has eaten his own flesh." And afterwards: "The sluggard hides his hand; he will not be able to bring it to his mouth." And again: "By slothfulness of the hands a floor will be brought low." Labour therefore continually; for the blot of the slothful is not to be healed. But "if any one does not work, let not such a one eat" among you. For the Lord our God hates the slothful. For no one of those who are dedicated to God ought to be idle. As you can see from the above, it's fairly obvious that the exhortation to work in 2 Th 3:10 is clearly an exhortation against physical sloth...and it's pretty apparent that it has always been understood in that fashion.

Nobody in particular; everybody in general. There are enough folks out there who scream "Christian Bias" for everything...I figured I'd point the diversity of symbols that were already approved...and in use. Hopefully removing the argument (of course, in the case of Garth, he'll argue the point anyway )

But...but...but....Garth I thought EVERYTHING was Bush's fault!!!! ((feigned horror at the possibility that he might not be blame-able for something)) :blink: No kidding, Garth...

Nevada officials are pressing the Department of Veteran Affairs to allow the family of a soldier killed in Afghanistan to place a Wiccan symbol on his headstone. Federal officials so far have refused to grant the requests of the family of Sgt. Patrick Stewart, 34, who was killed in Afghanistan last September when the Nevada Army National Guard helicopter he was in was shot down. (remainder snipped) Link here. Now, in fairness, the article continues on to say that the state officials are trying to resolve the issue. There are already something like 38 symbols currently approved, including: Christian (generic): Christian (Russian Orthodox): Muslim: Atheist: (Didn't know you all had a symbol...) Humanist: and even... Konko-Kyo: but nothing for Wicca... Now I realize this is all Bush's fault...but I ran into Wiccans pretty regularly throughout my entire career in the service. So I can't imagine that this hasn't come up before, in the 80s and 90s. If it was a Christian bias, why would they have all the other, non-Christian, non-Jewish, symbols authorized, including the ones I linked above?

It depends upon which specific imagery is being used for that segment. If you go to the layers pane and select the DG Coverage (2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002), you can actually view the exact date the picture was snapped.

CK, Best of luck to you in all of your endeavors, old man! Regards,

Greek, You bring up a very valid point and one that is not widely understood by many of those Christian "liberals." They consider the issues of the common good and solidarity without considering the importance of the dignity of the human person and subsidiarity. This is why so many good-hearted people end up endorsing such socialistic policies. They have the appearance of "doing something." These programs do not necessarily work, though, because of the lack of consideration of the principle of subsidiarity (something done should be done at the most local community level possible: first, by the individual himself, then by immediate family, then by extended family, then by the community, and only if the action cannot be effectively accomplished at the more immediate level, it should be accomplished at the broader level). Just because something isn't being done at the more immeidate level is no justification for having that responsibility usurped by the broader level. In usurping this reposnibility from the immediate level (family, community) where it should be accomplished, the broader level (state/national/trans-national) ends up introducing corruption, inefficiency, injustice (forced redistribution), and ends up impacting the dignity of the human person of all who are involved in the process: the recipient, the social worker, and the funder of that ill-placed largesse. As you said: immediately assuming something that needs to be done needs to be done by the government. Again, I don't believe that the Christian liberal is wrong-hearted. I just believe he has been incompletely formed...needs some more education to take that big heart of his and apply it in a truly constructive, Christian fashion. The Christian liberal's heart, though, is far different than those who espouse an immature, incomplete, and ego-centric social theology that was taught by TWI and by a few other so-called Bible-Based conservative groups: the theology of "to hell with the unbeliever." Their theology attempts to misuse a subset of scripture to justify not applying charity to others. The perverseness of this is that they have the appearance of accepting God's mercy for their lives (they believe they are totally unaccountable in their actions, even to God, as they are "born again" and are guaranteed heaven regardless of their actions or beliefs on earth subsequent to a single regenerative event). They quote scripture in an effort to completely disregard any responsibility for the poor. They are a truly miserable lot. This is a tremendous topic for consideration and I'm glad you opened it for discussion here.

I go to chick flicks with her... I am fascinated with gardening... I built her sewing/craft room... I regularly shampoo the carpets and am interested and driven to get the dust at the edges... I look at her "projects" with admiration and effluent praise... But there is a limit to everything!!!

Oh, Abigail, I don't take Allan seriously. Besides that, compared to Jack Chick & company, he's weak.

A person's spirituality and the degree to which they embrace that spirituality would naturally have a great impact on their politics...of course...otherwise the spirituality is nothing but a joke. For example, Catholic social doctrine is based upon four basic principles: the dignity of the human person, the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity. Properly understood, that impacts a huge multitude of political platform planks: - the death penalty - the existence of and structure of social assistance for the poor - foreign policy (not only war, but where and how to administer aid to relieve poverty overseas) - and so on If a person says that his personal belief system has no bearing on his political positions, he's either a fool or a liar. In regard to a spiritually-minded Christian mandating either a liberal or conservative position as a whole, I'd think that the person either doesn't fully understand Christian spirituality or liberal/conservative politics.

Isn't it over yet? Because of that stupid show, I am family-less for a total of three nights a week (Sunday -- Desparate Housewives, Gray's Anatomy), Tuesday & Wednesday (this waste of radio frequency radiation). PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE be done....PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE cancel the series. I'd like my family back again!!! (btw, I've never watched it nor ever will watch it)

Irfanview has the advantage that it is **FREE**