I completely disagree. You must look at things together, rather than individually. Yes, Mariamne may have been married to the other men, but other aspects suggest that she was married to the ossuary named Jesus. Why you may ask? Where is that evidence? Well it seems the child's ossuary, Judas, son of Jesus has been forgotten. Lets look at this logically. There are multiple men in a tomb, a child, and two women. One woman is believed to be the mother of the ossuary named Jesus, and the other is not related to him. Now there is a child's ossuary bearing the inscription "Judas, son of Jesus". If Jesus had a child, and the woman named Mariamne is not his sister or his mother who else could we logically suggest that it is? Jesus' wife and mother of the child Judas.



The accepted fact that gospels that contradicted other gospels were left out of the texts in the Council of Nicaea(sp?). You can't take a book that suggests that people lived to be hundreds of years old and that people walked among the dinosaurs. There is too much unrealistic material to allow it to be solely historical fact.



The statistics werent relying on the popular name of Jesus or of Joseph. It leaned, in my opinion, on the rare names of Jose and Mariamne. Yes, Jesus and Joseph alone is not compelling due to popularity but add the other names into the mix, including Jose and Mariamne.. and you have a highly compelling piece of information.



This is not correct. While there is no direct evidence to support the claims that he was married, there is also no evidence to prove he wasnt. One can assume that he would have been married having been a jewish man. And I would appreciate if we leave the Da Vinci code out of this. We all know its not reliable so why attempt to bank on its flop? To make a point? That statement was wrong by the way. There is a multitude of texts, which I have read, that came to the claims that Christ was married way before the Da Vinci Code. Holy Blood, Holy Grail... the Messianic Legacy, the Woman and the Alabaster Jar.. etc, etc. The Gospels of Mary Magdalene itself seem to suggest the implication.



And you know this for a fact? I have never been called Thomas Stanton II, son of Thomas Stanton.. but I would assume something like that could be written upon my death.



Highly unlikely? What historical record connects him only to Nazareth and Bethelehem? The Bible? Well if its the data of the Bible thats being disputed I hardly think that we can use that as evidence.



See my response to Laurette's question above.



That too is a misrepresentation. One Mary was Maria, the other Mary was Mariamne. For reasons I do not remember, Mary, Jesus' mother was inscribed in Latin, and Mary, as in Magdalene, was inscribed Mariamne due to town she came from, Magdala. Greek speaking Jews lived in Magdala and would account for the name Mariamne. Couple this with the instance where Magdalene is called Mariamne in the Acts of Phillip and we have some correlation.




The Acts of Phillip never call Magdalene, Mariamne? Really? I beg to differ. Perhaps in the English translation she is not called Mariamne, but in the original language she was. And why is the Acts of Phillip not considered authentic? Because it was not chosen to be submitted into the Bible? That seems a sad circumstance that texts not in the Bible arent considered authentic...



If you can doubt the test made which provide for my opinion, I too can doubt the validity of the Bible itself. As I said earlier, a text that picks and chooses what goes in it is not very accurate. So how is that any different?



Hmmmm..... I do hope you read my above response.



We dont need historical fact? What? If we dont need historical fact then why are we discussing this? If I want to say that Christ was married to Magdalene and had a child, that it my belief.. and I dont need fact. As long as I belief that Christ was a diety and a god thats all i need apparently. I suppose we will see who is right after its all said and done, no? Then we can kick back and talk like old friends.

As for the comment pages ago about me not being a Christian... yes, I suppose I am not a Christian compared to the mainstream because I doubt the Bible's account and I dont hold faith in that text... however I do believe in Christ and God (not as the only religion though, I believe the saying "to each his own")... which would make me a Christian in my book.

~Albus

Tom. I said I don't need historical fact for me. i.e. my faith is now my rock - I don't need to lean on historical fact to firm up my faith. But historical fact does prove useful when shoring up my perception by being able to use other people's accounts of what happened in the days of the Bible and the OT. There are renowned historians like Joesphus and Herodotus whose historical accounts are invaluable to account for biblical events to name but two.

Why are you trying to twist my words - I didn't say we...

EDIT:

One more thing, a Christian by Jesus' definition is one who believes in Him as the son of God: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV). In other words, you have to believe in Jesus and the resurrection in order to get through to God - according to the New Testament. That is what myself and millions of other Christians pin their faith on. I am not saying you are not a Christian, your relationship with Jesus is between you and Him, and I can't possibly judge that (nor will you ever see me try). But you can't say you're a Christian in the sense we mean it, as you don't believe in the resurrection which, as has been said before, is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.

Im not twisting anyone's words. You say you do not need historical fact to believe what you believe... yet you use historical fact to dismiss what I believe. I'm glad that you can seperate yourself from the world enough to have faith, but to bring the fact that you dont need historical evidence in a debate involving us brings us into the mix. Thats why I used we.

~Tom

edit:



Yes, Jesus' definiton according to the Bible. I know. Yet there are texts that were omitted from the Bible that do not follow the same crede as traditional Christians, hence the Gnostic Gospels. My point being is that a Christian is a Christian. To say I am not a Christian in the sense you are is completely... completely.. I dont even know how to describe the innaccuracy of that. It seems we need to go back to historical fact.. tangible facts that we all, Christian or no, can discuss.

~Tom

Sorry, Tom, I misunderstood. My apologies - I didn't want to accuse or label or anything like that. We do have different opinions on what constitute the term Christian, but that's not surprising. There exist many different opinions.



Hmm, no, I guess not. It's still a historical document, though, and quite accurate in terms of when it was written. It's not proven to be forged in any way, is what I mean. The fact that people are said to have become hundreds of years old means that at the time it was written, that was the belief. And no, I didn't mean 'solely historical fact', because it's a book of stories.



Perhaps because some accounts really were considered more accurate than others? I mean, why can't that be equally plausible, instead of assuming it was a conspiracy to brainwash? Anyway, I know too little about this to argue sensibly. All I know is that it's all rather fuzzy. I've read up enough to see that.

Gosh, this is rather taxing! Lots of fun, though, so I'll be back.

In answer to your post Tom: I use it because you are saying you can't rely on the Bible as you don't consider it to be historically correct or factual. You're going round in circles. I am using your language - fact, not faith, how can you tell me not to? I didn't bring this into the debate, I was asked a question by Laudine, and I answered it.

You really are confusing me now.

EDIT:

I can't argue about how other texts/people interpret what constitutes a Christian. All I know is that my Bible tells me what it is. If that differs from your interpretation, all's well and good - your's just isn't mine. I've been a Christian (as I am aware of the definition) for a little over 6 years now, and I've never heard of a Christian as anyone being anything other than someone who believes in Jesus, His ressurection and that to have a personal relationship with Him is paramount. *Shrugs* I don't know what else to say.

Except we are getting back into theology, which we agreed was not the way to go here.

The point of that was that the DNA evidence does not prove that this man was the Jesus of Nazareth. It studied and proved that this Jesus and this Mary were not maternally related. Assumptions aside, it doesn't automatically make this Jesus the Jesus of Nazareth just because his DNA did not match this Mary. This Mary could have been married to this Jesus. I'm fine with that.

Even with the inclusion of the other names, the statistic is faulty in that it proves this was Jesus of Nazareth. Given that there are 3 or 4 other ossuaries from the time that link these names together; the statistic is just that. . .a statistic.

We're going to disagree here, no matter how many references we can throw at each other. I totally mispoke when I said that the DaVinci Code was the only book that made such claims. I sincerely didn't mean to say that, because I do know that's not true. Sorry for my mistake there. I didn't throw in the DaVinci Code for any reason other than it is the most recent account (in today's culture) for believing that Jesus was married. I don't appreciate your tone in your reply at interpreting my comment.

Yes, I do. You want the most accurate and detailed account of Jesus' life? You read the Bible.

The reason the Gnostic Gospels are not authenticated as a part of the Bible (aka, why are the books in the Bible in the Bible?: This is a pretty extensive topic that we just can't hope to explain fully here, one way or another. I'll give you this quote for sake of at least addressing it:



Anyways, it wasn't just a random assigning of "yes, you can be in the Bible" and "No, you can't be." There were several tests used to determine what the Inspired Word of God was. There are several reasons, timing amongst them, that the gnostic gospels are not recognized as the Inspired word of God. (I've got more, but it's not the place or the time. If you want, feel free to PM me.)

Olivia, I'm not sure why faith and history have to be mutually exclusive? I don't see why they cannot coincide. Even if you don't believe in everything the Bible says, you, as an historian, would be hard pressed to say that there is nothing in the Bible that is historically accurate. Be it from locations of cultures to cultural practices of the times; the Bible is an accurate historical text in those aspects even if one does not choose to believe in the accuracy of the entire Bible. That's all I was really trying to say.

Anyways, we're straying dangerously toward taboo subjects, I think. We've discussed the DP issue on the Discovery Channel's documentary; we've all of us said our share on what we think on it; whether we agree or we do not. I don't want to stifle anyone or make them feel that they cannot respond, but it's time to move on, especially as this has been getting a bit personal and confrontational, and I don't think we want to go there, do we? As I think we agreed in the conception of the Great Hall, we were going to do our best to leave religion out of it, I guess it's time to thoroughly move on.

I'm ready to move on.. but I just want to say.. Great Discussion guys!!! Really, I enjoyed it!

Ok, now on to the drugged up toddlers. I watched the video like 50 times today. At first I laughed out loud. I did, really. I know that sounds immature but it is extremely funny at first to watch a small baby do something so adult. Then the initial surprise of it faded and I was disgusted. They gave a baby a joint!! What were they thinking!! I know some judge will say they need rehab and they will get off.. but they ruined a baby! Then the media has a go at the mother. She was sleeping in the back room. Well excuse her for taking a rest while two young adults supervise some kids. They totally bashed this woman and how she should have known, and shouldnt have slept. We dont know the whole story... we dont know her life, so how can they judge that? I hope from now on she may take note of the responsibility of who she leaves her kids with.. but the media needs to get off her back, seriously.

Hmm and why, may I ask, did they tape it! They must have been far, far removed from full mental capacity to do such a thing...

~Albus

hmm...we just can't seem to agree on anything can we Albus?


That's not necessarily true, if it's their first offense, then yea, they'll probably just have to go to rehab. But say it's their second or third offense, then they'll probably be facing some jail time.


The fact that she was only in the next room, the noise they were making should have woken her up, even if she is a deep sleeper. And ok, say she didn't wake up then, when she did wouldn't she have smelled the marajuana? Plus, these boys are most likely addicts, so do you really think that they sit there every day waiting for her to go to bed to light up? That doesn't seem to likely to me. She lived with them, there had to be some signs as to them being on pot. But she still left them to supervise her children.


I take it back, we can agree. They were definitly high at the time.

~Kristina

It was sarcasm. It was a comment toward the current judicial system's insight. I know how the judicial system works, and I know they will be facing time if they have done this before. So how do we disagree?



How do you know that? The report says "back room" that could be in the next room, or across the house! You cannot tell me you know what would wake someone up or not, it would be irrational to make such a claim. And why didnt she smell the marijuana.. umm there is alot of reasons why that could have been. Let me give you a story. My brother apparently has been smoking weed for a long time now.. he is 15.. he has done it in our home.. in my BEDROOM... and yet I never knew because I dont know what weed smells like.. so you are gonna tell me this lady HAD to know? I dont think so. I live with my brother.. and I may have been suspicious.. but I never had solid fact.

I dont think we have ANY right to judge this woman. She is not in the wrong. She did not do anything wrong at all. She entrusted an adult and 17 year old with her kids.. she trusted them... and they screwed up.. not her... Lets stop playing the blame game and target who is at fault... the dumb(insert inappropriate word here) that did the act.

~Albus

First of all, I'm very sorry about your brother, I didn't mean to offend you in any way. Now I feel really bad.

As far as the mother is concerned, I still think that she should have had some suspicions about the boys behavoir and not left her children in that care. As a mother, it is her responsibilty to leave her children in the care of people who are responsible. She had to have some suspicions as to the boys smoking pot and should have looked into it before leaving her children with them. It's not her fault they did what they did. But she should have looked into it better before.

Also, how long was she napping for? I would think that when she woke up she would have noticed her children acting strangly. I'm willing to bet that the effects of marajuana would last a lot longer on a toddler than they do on a teenager.

Like I said earlier...I should've come in earlier to add some stuff to the religious and Christ's tomb debate, but its time to move on

Has anyone watched the video of the incident? It looks like a decent, middle class home (or at least thats what I percieved it to be). The children looked as if they had done this before, holding the joint and waiting for one of the older people to light it up. It was really wierd and horrifying to watch because its not something you expect to happen...imagine if that was your kid or nephew/niece

So it is my belief that they had done this before (and the police's as well).

Why did they film this? They didn't think they would get caught I suppose. They were probably thinking about playing it back to the kids when they were older and they would all point and laugh. I remember when I was 6 or so my sister's friend let me taste his beer (just a small sip) and remember it tasted horrible, but I didn't get drunk. What if they had just let them smell the air and get a buzz of sorts of that? Would that be on par with what they did? That holds no grounds, though, since they didn't just do that, they took it further.

It is also not the mother's fault. She may have not known, and we may never know if she really did or did not, but for now all we can say is that she was in the back room asleep and didn't know it happened before. Or, it can be said that she did know that they smoked pot but assumed they wouldn't around the kids, since there are fathers who are alcoholics as well as other family members (maybe not in your family) who have some sort of problem but are still relied upon for things such as watching the kids one afternoon or taking somebody to work.

Tom, I'm sure sorry to hear about your brother. I hope he can get off that stuff. It wastes so much time! And it's my theory that people who use drugs basically stop maturing. Emotionally, they never get past the age they are when they started using. If he can quit soon, he'll probably be just fine. My thoughts are with you.

First off, I'm no expert on drugs and their effects, and yet I've been surrounded by users my whole life. My dad drank. He was supposed to be home watching me (he worked nights, my mom worked days), but he was in the bars. I was 5 years old, coming home from kindergarten, walking home alone, and no one was watching me because my dad was in the bars having a drink. Now...when I was 5, if I needed him for something, I went looking for him. I went up and down the sreet downtown, peering into the doors of the pubs till I found the one he was in. If I found him, he'd always give me a hug, and he'd buy me a soda pop, and I loved that. I worshipped the guy, he was my dad! At 5...this was normal for me. This is what my dad did, so it must be normal, right? It must be A-OK. I hung out on street corners with old drunks who gave me money for candy while my dad drank in a bar. I am so very, very lucky that no one ever hurt me! And because I thought this was normal, I didn't understand the pitying looks people gave me. It never occurred to me to tell my mom what my dad was doing--she must know, right? She's the mom, and moms know everything. So it's OK.

Taken in the context of my own background, I can't help but consider the dynamics of this family. The tape was found when one of those boys was in trouble for a robbery. So, these people are not little innocent teens who only smoke a bit of doobage. They are into other crimes. Not surprising. One of these young men was the brother of that mom, so she's probably pretty young herself, again, I'm not sure. So, I have to say, no, there is no proof, but I strongly suspect she knows full well what pot smells like and probably uses it as well. They were using it while she was actually in the house, so didn't seem particularly worried about being caught with it. The older of the little boys was acting as if he was well-acquainted with seeing people smoke it. I think this little kid just probably thinks it's something people do, like eating snacks, or drinking pop. Or going looking for your dad in the bars. He won't feel like it was a wrong done to him until someone tells him so, or until he's old enough to realize it on his own.

I'm very glad this tape was found. Punishments aside, the secret is now out in the open, and this family can possibly begin a process of recovery. Gawd, I sure hope so, it's very very sad.

fisrt of all Darcy, my respects towards you, you must've been a strong kid, to grow up around that stuff must've been awful.

second my point of view changed a bit after reading Tom's post, and i think the same, we should stop trying to find the blame on someone, i mean who knows if she actually was asleep, maybe she was asleep or maybe she was too high to notice but to start pointing fingers just doesn't sound right, she trusted those teens to watch over her kids.

Today i saw the news and they said that the police was going to investigate more thoroughly (sp?) and then get their conclusions, and they also showed a few scenes of the video and finally explained some of the damages of marijuana on a toddler (brain damage, addiction and breathing problems), they said it was most likely that these kids were going to be addicted to pot, so as i was saying above we can't blame the mother because of her acts, yeah i admit she should've been a bit wiser on choosing who would babysit for her but the teens are just as guilty as anyone else (even the guy taping it) because all in all those kids are the ones who're actually paying for the mistakes of others.

And it is truly sad to see this stuff happening

Thanks Andy. It's kind of you. But really, when you're little, you don't see it as a hard situation, it's just the way things are. It's only when you get older and think back, and realise that was really whack! I was a mother hen to my son, he was 12 before I dared leave him without a sitter, and even then I was a nervous wreck and had to call him all the time.

So I don't think these little ones will see it that way, either, until they get older. They aren't sitting there thinking they're being abused. I'm just really glad someone found the tape, because now they can get out from under that before it's too late. For all we know, their uncle went through the same thing growing up and never learned it wasn't 'normal.' What ever normal means. Healthy might be a better word.

I don't necessarily blame the mother for what happened, but I do think that her being oblivious to everything going on around her is pretty suspicious. I've seen the story on the news a couple of times, and apparently, the teens were already suspects in local robberies. Using drugs was not the only thing they did wrong; their behavior should have alerted the mother. Plus, in the video, the kids looked like have smoked a joint before. If this had happened a few times before, shouldn't the mother have suspected something? There must've been a few signs that not all was well with the children..

I am going to take a tough position here. Either the mother knew what was going on or she was completely in the dark on things going on in her home. I have no doubt this was not the first time the older boys were smoking weed in the home. For a parent to be completely in the dark on something like this with small children around is completely inexcusable.

There is not really much left to say on the subject. I think the woman is a poor excuse for a parent and the children need to be removed from the home.

For those interested go to CNN.com and watch the video of the interview with the Uncle. The uncle does not see that this a big deal. That tells me all I need to know about what was going on in that home.

(Sorry, I would provide a direct link but I can not seem to get it working. I think it has to do with CNN's pop up video player.)

Here it is Greg. I have to admit that I am in agreement with you. The mother may well have been asleep when the video footage was shot, but to be frank that stuff stinks to high heaven. And to me it looked as though those lads were pretty used to smoking that stuff around those kids in that house.

All involved were irresponsible, but the sad truth of the matter, is that smoking weed is so common place nowadays, they really don't think they have done anything wrong.

Ok, I saw a news clip, and apparently the boys are in foster care. This means that someone else saw something legitimately wrong with the care given by the mother. I wasn to rectify what I said earlier.. I dont want to come across as wholeheartedly believe that the mother did anything wrong.. .its just we didnt really know the situation, the specifics, how much she knew/didnt know... you get the point. Im just glad that the boys are in the care of someone where they wont be encourage to do such terrible things.

~Albus

Daily Prophet

95th Edition

NASA Fires Nowak



I guess we can consider this a "follow-up" of the article I posted last month. For those of you who were not here, or do not remember, that article describing the situation can be found here.

This arrticle reports that U.S. Navy Capain Lisa Nowak's contract with NASA will be terminated this Thursday. Nowak, 43, is charged with attempted kidnapping for allegedly confronting her former boyfriend's new love-interest in a parking lot at Florida's Orlando International Airport on February 5. In addition to attempted kidnapping, Nowak was charged with battery and burglary of a vehicle with a weapon.

Lisa Nowak has three children, and is currently seeking a divorce from her husband. She will not be left unemployed, however, as a Navy public affairs officer in Washington said Nowak has been assigned to the staff of the chief of naval air training in Corpus Christi, Texas.

What do the Duellers think? Is this a fair outcome? It should also be noted that Nowak has not yet been found guilty of these charges; she is scheduled to be arraigned March 22, but has already entered a not guilty plea.

Hey all! I enjoyed reading through the posts since last week, great debates going on!!

Poor, poor, Lisa's children. Mommy and Daddy are getting a divorce, Mommy tries to kill someone after having a nervous breakdown (who in their right mind would try and kill someone?!?), now they will probably have to change schools, houses, friends, everything because Mommy's a bit of a nutter, and has lost her job. So you can clearly see I have no sympathy for Lisa Nowak beyond the fact that she needed a therapist over a year ago. I don't know if I'm actually giving an opinion here that's worth anything, or if I'm just restating what was said earlier, but thought I'd throw in my two knuts.

First of all I don't know why Lisa Novak can say she's not guilty. Wasn't she seen or did I get something wrong here?

Anyway I can see that the NASA can't have her employed there. I mean you can't send her on a mission anymore. What if she cracks again?
I think it's nice though that they give her another job. That is only fair.

What I'd also like to say is, that maybe, maybe the NASA should also consider looking or checking on the male here, Oefelin. He started the love triangle in the first place. Or is that a 'gentleman's delict' and he's excused and left out of everything ...

Maybe this was posted but is she still a navy officer, Active duty? Personally for me i know this sounds harsh, but attempted kidnapping, Battery and burglary with a weapon sounds like discharge to me. That is conduct unbecoming to an officer and I dont think she needs to stay in. I'm glad she's been re-assigned but now she's working with Training? I hope its a desk job. What if she cracks again?

well ì'm no navy expert or anything but i agree, she should've been discharged, i mean this is srtike 3, yeah she has three kids to take care of but she's gone completly mental and someone in thatt condition shouldn't be training anyone. Like everyone has said already what if she cracks again?

And how was she able to get a not guilty plea, as far as i know she was seen trying to steal the vehicle. If I've got things mixed up here please correct me.

I had forgotten about that case...As everyone said, she can not be named non-guilty since there are witness and stuff. It is not the first time however, something like that has happened. A month ago i was watching an old episode from Opra (it just started being broadcasted here and i thought it was interesting the one i saw) where there was this woman who had killed her husband because he cheated on her. Her descritpion gave me goospumps. She had gone mental when she saw her husband with someone else and run over him.
Anyway, my point is that humans are very fragile. I don't say i support Nowak and by no chance, i don't think she is innocent. But i have to state this once more. If only her husband or someone else had noticed her going mad. If only there were actually people who cared enough for her to realise there was something wrong. This makes me think of so many things. I mean a single person could have prevented all this, the possible kidnap and murder, the arrest, the destruction of Nowak's kids life...I wish we could all care a little bit more for those next to us...

Fortunately, when the American justice system works (and it is imperfect, especially since the Bush Admin started detaining people with no recourse!), it is perfectly acceptable to plead not guilty, no matter how many witnesses there were to your crime. To my knowledge, a plea of not guilty means there will be a trial, and a trial could lead to several outcomes. A plea of guilty, however, means she'll be sentenced and incarcerated. There are risks to both--a plea of not guilty, and the subsequent jury trial, could result in a harsher sentence than if she just admitted her guilt and got on with it. A plea of guilty would mean that there would be no chance of escaping a prison sentence.

It does not sound as if she is working on a plea of insanity, though, as she's is still working, it seems--she's not in an institution or anything.

Hmmm....
Don't take my words as a justification for all the people in the world acting crazy. But you know, when I see total condemnation for an act that luckily after all didn't get anywhere - Nowak actually didn't kill the woman, just threatened her - I always think: and if it happens to me? if it happens to a friend? I hope I would have my friends around me, trying to help and understand, and not people pointing at me, with reproach and sharp tongues.
Again, this doesn't mean that everyone can do whatever they want. But it's clear that there are people on whom the social pressure is lethal. As I said before, when this case has been discussed, women are the perfect targets for temporary madness.....and who's to blame? women themselves? I don't think so. I think that society is to blame for putting all that pressure on them. (Myself, since the day I've started working part-time, I've set a much more positive relationship with my family and myself, while before I had been repeatedly and dangerously on the verge of a nervous breakdown )

To go back to the topic, I am happy that Nowak has the chance to build up a new life. Hopefully she will follow a therapy, she will go back to work, and recover a relationship with her family. I hope for her that she will go past the madness that brought her to do such silly and dangerous acts.
I feel that NASA and Navy both should support her. The Navy is doing it in the fact that it's not discharging her and giving her another opportunity, and I too hope that she's not on the first line for a while, to give her time to recover. But what about the NASA?

Daily Prophet

96th Edition

Denying Genocide

(Thanks Olivia, suggestions for the Daily Prophet are always welcome!)

In Switzerland today this Turkish politician has condemned because he in Switzerland has denied the genozide on the Armenians in 1915. That is against the Swiss Rascim law. With this Switzerland has made clear that they recgonize the genozide as a genozide, which Turkey denies until today. So is it okay for a neutral country like Switzerland to do that, to get involved? And how can it be that a country like Turkey still denies this although all historians agree on it? Should a country like Turkey, who denies this, become a member of the EU?

Source

Hey, thanks for putting this on.

I also have an article here that concerns the US in this.

Okay, have a read and maybe we can discuss this.

First of all, i have to say that in greek history books, the killing of Armenians is recognised as a genocide. I don't remember exactly what had happened but i think that Turkish people wanted to clear their countries from every foreign civilisation which led to these massive killings. The same happened at 1922 with the destruction of Smyrni and the persecution of thousand of Greeks, Armenians etc. Personally, i think it was a genocide.
What i don't get is this: why is this brought up now? It is something that happened 90 years ago so recalling it can only cause frustration and rage and maybe racistic attacks against Turkish people. It is not fair to current politicians to be judged for something someone had done decades ago. It is the same thing that happens with **** and Hitler.
The other thing is why Switzerland is involved in this? Such a peaceful and neutral country? Maybe laudine can answer that, coming from Switzerland herself. And the USA? It is strictly an issue between Turkey and Armenia.
So, answering to El Barto's question, i don't think we should associate this with Turkey's entrance to EC. I personally have many arguments on why Turkey should not become a member and on why it should become, but none of these has to do with the genocide. I think that they should recognise it as a genocide, but only to restore this historical ambiguity and clear things up. As to why they don't accept what historians declare...maybe it is an issue of pride or injustice. Who knows?

Alkisti

To answer Alkisti's question (and I'm really happy you posted here, being Greek and all):

We in Switzerland have an Anti-Rassism law, it says that no one is allowed to make a rassistic comment in public under any circumstances. We are not allowed to call someone form a different culture mean names, swear words, etc. we shouldn't say all moslems are terrorists for example. This is difficult to control of course, because the government can't control what someone says at home. But we shouldn't make rassistic comments to insult people. That's the law and if you don't follow it you get sued.

That Turkish politician made a public speech in Geneva two years ago, saying that Turkey never commited this genocide against the Armenians and on the contrary it was the Armenians who were responsible for their killings (something like that). That is clearly a violation of the Swiss Anti-Rassism-Law and that is why he got condammed. And I personally think the court in Geneva was right.

Yes, we are a neutral country, but we also have laws and if those are violated then that person will be punished for it. And it is especially important for a neutral country that no one makes such a political remark, denying a genocide in our country. We don't want that kind of 'advertisement' here.

The thing is that through this we lost a bit of our neutrality, but for me that's okay, because we just can't ignore that genocide and I personally think that it's a shame not many people know about this genocide and that such a country, that denies killings, should become a member of the EU.

Oh thank you laudine, this was really helpful and explanatory. I never thought there were actually this kind of laws. It is really well-thought of Switzerland to have this law, though, as you said, you can't control what everyone is saying. But i see now why your country got involved, and i think it is pretty fair to have done that. He violated that rule, so he had to be punished somehow.
Still, it was so stupid to make such a declaration, not only because of the law -which i don't think he was aware of, though this changes nothing- but also because this would raise so many arguments. Couldn't he just let it pass? And how immature was it saying that it was the Armenians' fault? What kind of a politician is he anyway?
As for Turkey and the EU, yes that is one of my arguments on why this country should not be a member. It has not solved many territory issues yet. I am saying that as a Greek who has witnessed many arguments between the two countries when it comes to islands of the Aegean and when it comes to Cyprus and many other things. But i would want Turkey to be a member because that way, it won't be able to attack us, part of the europian policy. This is a major issue actually, and it has caused many problems to its integration in the union.

That is a very good argument and I never thought like that. I can see your reason here and I'm completely convinced. I think it is easy for me being so far away from Turkey to say that I don't want to join that country the EU because they deny killings and possibly torture minorities (I don't know that for a fact so maybe I'm wrong) while on the other hand it could protect the surrounding countries. Thank you for that, you made me think differently.

What annoys me that in Switzerland the right party SVP supports the politican because they don't want the neutrality of Switzerland be disturbed and for that they even let a poltician violate our law and let him publicly announce that that genocide didn't happen. But it did! I saw the pictures, I saw even some shots on film, I heard victim who had survived talk about it. You can't deny it. But everyone looks away. (for example I learned about this genocide in my fourth term at uni. At uni! We never had it in school!) And now I'm the one who brings Germany in here, but if the Germans would have decided to leave the holocaust out of their school books and would deny it then the whole world would protest. But it's okay for Turkey to do it. ...

... or for Japan to deny that they forced female labourers in their WW2 internment camps to work as prostitutes to their own soldiers.

Is it a problem when the cultures of countries are different? No. It becomes a problem though when you become a member of a larger group on the basis of a common set of values, wishing to reap the benefits of the open culture within the group, and then maintain a conflicting culture yourself.

That means that you may not incite your citizens to do things that are contrary to the common laws you have promised to uphold, and should amend your local laws accordingly.

If I was a Turkish citizen, who right now is a country that is being considered for EU membership, and Switzerland (who is not a member of the EU) started saying things that I didn't like (despite their factual content) about my country, I might be upset. That said, I feel like Switzerland is overstepping it's bounds a bit. However, I don't disagree with Switzerland for doing it. And I don't disagree with Congress for considering a bill that would recognize the Armenian slaughter. But then I say to myself, why have we done nothing about recognizing the slaughter in Darfur? There is something to be said for asking countries to live up to the things that they have done in the past (hem hem, the Catholic Church and the Crusades), but when we don't implement policies that take care of what is currently happening then it is meaningless.

I would like to see what Turkish people think about it. I mean if there is someone from Turkey here, i would love to hear their point of view, since i'm not impartial myself...



Oh, you're welcome! This is what Greek citizens and politicians consider, that's why Greece is positive i think to Turkey's integration.



That is a good point SpinJam and i totally support it. I myself think there is no meaning in condemning something that happened 90 years ago when we have more up to date problems. If we keep on doing that, then the Darfur slaughter and the rest similar incidents will have to be recognised as those in a century... And what would change for Turkey if it recognised the slaughter? We already recognise it as that ourselves...

I know what you mean, however, that man held a political 'demonstration' in out country, that means on foreign ground against our law. He violated it and therefore got punished.

And I don't agree on the view that yes, it was 90 years ago and there are more important things that happen, like the situation in Darfour. But should we forget everything? Should we deny everything? Should we go on and on and let history repeat itself and just ignore everything? Should we Swiss people as a state let Perincek make that speech and even let him repeat that lie in court again just because it was 90 years ago? What would the Armenians living in Switzerland, living in Europe think? Oh, it was 90 years ago, and no matter that my greatgrandfather was killed, let's forget it?

Then why is everyone okay with the WWII/Holocaust movies? Because that was 60 years ago?

Sorry, I know I'm being provocative here, maybe it's me being a historian but I don't think bad happenings in history should ever be forgotten, or worse denied.

Well, i guess that what SpinJam and I are saying is that though it is very important that issue -mainly because the Turkish politician denied it being a slaughter-, we should not allow ourselves to ignore current similar issues. And that because in some decades we -our descendants- will have the same problem we are facing now. I believe that the whole issue was brought up because of the violation of the anti-racistic law.
But everyone is entitled to their opinion,so I'm not trying to convince anyone. Don't get me wrong.

And that is exactly why Switzerland should and did state that this genocide has taken place. So that in the future similar happenings won't happen again, people being killed in a mass in a country far far away from us ... so that we'll always be aware of it, and not just let a country do whatever they want with people from a different religion, culture, etc.

I'm sorry Alkisti, I didn't want to offend you in any way.

No, no, no you didn't offend me! Did i sound like that? No, i wasn't offended! So don't feel sorry for anything laudine!

I agree with you overall. You are right when you say that we don't have to forget history, because we learn from our mistakes and prevent up and coming ones. You know that well, being an historian as you said, and we all know that well being students sometime...
My proposition (and i think its everyone's proposition) is to "fix" the Armenian slaughter issue and to deal with current issues after that.
BTW, I didn't say that. Well done to Switzerland for doing something that tricky, for jeopardising its being neutral. I hope this will make people realise how important this issue can be.
And i'm closing with this...I wish that, instead of arguing on whether some killings were a slaughter and on naming current ones slaughter, we would all try to end this, end the murders, the killings, the numerous deaths that take place everyday

Politicians! Wake up!

Daily Prophet

97th Edition

Dying Woman Charged for Medical Marijuana Use



This article describes a case where a dying woman may be charged for her use of marijuana, an illegal drug, for medical purposes. Angel Raich, an Oakland mother of two, suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. On her doctor's advice, she eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite as conventional drugs did not work.

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Raich, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers can be persecuted for breaking federal drug laws, even in states like California where medicinal marijuana is legal.

What does the Duelling Club think of this? Should marijuana be legalized nationally for drug purposes? Can a person be denied a drug if it is their only means of survival (or painless survival). Is it the doctor's responsibility? After all, it was the doctor's recommendation. Discuss!

Wow, I missed alot...Ok, on the latest topic about the medical marijuana use, I think that if the doctor prescribed the drug as medication. Then it should not be illegal. It's like saying that when you have a cold and you take cold medicane every hours that you could go to jail for it. You don't get punished for taking conventional medications every few hours. So, if it could save your life, then why should you be punished for it? Just because it isn't normal.

In my opinion, it's absolutely ridiculous what the supreme court is doing. I daresay that the doctor is not known for finding excuses for people to be able to take drugs. So they could trust his adjudgement and make an exception from the law.
If a drug, which would normally be illegal, is the only possibility for an ill, suffering person to have a painless life, they should definitely allow it. They may of course let some other doctors examine Angel Raich's illnesses, but if Marijuana is the only possibility for her to have an acceptable life, she should absolutely have the opportunity to use it!

ok so i've discussed this topic with several people and i always say that they should give a speacial license to the person who consumes it, if the doctor has a patient who really needs it and there are studies to back up that the patient needs it for his or her's disease.

What sickens me the most is that marijuana really is actually a plant that cures but people use it with the wrong purpose and this happens, people who really need it can't use it because it's illegal because people have used it improperly. So the US Supreme Court should take that in mind!

Hmmm.. That's a tough issue. True, marijuana can be the only way out for some fataly ill patients, but are these rather rare cases a good reason to legalize it? It just might do more harm than good. Being available in every doctor's office, marijuana would be easier for drug addicts to obtain. People might fake prescriptions, change their own medical history, etc. And it does have some harmful effects, it is not just a healing plant. Marijuana can deprive the body of certain important vitamins; it is also thought to cause lung damage and cancer. There are dangers involved in using marijuana, but because they are not as apparent, people may not think them serious. Plus, it is addictive, and the doctors cannot predict who will be proned to that addiction. (Although, it is not addictive physically, only psychologically - that is, your body doesn't have to have it, but you just think it does. But addiction is nonetheless addiction). So no, I do not think that marijuana should be legalized.
However, in cases like this one, I do not think that marijuana users should be punished. People like Angle Raich, who only use the drug to eliminate the pain that they are experiencing, are not criminals. It's inhumane for anyone to order them to stop. It can possibly qualify for cruel and unusual punishment, don't you think?
In general, I think that the legality of marijuana use should be determined based on each specific case. It's hard to make a law out of such delicate subject. It's simply impossible to clearly draw the line between the people who need the drug and those who are just using it to get high. There would always be loopholes. But then again, the loopholes would be there if the government decided to judge each case at once. I guess there is no right answer to this..

This is one of those areas where I'm torn in half.

Marijuana has been down classed here in the UK, but is still illegal. I watch gangs of kids buying and selling the stuff on street corners, and see them smoke themselves stupid until their brains are addled. They can't hold a decent conversation and walk around with a glazed look on their faces. It had been proven that with prolonged use, it can cause a certain amount of brain damage. This is the side that is being abusd.

On the other hand a friend has MS and knows it eleviates his symptoms, just using it once a day makes all the difference in the world to him being able to walk or go in a wheelchair.

It's a really hard one to call, but I think if it could be monitored and not abused, those who would benefit from it should get to try it. The trouble is, it would soon reach the open market and as a legal prescription from a GP, would lead to open season for the dealers.

Okay, so this is a hot button issue for me. I have never smoked marijuana, but I know people who have for various reasons, and here is my stance on the whole issue of the legalization of marijuana and it's close relative (but not the same plant) hemp:

The only reason why marijuana is illegal in America today is because the tree logging paper companies of the 1920's and 30's were afraid that Hemp (not marijuana) would start to be used as a major source of paper in the country (on eof the copies of the constitution is written on hemp paper). It is true that Hemp (not marijuana) is cheaper to grow, manufacture, and process into not only paper but also clothing, rope, and other textile goods. It is an extremely renewable resource (one Hemp plant can be grown in a summer, as opposed to 30 years for a tree), requires less processing than cotton (no bleaching), and is ultimately cheaper for the consumer than tree manufactured paper. So how did the association of marijuana and hemp become synonymous? These tree logging paper companies published the idea that marijuana (and by association Hemp) was poisining our youth, and it would be the scourge of America. At the time, the people that were using it were musicians in New Orleans and Bohemians in New York. Yes, marijuana use is detrimental to your health when overused, and abused, but so are Alcohol, and cigarettes, and cigarettes are ten times more addictive than marijuana will ever be. And in the same vein, you can smoke banana leaves and get a similar reaction to them as marijuana, but you don't see anyone outlawing bananas do you?

I am not a user, but I firmly believe we should abolish the illegal status of Marijuana in this country. This is not only for medical purposes, but because we have a prison system that is overwhelmed by minor offenders. Truly scary drugs, than can kill people, like Heroine and cocaine, and Methamphetamines, should be the ones that our police should be monitoring.

Well said, SpinJam! I think if that plant (and that is important, it's a plant not a chemical thing made by humans) can lessen pain then it should be used and allowed to use it. I am a great believer that plants have healing powers, I'm a real 'tea-witch' and if marjiuana can make an ms patient go better through the day then yes, it should be allowed.

I smoked it when I was 16 and I'm completely against it now because it didn't do me any good. But on the other hand, like SpinJam said, 16 year olds can go and buy alcohol and cigarettes (in Switzerland you can buy beer at the age of 16) and no one says anything. And that is not right.

Maybe they should create a law for pain relieving use of marjiuana, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Now shoot me. I know it' avery difficult subject and I am sorry for anyone's sensitivity which could be hurted by my words. But, as a teacher and parent and former...young woman, that's what I think.

I think that marijuana should be legalized. Because, I honestly don't find it so much more destructive than alcohol or tobacco, whose monopolies are strongly held in the governments hands for economic reasons, and they cause so many deaths every year, but most of all, terrible diseases that -in Italy for example- are cured at government expenses.
Second, I find that, when something is prohibited, youngsters tend to find it much more appealing. Something you can have without problems, coud help in keeping them far from smoking marijuana.
Third, but not least, mafia or any other criminal organization have based their traffics on drug's commerce, and as long as every pharmacy has marijuana, they should find something else to exploit....
It's funny how almost everybody talk about smoking marijuana as a "young" problem, and on an addiction level for poor, problematic people. The truth is, that this drug is used by lots of adults, even rich and absolutely "unsuspectable"....personal experience.

Bluezz, just as a note, your description of marijuana seemed to me totally applicable to tobacco, which is totally and completely available, and much more dangerous at long term...

I don't want anyone to think I'm being prissy, I have seen it's effects first hand. Yes smoking causes all of those nasty killer diseases, that's the reason I've given it up, but marijuana can make the user incapable of normal function. It relaxes the muscles and causes drowsiness. I liken it too alcohol abuse more than smoking, anything that makes you intoxicated should be taken with caution and in moderation.

It was the fashion to use it when I was in my late teens, I could never see the fascination myself, I just used to have a good nights sleep....while all my friends used to have fits of hysterical giggles.They would be like this and I would be like !!

In the UK it was down graded so that the police could spend more time worrying about hard core substances like cocaine and heroin, but since then they have found that the number of users have increased. The number of poeple being breathilised on suspicion of drink driving have been found to be under the influence of marijuana.

witchmom, marijuana does have pretty much the same effects as tobacco, but there is a greater risk of having complications if you smoke pot compared to cigarettes. Not that I'm too fond of cigarettes..

As for teens being more attracted to things that are prohibited.. I think that's true for any person of any age. But then ate the same time, there are kids who become addicted to legal prescription drugs. These are much easier to get and you won't get arrested for taking them.