New info makes for current changes in CPR
New CPR guidelines have been published for 2005. The American Heart Association is now recommending 30 compressions on the chest for every 2 breaths in single person CPR. The article in the courier is a very nice summary and the AHA website also has the current recommendations:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CPR_GUIDELINES?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3035630
In addition, a few other changes have been made with the AICD devices.
All of this shows that what we think we know always seems to change as more information is obtained.
Medical Students are told that “half of everything they will learn will probably be wrong; the only problem is that they don’t know which half”
Sounds reassuring for all those science and intellectual types!!
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CPR_GUIDELINES?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3035630
In addition, a few other changes have been made with the AICD devices.
All of this shows that what we think we know always seems to change as more information is obtained.
Medical Students are told that “half of everything they will learn will probably be wrong; the only problem is that they don’t know which half”
Sounds reassuring for all those science and intellectual types!!
posted by Anonymous at 5:55 AM
16 Comments:
You misrepresent the majority with your comment. Everyone has a world-view that shapes what they allow into their cognitive reasoning for interpretation.
Comments like these again show the insecurity of differing viewpoints.
There is much unknown in all disciplines of study and to continually claim a monopoly on one of them is a disservice.
Many fundamentalist continue to accept new information much more readily that others.
Your statement; "for science and intellectual types welcome learning and advancement while others close their eyes, ears, and minds to knowledge unless it fits into their preconceived religious interpretations" implies that only science and intellectuals are open to learning and this is just wrong.
What is your definition of most religious fundamentalist as you describe. Is this anyone that is Christian that happens to disagree with your worldview?
I assert that many people that actually claim science and intellectualism are reluctant to admit that it is in part or whole their faith. As defined faith is confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
I claim Chrisitanity, science and intellectuallism and try to use all three. But if there arises conflict, I rely on the moral grounding of Christianity.
Galileo said “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
I know I should just keep my hands off the keyboard but just can't stop myself.
"I claim Chrisitanity, science and intellectuallism and try to use all three. But if there arises conflict, I rely on the moral grounding of Christianity."
Would this be the same moral grounding that put to death people thought to be overcome by the devil? Of course they did not yet know about mental illness. There's that pesky science again.
Clarity certainly necessitates a deeper understanding into the thoughts of an individual since it obviously doesn't shine too brightly in the blogs.
I certainly agree that the Council of Trent played a significant role. Since I know you understand and have studied history, you also know that human nature, ego's, money, power and a host of other things played into the Council of Trent in its response to the reformation.
To this day, the doctrines of the Council should be revised and/or disavowed by the Catholic Church, but you and I both know that probably won't happen.
What is my "sect" you refer to. I have not stated anything other than my being a Christian. I have not listed any denomination and have stated clearly that I believe everyone has the right and opportunity to believe how they choose. This is not the common view of a sect.
It is interesting how you choose your definitions that support your stance. Your definition "rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." (dictionary.com)specifically mentions the opposition to secularism.
Other dictionaries are more general as listed:1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Your views could be considered fundamentalism in a secular since.
It is disappointing that with all the discussions we have, you are unwilling to state where your underlying faith lies.
Are you seeking, confused, or afraid to state it openly?
To iamhoosier,
Many wrongdoings have been done uner the name of many religions. That does not justify them.
It also does not invalidate the true meaning of the Christian message.
I hope you do not judge all religions based only on the wrongdoings of some.
I am sure from your other postings that you would feel this to be unfair.
You continually imply that I am trying to force my view on you and others and that is simply unfair. Christians are citizens, too. We want to make our case in the public square and then submit our views to popular vote--no force, no imposition, just advocacy for a point of view and then a ballot.
Within the limitations of the law and the Constitution, the majority rules.
The danger comes when one group wants to strong-arm another off the field or blog as it applies. I believe that when people can freely speak their mind, argue for their point of view, make their case in the public square, and then call for a vote is what America is all about.
I don't think I have advocated anything different. I do state my case and my views and that seems to make some uncomfortable, but I am very comfortable with everyone making their own decisions.
I seem to be judged much more harshly than others when I state my Christian viewpoint compared to the everything/anything goes (as long as it doesn't bother anyone) secular viewpoint as you seem to advocate.
HB,
Yes, you are correct. It would be entirely unfair just to pick and choose. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
My point is that many acts such as these were committed because of man's ignorance at any particular time. Man was trying to "explain" what they did not know or even better, what they did not YET know. In my example, the ones who committed such acts probably felt like they had the moral high ground. They just did not know.
I also agree with you that people should be free to believe as they want. I belive that what we can't explain is because we have not progressed enough yet in our knowledge. If I am interperting you correctly, you believe it is some higher power. I do not mean to condemn your beliefs as a Christian. If I do, call me out.
I tend to stay out of your little manufactured scuffles and provocations, but you hoist yourself on your own petard with these latest comments.
Perhaps you hadn't your morning coffee, but your morning response to Brandon is indicative of your motivations. Many evangelicals, and all current fundamentalists, are regularly indoctrinated (if not inoculated) with a virulent strain of aggrievement.
This is manufactured and designed to control the flock. If you are constantly told by your ministers and pet media that you are a persecuted minority, that you are being treated unfairly, that you are the true patriots, it can be very seductive.
Quote: "I seem to be judged much more harshly than others when I state my Christian viewpoint compared to the everything/anything goes (as long as it doesn't bother anyone) secular viewpoint as you seem to advocate."
That's petulant, HB. Paul tells us that the gospel is an offense to the world; that we are to be in this world, not of it.
You preach (and I use that word with intent) a form of religious triumphalism that discounts the merits and the morals of any who disagree.
But if you think you are being treated harshly, try stepping out from behind the anonymity. If you fear retribution, or if your employer might terminate you for your public stances, explain that and persuade us that remaining anonymous is a valid choice.
But don't sit in the stands and complain about how hard the seats are. There is blood being spilled in the arena. That's harsh.
BTW, did you ever wonder how I cam by my nom de plume?
To iamhoosier,
You are right on target. Man does not know enough and needs to consider all available knowledge. That includes all the realms. Limiting ourselves to any worldview whether it be Christianity or naturalism or any other is not progressive.
To all4word,
When you commented "is indicative of your motivations.", I am curious to know what you think my motivations are?
"Are you saying because I'm a Christian that I should have no vote, or are you merely saying I should have no voice?"
In our system, everyone gets a voice and everyone gets a vote, religious or otherwise.
My motivation is simple. I want all the bloggers to think!!
I want all bloggers to consciously understand how they decide on what is good, what is evil, what is right and wrong.
If you cannot explain where your foundation lies, how do you know the answer to the questions?
As for my anonymity, Roger does know my identity as well as several others.
To Brandon,
"broadsides" as you call them seem to be going both ways.
It is funny how passionate the discussions get. That is part of my motivation. I want passionate discourse so that everyone will think deeper about their underlying moral choices.
I do think moral choices matter for our nation.
Maybe that is our real disagreement!!
Don't get too giddy. If your intention is to "pull" me in, well you should not hold your breath. I do not have the writing skills and sophistication of bloggers such as you, Brandon, and others but what I feel and believe is just as strong.
My intention is also to get people to think. I have already stated that one of my main beefs is with people who equate their religion with citizenship, patriotism, Americanism or whatever anyone wants to call it. You have not ever really responded to that contention other than your "majority" opinion which I think Brandon answered very well. You keep drawing me away--kudos to you.
I would like to how "my side" is in infringing on you religion.
I do not equate religion with citizenship, patriotism, or Americanism and I do not know how to be more open about that.
I do have a problem with with activist groups trying to eliminate things that have been part of our tradition for 175 years. Many recent legal actions are attempting to remove things that were already in place for our first 175 years.
Courts have removed prayer from school, crèches from the lawns of city halls, and crosses from public parks and symbols. They have managed to get personal Bibles off of teachers’ desks, the Ten Commandments out of school rooms, and references to God eliminated from students’ graduation speeches all while allowing other nonchristian activities and in some cases even promoting them.
But I assert that these things have been there for years since our inception and were allowed by citizens, legislatures, and courts who saw no harm in them, no intolerance, no danger, and no breech of any Constitutional principle for almost 175 years.
I think that this tells us two things. First, from the beginning, religious symbols and religious thought were woven into the fabric of government and society with no sense of Constitutional impropriety. This itself supports that the new court actions are revisionist, an attempt to change the traditional practice, not a return to our historical and Constitutional roots.
Second, conservatives are in a defensive posture, not an offensive one. The “religious right” as some refer to have not declared war but feel the war has been declared on an American way of life held dear to many. I do not want to surrender it without using all available constitutinal means to help in the struggle.
I do not want a Christian imposed religious government, but freedom from the continued attack on what has been historically present.
Perhaps it is just man's continued learning.
While I do belive that traditions and precedent are important, they are not the end. Slavery was around for more than 175 years. It did not make it right. I know it is somewhat simplistic but sometimes a person can over analyze their belly button.
If we had not had an "activist" Supreme Court then what would have been the outcome of Brown v Board of Education? There was much precedent for seperate but equal. What would have been the outcome to our society. We learned and we progressed.
Saying that it is has (or was) always been that way is not much of an argument.
I will agree that many things can and have been taken too far. Every little thing cannot be made perfect, no matter whose eyes an issue is seen through.
Further, your examples are all PUBLIC. I know of no law that says what day you can go to church or how many times. Or what church you can go to. Or how often you can pray and read your bible in your own home or the homes of others.
I have trouble understanding when told that it is not be shoved at me but the objections are about public displays.
I guess the issue is whether these activities "establish" religion and I assert they do not. I agree with your statement "that many things can and have been taken too far" and these are examples in my opinion.
In the Everson v. Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court quoted Jefferson’s separation language as the normative guideline for understanding the First Amendment.
As Barton stated in his book; “There’s probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by an individual have become the law of the land. Jefferson’s remark now carries more weight in judicial circles than does the writing of any other Founder.”(David Barton, The Myth of Separation, Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, p. 44.)
A little history on this from:(Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.)
Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a member of the Constitutional Convention, and the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, in which he used the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state.” His note was meant to quiet the fears of the Danbury congregation who were concerned that a national denomination would be established.
We have taken these things too far in my opinion!
I still see no answer to my question(s). Just because it has always been that way is no better answer now than it was a couple of hours ago. Using "establish" is changing your argument. Which is it?
I am well aware that "phrase" is not in the Constitution. I am glad to see that you have apparently read the Constitution. You would be suprised how many people look at me and say "well, no. Not all of it" when I ask them if they have read it.
You are correct. Just because something has been done for a long time is not validation on why it should continue.
But my real disagreement with these things is because I do not feel they should have been changed in the first place based on the argument of establishing religion.
That is why they have been removed and I think that is wrong.
We can debate all the technical details that we want. People much better studied on these details than either of us will disagree. Much as doctors will disagree on a treatment, engineers on a design, accountants on tax liability, etc.
I'm sure that we will again.
My fear is people, based strictly on their personal religous beliefs, using government or quasi government to advance their cause. I'm not talking about Navitity scences on a courthouse square. In general I am talking about blue laws, most sodomy laws, gay marriage, etc.
I believe firmly in freedom of religion. I believe you would agree that was one the bedrocks of the founding of our country.
Use the blog, invite me to church, bible study or prayer meeting. Try to teach me over a beer at Richo's, assuming you are not Baptist :-). To me, that it is the way it should work.
Not technical and maybe nothing for you to really answer. As stated above--I fear this. You wrote about being on the defensive. I understand that to some extent. Can you understand where I and other like me feel just as defensive?
Post a Comment
<< Home