I am a liberal, Secular Humanist. I applaud human endeavor: be it mountain climbing,

[sinkingfeeling]

scientific, artistic, or whatever. I greatly admire those who 'push the envelop' or break the bounds of the mundane. These people, artists, musicians, writers, deep sea explorers, astronauts, physicians, whoever, dare to live life. Perhaps they find peace and a rebirth of spirit as they pursue the things and activities that make their lives worthwhile to themselves. They should be looked to for inspiration. For if we're not here to live our lives as we see fit, than what are we here for?

I try to find empathy with all living creatures on this planet. It is very difficult when so called 'progressives' refer to three highly intelligent men as 'jerks' and refuse to acknowledge that these men were experienced mountain climbers who knew very well the risks they took. It is hard when some will tell you that you can't be 'progressive' if you smoke, or drive a SUV, or enjoy an activity that they would find dangerous.

What I find vile and inexcusable are the 'isms'. Imperialism, fascism, communism, capitalism, and fundamentalism of all flavors. These 'isms' all seek to restrain the human spirit, to enslave, and to squash the human quest.

I am proud to be a liberal, secular humanist.

Maybe you all should check it out: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what

[LSK]

1. K&R

Well said.

[Lucky Luciano]

2. agreed

There are some real wusses here. I empathize with the mountain climbers completely. The news coverage is overblown and obviously a distraction from things like Iraq, but I can completely understand their drive to do what they did.

[DixieBlue]

3. Well said,

Well said.

[Taverner]

4. From one SH to another...

I agree!

I think people who are bemoaning the rescue efforts for the climbers are forgetting the most important principle - the "shit just happens" principle.

Sometimes, no matter how well seasoned you are, no matter how fit or prepared you are, shit just happens. And that is why we have the social contract - to help us when shit does, indeed, happen.

[puebloknot]

10. The Social Contract: Good Point

Republicans are pushing the "Ownership Society," wherein you pay for your own healthcare. Many of those folks take the same attitude as some do toward these unfortuate mountain climbers. *We* shouldn't have to pay for that!

When they start having to pay their own medical bills for diabetes, obesity (not to mention their mental health needs), they may wish they hadn't been so dismissive of the idea (which a guy named Jesus propounded) that we should care for others, just as they care for us.

If you let your mind start to wander over the many possibilities of the "ownership" idea, you'd be taking out your own appendix and having to own your own Jaws of Life to get yourself out of the auto accident you just had, you dumb fool, for going out of your house where danger lurks at every turn, and especially on that freeway.

My brother is a climber, and a rescue worker, and I've come to appreciate the community esprit de corps when one of their own is in trouble.

[The Deacon]

5. K&R

From a SUV-driving, smoking, former mountain climber who is now entering the brave new world of search and rescue.

[GeorgeGist]

6. If I'm not mistaken...

secular humanism is an 'ism' which excludes all non-human creatures on this planet.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. You are, in fact, mistaken. Here is a statement from one of the twelve

core principles of secular humanism.

H6. Humans do not have a right of dominion over animals and the environment, it being recognized that humans along with many other species of animals do change their environment by their very existence.

What this principle asserts is that the Biblical right extended to humans to exercise "dominion" over animals and even nature is not a human right at all. Humanists should not restrict their horizons to humans alone and should respect this right of existence. This principle should not be taken as a proscription against modifying the environment. Any species, human or animal, has to make certain modifications in the natural environment to accommodate its basic living requirements. What the principle asserts is that wanton and deliberate destruction of animal life and ecosystems is not an automatic right of humans. At the very least it must include what now described as ecological conservation and responsibility, but a case can be made to take it much further.

http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/coreprin.htm#ch2

[J Miles]

9. What makes you think that?

Just because it's not called something like "every-living-thing-on-earthism" doesn't mean it excludes non-humans.

[berni_mccoy]

7. You have said very well what I've been thinking

Thank you.

:kick: