• INFORMAL DISCUSSION - For the first 30 minutes of the Thursday night forums we will have informal discussion. This will allow for late arrivals, food & drink ordering, and new attendees to become acclimated.
• ANNOUNCEMENTS - Any events, news, or other items that you feel are of interest to the group can be announced at the start of Free Inquiry Forum.

TOPICS for Thursday (3/18/04) and Monday (3/22/04):

1. Mounting evidence indicates that Al Qaeda was behind the March 11th bombings in Madrid, Spain. How much did the bombings contribute to the Socialist Party’s surprise victory at the polls three days later? Is this a sign of weakness or anger from the Spanish voters? Was this part of Al Qaeda's plan? Is this evidence that terrorism "works"? Will this embolden Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to strike in a similar way in the future? Will Spain's new leader pull troops out of Iraq? What affect might that have? Will the "war on terrorism" spawn new enemies?
2. George Carlin recently blamed the indecency uproar on religious moralism, media commercialism and election-year politics. Is he correct? What do you worry about more, indecency itself or the people trying to ban their version of it?
3. What community issue needs our attention most? Civic participation, culture, recreation, economy, health, learning, natural or social environment, transportation, mobility, mass transit, alternate fuels. Are community initiatives like S.C.O.P.E, aimed at setting up programs to improve our society, effective? What solution would you propose to groups like S.C.O.P.E.?
4. Random House Dictionary defines nature as "the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities." Is it right to define nature as excluding one particular species (Homo sapiens)? If nature is not man's concept, what is? If this definition holds, what then is the meaning of the expression "human nature"?
5. A pregnant Utah woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged with murder after one of the babies was stillborn. Prosecutors allege she refused a C-section for cosmetic reasons. In January, the Utah state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion. The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman failed to follow her doctor's advice. Should this woman have been charged with murder? Is this an example of a fetus having more rights than a pregnant woman? Is the woman's murder case being used to make a political statement?

Quote of the week: "The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things — bad language and whatever — it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition. ... There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have. ... Mix that with TV or radio, and you've got a problem." [George Carlin - Source]

Send your topic suggestions for an upcoming FiF to: info@freeinquiryforum.com

TOPIC ARCHIVES