@SCOTUSblog
-
I consider all movies to be spoiled already for anyone that wasn't alive when the movie came out.
I can't think of any movie worth watching from before I was born that I didn't already know how it ended by the time I saw it.
-
antiquarian said:
the conservatives have no agenda other than putting everything back the way it wasMore usually they want to put things “back” to the way that they imagine things were. Whether or not they really were like that, or whether the world can support such things now, those are irrelevant.
antiquarian said:
progressives either refuse to admit there's a problem or want to double down on the failed policiesChange for change's sake. That's dumb too.
I used to have a G.K.Chesterton quote about this in my signature, back when we were allowed to have signatures.
Filed under: I guess signatures are a barrier to reading?
-
I consider all movies to be spoiled already for anyone that wasn't alive when the movie came out.
Spoiled, maybe. Deserve [spoiler]to be shot in the face[/spoiler] no.
-
Spoiled, maybe. Deserve [spoiler]to be shot in the face[/spoiler] no.
That part was just for the joke of spoiling the movie without spoiling the movie.
At least we weren't talking about The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo....
-
At least we weren't talking about
The Girl With The Dragon TattooMillion Dollar Baby....FTFY
-
There's some places it's just better to put boats in international waters. Unless His Majesty thinks intercontinental drones is the solution.
At least with boats, if you never have to use them, then you weren't ever in anyone else's land. It's a slightly more peaceful solution.
"I'm a threat, but I'm not forcefully occupying your space."You'd think with those idiots constantly blabbing about withdrawing from everywhere, this would be a better solution.
But these are the same idiots that won't let us build a pipeline. It goes without mentioning that the pipeline would be less disaster prone and better environmentally than shipping oil on boats...
But that's what we get when we elect politicians that think they know about military strategy and oil technology, and let them hand out positions as favors to their friends, rather than consulting wisdom from knowledgeable sources.
And if you've disagreed with me so far, just look how they handle the series of pipes we call the internet.
-
But these are the same idiots that won't let us build a pipeline. It goes without mentioning that the pipeline would be less disaster prone and better environmentally than shipping oil on boats...
Two words: mule train.
-
about all the other kinds of crime that will happen if guns went away
Exactly, what happened to the "murder ratios" in the UK each time they've outlawed another "weapon"? Once you smooth out the noise on the statistics, the only change is all other categories increased (and some new ones showed up) so the per capita was essentially unchanged… (… and my google-fu has failed me for finding the actual studies :( …)
-
That would probably work, sadly. Because it would be interpreted as the company acting against their religious freedom. Atheism is not a religion so it's fine the other way.
Sadly, most people don't get that "Freedom of Religion" needs to include "Freedom from Religion" kinda' like this sentiment:
-
How do you feel about being forced to buy auto insurance, then?
Auto insurance is a different beast… The primary purpose of auto insurance is to cover your liability when you somehow injure another persons' life or property. That's in the same class as laws that define negligence and fraud.
-
I really want to make versions of that sign for sexual orientations but I'm too lazy.
-
As long as freedom from religion does not trump freedom of religion.
Don't like me praying into the mic at graduation, that's fine. If you aren't attending or representing and attendee, you have no right to complain
No one is bothered by it at one particular location, don't come from outside and shut it down.
It needs to be announced ahead of time so someone can object.But no matter what, don't tell me I can't pray or read a religious book during free time, study hour, recess, or before or after school.
To me, that's the equivalent of saying I can't use my penis to pee in the public restroom.
-
To me, that's the equivalent of saying I can't use my penis to pee in the public restroom.
Which receptacle are you using? Just doing it on the floor would be pretty bad…
-
Point being that when freedom from religion becomes a phrase to silence religion, it is just social immaturity.
Religion needs an open forum in public.
If you ask someone to restrain that part of themselves to the point of no other person being exposed in public to the religion, you've violated freedom of religion.
-
social immaturity
You're talking about doing it on the floor. Don't. Please, just don't. It's disgusting.
-
Necro level: EPIC!
I don't know whether to give a
or apply a pitchfork.
-
Religion is like abortion. It won't go away by force, and both will most likely go away if our species advances to a much better average intellect.
-
sigh
As much as we've been taught that we are a logic based species and that we have developed a self-actualization that makes us able to reflect and create logical thought....
... we aren't.
We are a spiritual/emotional being. Logic is a faculty that we have, but not one we are based on.
There is no level of intellect that will free us from our spiritual/emotional needs. We can't become Spock, and our bodies can't afford to.
Another fallacy is assuming that we are all that more smarter than we used to be.
You take the average person, take them away from the creature comforts we have grown used to, and they die. The average person has not developed an intellect that will allow them to reproduce our level of technology because we haven't become smarter, we've become more specialized. And when you become more specialized, numbers count more than average intellect.
Sorry, the average person, and especially the people below average, are severely relatively dumb compared to their estimates for their own intelligence, and this results from our global culture that has put an emphasis on abstract intelligence, rather than emotional/artistic/visual intelligence.
So when someone asserts that we are on some path of intellectual enlightenment that will somehow solve all our problems by removing what the op insists is irrational thought.... all I can do is just laugh.
That path is not playing to our strengths as a species, and is actually halting our evolution.
No, the better path, regardless of truthfulness, is to all become a little more mature and tolerant of our various cultures and beliefs, and to make personal the various aspects of those beliefs that TRULY infringe on the rights of others.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with public exposure to religion, of any kind, period. To insist that some child is being negatively affected by being exposed to any particular religion's prayer, is ludicrous. If you insist that people retain the personal faculty to intellectually discern truth for themselves, why are you so afraid of exposure.
I can listen to a satanic prayer without falling apart. I don't see children converting en-masse to satanism just because they are exposed to it.
No, the only thing people are portraying, when they insist on the elimination of public displays of religion, is that their "right" to not be annoyed supersedes everyone's right to freedom of religion.
Jesus himself addressed how to approach a situation where the personal religious law contradicts public law. Any version of public law that contradicts personal law in such a way to make it impossible to follow private convictions is most likely invalidating freedom of religion. Otherwise, the solution is to often forgive a transgressor, and let God handle it. In other words, when it comes to enforcing personal religious convictions, that is God's realm, not ours. And thus, Christianity is compatible with democracy.
People followed him to the point he felt the need to preach. He didn't go telling the Romans how to act. He only confronted the religious Jewish leaders, and the treatment of the temple.
If seculars are unable to tolerate the level of public display of religion that Jesus maintained, then they do not support the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
-
I don't think anyone complains to an individual displaying their religious belief, rather to forcing others to do so by the way of social pressure. Want to pray? Go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. But don't stand in front of a large group of people in a non-religious setting and call for a public prayer. That forces me to either pray, pretend to pray, or refuse to pray.
Consider my emotions for a minute if you want to go the emotional route: I am, by the means of social pressure, forced to display my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) which I might not be comfortable with in that setting. Maybe I'm a non-believer in a large group of believers that will look at me differently if I display my lack of belief. Maybe I'm a Muslim living in a prejudiced community. How will my peers look at me after that?
Anecdote time: I have a friend that used to play basketball in school. Before a game the coach asked everyone in the team to pray. In the middle of the court. In front of the audience consisting of peers and parents. She got into the circle not to make a scene but didn't pray. They lost the game. Guess who was blamed and ostricized?
Look, do whatever the frell you want in your home, in church, or in any setting that is primarily religious. Pray wherever and whenever you want. But don't assume that everyone wants to join you.
That is what I have a problem with. Now, if someone is offended by what you do outside of that context, yes, that someone is a dick. But I think you'll find those dicks are a great minority, and you'll find them in equal-ish ratios on the both sides of the fence.
-
Now, if someone is offended by what you do outside of that context, yes, that someone is a dick. But I think you'll find those dicks are a great minority, and you'll find them in equal-ish ratios on the both sides of the fence.
The level of dickishness of humans is a property that is independent of pretty much all their other attributes.
-
Religion is like abortion. It won't go away by force, and both will most likely go away if our species advances to a much better average intellect.
-
I wouldn't ask anyone to join me.
That's not what I am saying.What I am saying is that if anyone wants to pray in front of an audience, they should be allowed to. However there should be no social pressure to join.
A good compromise is calling for a "moment of silence".
If the systemic pressure is to then pray under a certain religion, that is wronI. But allowing people to use that time however they see fit is ok.
Also a private group of individuals that decide to meet outside class hours to pray is ok. A teacher shouldn't feel legal pressure to not attend.
If your example of requiring people to pray is wrong, then procluding teachers from praying or wearing religious emblems is also wrong.
-
If your example of requiring people to pray is wrong, then procluding teachers from praying or wearing religious emblems is also wrong.
Hey, they can knock themselves out as far as I care. The only bit that can come under the gray area. IMHO, is praying in front of their class due to social pressure that can create. Whether an invitation is said out loud or not, in that kind of setting it becomes implied (since a teacher is an authority figure to kids) and uncomfortable.
-
What about allowing a student to invite other students to a privately held prayer after class?
I think we agree on this stuff.
The problem that I face is that everything you agreed to, oranizations like freedom from religion come in and threaten to sue.
They've successfully tied all public displays of religion to government endorsement somehow, and created an environment hostile to religion.
Of course they cherry pick which religions to threaten, but that's another problem.
First I want to stop ths progressive march to precluding individual self led practicing of religion.
There is no "freedom from religion". There is only freedom from practicing religion.
-
But no matter what, don't tell me I can't pray or read a religious book during free time, study hour, recess, or before or after school.
When has that ever been an issue? This is one of those tropes that I feel like the religious bring out because they think it has actually happened. No group has ever said that a person cannot study religion, on their own time, in their own way. What has merely been said is that there can be no endorsement of religion by the government, which prayers at a graduation would certainly do so.
-
What about allowing a student to invite other students to a privately held prayer after class?
How about playing Magic the Gathering? If the school allows for student clubs and there's an area for them to practice it they can pray while doing headstands if they really want.
The problem that I face is that everything you agreed to, oranizations like freedom from religion come in and threaten to sue.
Source please?
-
If seculars are unable to tolerate the level of public display of religion that Jesus maintained, then they do not support the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
You say this, and I think I get what you mean, but to me it sounds like: "I am all for freedom of religion, as long as it is my religion."
-
-
This is one of those tropes that I feel like the religious bring out because they think it has actually happened.
You just haven't been paying attention.
The group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, said school officials cited the separation of church and state when they banned religious speech during recess and other "open periods" at Pine Creek High School, north of Colorado Springs.
-
That's you responding to other people.
I have vehemently opposed the preclusion of other religions by Christians. If we want freedom of religion, we have to allow them all.
-
Important point: Freedom of _____ only applies to things the government does. That means even though there's free speech, a private business or homeowner can tell you to shut the fuck up and kick you out. It literally means "it is not illegal to talk in this country".
Freedom of religion means the government can't set up a required religion. It doesn't mean you can go into a church and try to convert everyone to scientology.
-
What about allowing a student to invite other students to a privately held prayer after class?
As long as it is not on taxpayer dime, no one cares. No one has ever said that you can't practice your religion (as long as it does not cause harm to others), they just said that the government cannot endorse a religion.
The problem that I face is that everything you agreed to, oranizations like freedom from religion come in and threaten to sue.
Source?
Of course they cherry pick which religions to threaten, but that's another problem.
Oh jesus fuck, now you are expanding the made-up "War on Christmas" to now just being a "War on Christians"? Not happening. You need to cite a (non-biased) source if you are going to make such broad sweeping claims.
First I want to stop ths progressive march to precluding individual self led practicing of religion.
No one is doing what you say, not progressives, not atheists, no one. It just isn't happening.
-
As long as it is not on taxpayer dime, no one cares
It's been argued that if you use a school room, it us on the tax payer dime, even if that room was not even being used for any other purpose at the scheduleI time.
-
You just haven't been paying attention.
No, you are twisting what happened:
Academy District Twenty, which covers Pine Creek High School, said in a statement in response that non-curricular groups, which include religious groups, may only meet before classes begin and after they end.
I don't disagree with that. I don't care what the group is. Anything extra-curricular should be meeting after hours. But you have yet to show me where an individual has been told, "You cannot bring a Bible to school and read it (between classes, after lunch, during recess, etc)". That doesn't happen...
-
Oh jesus fuck, now you are expanding the made-up "War on Christmas" to now just being a "War on Christians"? Not happening. You need to cite a (non-biased) source if you are going to make such broad sweeping claims.
Seriously? There's no downside in offending Christians, Jews or Hindus. See, for example, how everyone is falling over themselves to talk about not offending religious people currently, but they only really mean Muslims. For instance, the NY Times, who you know is talking shit because of their history of posting stuff offensive to Christians / Catholics.
This is sounding like the bien pensant warning us that we need to look out for backlash against Muslims every time some nutjob shoots up a coffee shop. A backlash that never happens, BTW.
No one is doing what you say, not progressives, not atheists, no one. It just isn't happening.
You're wearing blinders, man.
-
Anything extra-curricular should be meeting after hours.
Why not at recess? That's dumb.
-
It's been argued that if you use a school room, it us on the tax payer dime, even if that room was not even being used for any other purpose at the scheduleI time.
I don't necessarily disagree with that either...for the most part. It would not offend me though as long as it is used outside of the school hours and it is an informal meeting started and led by students. As soon as teachers become involved, or clergy, my personal feeling is that is when it crosses the line of being "an endorsement of religion".
-
Student told he could not read Bible during school free time
“I like to read my Bible because it’s a good book”
-
As soon as teachers become involved
If it on free time and not required by the school, the constitution doesn't care who attends
-
On this one, I absolutely agree with you. He should be allowed to read any work of fiction he wishes to on his own free time. ;)
But, these are highly isolated incidents. How many students are there in the USA? That article shows three examples.
-
But, these are highly isolated incidents.
Shit, where did those goalposts get to now? ;-)
-
If it on free time and not required by the school, the constitution doesn't care who attends
I should have qualified that...involving teachers on government held property. I feel the need to clarify so that my words do not get twisted to me supposedly saying that teachers cannot attend a church...
-
The ACLU seems to show up at all kinds of isolated incidents. Tyranny of the minority?
-
Shit, where did those goalposts get to now?
You know what I meant! Shoulder aliens! Blabber-mouth foxes! Hypercard was the greatest programming environment ever invented! I LOVE MAC CLASSIC!!!
-
involving teachers on government held property
http://nrb.org/news_room/articles/bible-reading-and-prayer-at-the-capitol/
Seems the govenrnment disagrees.
Student is told he can't pray in a school room during free time.
Govenment officials hold private prayer in government building on free time.
To me this is just persecution of the weak. The child. In order to artificially preclude children from exposure to religion in the name of ensuring a secular growing environment.
This is violating freedom of religion
-
So, from the two links I opened (slow mobile connection, CBA to wait for foxnews site):
One was "no noncurriculum-related groups of any kind allowed during open periods". Would it be in the news if they banned the chess club meeting during open periods?
The other one was "A teacher banned something. Principal disagrees. Investigation pending".
CONSPIRACY!
-
Seems the govenrnment disagrees.
On Thursday, May 3, the National Day of Prayer will be celebrated nationwide. Dr. David Jeremiah, Senior Pastor of Shadow Mountain Community Church, will keynote the Day of Prayer’s National Observance on Capitol Hill.
Hmmmm, I am not seeing the conflict. Now who is moving the goalposts? ;)
Govenment officials hold private prayer in government building on free time.
So what? As I said, I have no problem with the extra-curricular prayer groups at schools. The key part of the statement there is:
government building on free time
To me this is just persecution of the weak. The child. In order to artificially preclude children from exposure to religion in the name of ensuring a secular growing environment.
That is just an idiotic statement. I am an atheist, I do not want my children exposed to superstition. I pay tax dollars, some of which go to the schools that they will attend and I do not want them exposed to superstition on my dime while they are supposed to be LEARNING.
This is violating freedom of religion
Nope. No violation. It is simply not happening.
-
One was "no noncurriculum-related groups of any kind allowed during open periods". Would it be in the news if they banned the chess club meeting during open periods?
No, because people who play chess do not have a hair trigger and they do not like to play the victim. ;)
-
They'll argue chess is curriculum related somehow. There's a chess question in quiz bowl which is curriculum related.
And regardless of who is instigating it, you're saying that secularist can be offended by government led prayer, but I can't get offended by violations of freedom of religion. Even though both are marginal.
-
Nope. No violation. It is simply not happening
Student's choice book reading hour, recess, time between classes is free time.
In none of these examples is a teacher getting in front of class and forcing students to read a bible or pray.
Just because you Jedi wave, "no violation", doesn't mean you are right.
Colorado high school sued over ban on student prayer group
