vbnautilus

I mean this is so obvious that no one is even willing to say it. But you don't really expect the poorest school districts in the country to be full of republicans, do you?

Interesting. Luxury yacht sinks off coast of St. Tropez France Actor Fcp Bob reported missing

Everyone fake dies in New Zealand.

double

That is really funny.

You get what you pay for, guys.

money comes and goes, man. the experience of owning a mac is with you for a lifetime.

Depends on how you define it, but people who do not affiliate with any religion in the US are around 14-16% in recent polls. If you include non-religious deist types you get up over 20%.Shows how backwards we are when France is beating us at something important (33% atheist).

On the flip side, if you are in a group, the chances that they pick off Napa instead of you are much higher.

Oops.

I tolerate you just fine. I'll take Beans, for obvious reasons, JJJ to access information quickly when we need it, speedz for medical assistance, shake to keep our shelter in top shape, guapo to make food out of whatever is available, brvy to fix the SUV, Randy to "make a run for it" at some point or another, Jubi to manage the technology (walkie talkies, satellite dishes and such). Strat can perform various menial tasks around camp, and I suppose eventually we are going to need LG to restart civilization again.

I don't. Right, and I have been arguing against #2. That's why its confusing for you to switch to #1. Do you see how #2 involves discrimination based on religion? Do you think its ok that both Joe and I eat peyote, then I get arrested and he doesn't simply because I don't have the same religious beliefs that he does?

I mean, it's no wonder this guy fell victim to religion, amirite?

I think the point is that bigamy is illegal. Do you think it should be legal just for Mormons due to religious freedom?

Either you are fighting for1. The law to be repealed and therefore apply to no one, in which case you need not invoke religion at allOr2. The law to exist but have an exception for religious organizations#2 is how the law is written, but there has been a squabble about which religious organizations get exempt. That is what spurred the current discussion. You now seem to be vacillating on what you want.

Also, claiming "religious freedom" in a case like this is totally selfish and counterproductive. If you think a law is bad you should fight for everyone to be free of it -- instead of trying to get an exemption for yourself. The only effect of these exemptions is to leave bad laws in place. Peyote is a good example. If your religion thinks peyote is good, you can't rally think it is good for only you. The exemption for the NAC has served to keep a bad prohibition in place. If you think the contraception law is bad, fight the law for all of us, don't codify religious discrimination to suit

Welcome to the real world, my friend.

I think it's pretty ironic that ZD is effectively arguing for religious discrimination: people should have some privilege because of their religious beliefs. That's exactly what the 1st amendment was trying to prevent. It's really time we got rid of all semblance of that kind of discrimination. It may be time to mount a more serious challenge to the remnants of RFRA. To my knowledge it has only been successfully used to defend peyote use, and the applicability of it to state law was already ruled unconstitutional. There's no reason people in the NA church should be able to use peyote and

Wait, now lawyers don't live in the real world either? You sure you're not thinking of the dream world? Pretty sure that's the one with no lawyers.

I mean, we're going in circles here and I really don't understand what you are saying at all. Who is forcing religious groups out of society? Again, the 1st amendment does not say that religion exempts one from the law. You can believe whatever the hell you want. You cannot do whatever the hell that you want just because it's part of your religion. Please explain how requiring insurance companies hired by religious organizations to provide contraception like everyone else does "confines religion to a building on Sunday and locks it there". You're saying some pretty ridiculous things, whic

You are allowed to pass a law limiting any activity that doesn't specifically target a religious group. Murder is a good example. We can outlaw murder, which in the process makes virgin sacrifice illegal, but we cannot specifically persecute Pagans by allowing murder but outlawing pagan ritual. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does not target any religious group. It is a bill aimed at providing standards of health care. By what measure do think it was unpopular with the majority of people? Who didn't know what was in it? <House voting numbers retracted due to conflicti

If I had a problem with that law on any other grounds it wouldn't be relevant to this discussion. Congress can pass literally any law that isn't prohibited by the constitution. That has nothing to do with this discussion. We live in a democracy. What is legal is decided by a representative vote. If you think a law is immoral, try to change it, or disobey and and accept the consequences. That has nothing to do with religious freedom. President Obama didn't make the law, congress did. The law still has exemptions for religious organizations (although I think it should not) that serve o

You're just singling out killing and saying that's a reason for a limit on religious practice, but there's no principle here. WHY is it ok to limit religion in certain ways but not in others? What distinguishes a permissible limit from an impermissible one? It seems that you are only able to apply your own religious rules: killing is bad, contraception is bad. I'm using the virgin sacrifice as an extreme example that your interpretation of the 1st amendment allows. It's extreme on purpose, for clarity's sake. It's supposed to make things easier. For some reason this form of argument is com

I still have no idea why you think a longstanding tradition of virgin sacrifice should be illegal. The limits are clear in the other direction: we can not make a law that is aimed at a specific religion. The law we are discussing does not single out religious institutions. The spirit of the bill of rights also requires that no religion be given any preference either. They are two sides of the same coin. The law can not be selectively applied based on religion, which is what you want.

Several native American religions don't believe in personal property.