Random News Observations

[vbnautilus 48]

According to your argument, since you are allowed to pass a law against virgin sacrifice, you are also allowed to pass any law limiting religious activity. I guess you also believe that since you can have a law against yelling fire in a crowded theatre you can also pass a law limiting all other kinds of free speech.

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.

Passing this law the way it was passed without knowing what was in it, when it was unpopular with a majority of the people certainly does warrant concern and for a lot more than just religious freedom.Edit, don't know what exactly happened, but only half my post posted. Meh, the other half wasn't that great anyway.

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 conflicting information>

[timwakefield 68]

It's so easy to win debates when you define everyone else as an idiot.

I'll take a win however it comes. But the guys I'm talking about - Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, and that ilk - are, perhaps not idiots, but huuuuuuuuge assholes with little-to-no journalistic integrity.

But she went to a Jesuit college for the specific purpose of changing their policies regarding birth control for non-medical reasons to be challenged, then gets picked as a spokesperson for all young college girls who sleep with the entire Lacrosse team every day have a boyfriend.

fyp

[akoff 0]

I have already said yes, and I just used the length of time the Catholics have been exercising their mission as an example that they aren't trying to circumvent any laws out of convenience as other religions have tried. I never said it should be the only factor in determining anything, I simply stated it should be considered when trying to determine what constitutes exercise of religion. Again, I never said it should be the only thing considered. Do you think there are any limits to what one can do in the name of government? The founders did, that is why we have the bill of rights. The threshold is on you, if you seek to limit exercise of religion then you need to provide good reasons why. I would think violation of other peoples right to life would be one, which would cover virgin sacrifice.

funny you have to ask this question. one of the core beliefs of this administration is that all people are too stupid to think for themselves…just read the manner of which VB, CB, Wakefield and some of the other libs post with. There are no limits to what they think the government should be able to do…liberals as a group are highly educated smart people with no idea how to function in the real world. That is why they tend to be teachers, professional students and lawyers….come hell or high water they will do anything to get what they want.

[timwakefield 68]

funny you have to ask this question. one of the core beliefs of this administration is that all people are too stupid to think for themselves…just read the manner of which VB, CB, Wakefield and some of the other libs post with. There are no limits to what they think the government should be able to do…liberals as a group are highly educated smart people with no idea how to function in the real world. That is why they tend to be teachers, professional students and lawyers….come hell or high water they will do anything to get what they want.

At least you're not making any sweeping generalizations!Also, at what point did I suggest that there are no limits to what I think the government should be able to do? All I really did is suggest that perhaps she's not a slut and that I think it's understandable why she would avoid talking to a horrible man like Bill O'Reilly in front of millions of people.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

There is only one network that compares to FOX for being as unabashedly supportive of their position, and that is MSNBC. They are easily just as bad or worse as FOX on all counts. (In fact, independent studies show the news portion of FOX are actually better than the more neutral networks).Yes, CNN is better than FOX or MSNBC. Comparing FOX to CNN is not comparing apples to apples.What's amazing is the number of people who think PBS, CNN, ABC, and CBS are "neutral". Anyone who believes that is unintentionally doing the opposite experiment that this guy did.

I remember seeing that, it also said that the Wall Street Journal is more left leaning in its news stories.(not its editiorial page) than The Times or the Post. Do you remember where you read that study. Was it on ReasonTV?

[Zealous Donkey 0]

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.

Just because it doesn't target(btw, I think the way it is being implemented by HHS is targeting religion) Religion doesn't mean you can force Religious groups out of civic society. That is one of the things protected by the 1st amendment. You can't say yes, you are allowed to practice your religion, wink, wink, just don't do it where anyone else can see it. What they are trying to do hear is confine religion to a building on Sunday and lock it there. That's not going to fly.

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 conflicting information>

We may be talking about different things. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is widely unpopular, and as at is being implemented is becoming more unpopular. That is why the dems got slaughtered in the 2010 election.

[timwakefield 68]

Doesn't the president's party usually get slaughtered in mid-term elections? I'm sure that the Dems didn't lose out in 2010 largely due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, because hardly anybody knew what it was/is and it hasn't become a big story until recently.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Doesn't the president's party usually get slaughtered in mid-term elections? I'm sure that the Dems didn't lose out in 2010 largely due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, because hardly anybody knew what it was/is and it hasn't become a big story until recently.

Part of the reason it was so unpopular is because nobody knew what it was, but they passed it anyway under the cover of darkness.

[Balloon guy 158]

[vbnautilus 48]

Just because it doesn't target(btw, I think the way it is being implemented by HHS is targeting religion) Religion doesn't mean you can force Religious groups out of civic society. That is one of the things protected by the 1st amendment. You can't say yes, you are allowed to practice your religion, wink, wink, just don't do it where anyone else can see it. What they are trying to do hear is confine religion to a building on Sunday and lock it there. That's not going to fly.

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, which makes it hard to take you seriously.

We may be talking about different things. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is widely unpopular, and as at is being implemented is becoming more unpopular. That is why the dems got slaughtered in the 2010 election.

That is the law that provides the regulations about contraception that we are discussing. It was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, the governmental bodies which represent us. A bill to repeal it (authored by your pro-life senator) was summarily rejected. This wasn't forced on the American people by some outside force.

[vbnautilus 48]

funny you have to ask this question. one of the core beliefs of this administration is that all people are too stupid to think for themselves…just read the manner of which VB, CB, Wakefield and some of the other libs post with. There are no limits to what they think the government should be able to do…liberals as a group are highly educated smart people with no idea how to function in the real world. That is why they tend to be teachers, professional students and lawyers….come hell or high water they will do anything to get what they want.

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.

[akoff 0]

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.

correct, if you had many dealings with our legal system you would already beware of that, there is very little in the legal system that reflects the real world... it exists and it functions at pace where it would cease to exist if there was any other option...it is without a doubt the slowest, most out of date and unreasonable system this country has. from the way the process starts, to the submittals, to the due diligence, to the depositions to actual court procees is crazy. it is based on a system from many generations ago without using modern process to keep pace...i am fine with the steps of the system needing to happen in a proper fashion but the manner is just dumb.the entire process is to slow, to expensive and at the end of it crushes the little guy...and i have never been on the losing side of a case. it is just an out of date process, the speed of which cases move in the system should be cut in half or even by 3/4 and all parties would still have plenty of time for the arguements.lawyers are trained to find the worst case and protect you from it to the 5th power...that is not real either, as a business person you learn to find the balance of where your lawyers wants you to be and what you can actually run a profitable business at.

[vbnautilus 48]

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 I should be thrown in jail for it. One of the more entertaining failures to use this was when the Native Americans objected to using reclaimed water in national parks for fear of being infected by ghosts. They lost the case..

[vbnautilus 48]

correct, if you had many dealings with our legal system you would already beware of that, there is very little in the legal system that reflects the real world... it exists and it functions at pace where it would cease to exist if there was any other option...it is without a doubt the slowest, most out of date and unreasonable system this country has. from the way the process starts, to the submittals, to the due diligence, to the depositions to actual court procees is crazy. it is based on a system from many generations ago without using modern process to keep pace...i am fine with the steps of the system needing to happen in a proper fashion but the manner is just dumb.the entire process is to slow, to expensive and at the end of it crushes the little guy...and i have never been on the losing side of a case. it is just an out of date process, the speed of which cases move in the system should be cut in half or even by 3/4 and all parties would still have plenty of time for the arguements.lawyers are trained to find the worst case and protect you from it to the 5th power...that is not real either, as a business person you learn to find the balance of where your lawyers wants you to be and what you can actually run a profitable business at.

Welcome to the real world, my friend.

[Balloon guy 158]

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 I should be thrown in jail for it. One of the more entertaining failures to use this was when the Native Americans objected to using reclaimed water in national parks for fear of being infected by ghosts. They lost the case..

You're just mad that as an atheist you don't believe anything so you don't get nothing.Hahaha...how's that world view now?And I didn't think I could make fun of your beliefs until after you died....

[Balloon guy 158]

Looks like President Obama feels fine restricting the interweb for his own reasons.Now I understand the thinking to protect the first daughter.But what I don't get is why a 13 year old girl is allowed to go to a country that is on the 'not recommended for travel' lists of the US State Department for spring break.My 16 year old daughter was refused by me to go to Mexico. Anyone who knows anything refuses their child to go to party in Mexico. But 13 years old?I don't care that 25 secret service agents were required to go with her, I don't care that the whole trip is paid for by US taxpayers.I want to know what parent is this stupid?

[DJ Vu 176]

Or JJ needs to stop jumping between neutral attempts at humor and actual engagement during debates.

Never!

PS I actually don't have a problem with bigamy, as long as all involved are consenting and of age. I don't think it is an appropriate practice, but if everyone involved consents, can you really stop them in practice anyway?

Oh, can we talk about bigamy now? I've seen Big Love. The youngest one was super cute. Are there non-religious bigamists? I can't imagine that set-up actually working without a higher authority compelling you to think it's right.

I think this has now happened twice in this thread.

Yeah, it never works. It just makes the opposing party think you're crazy.

According to your argument, since you are allowed to pass a law against virgin sacrifice, you are also allowed to pass any law limiting religious activity. I guess you also believe that since you can have a law against yelling fire in a crowded theatre you can also pass a law limiting all other kinds of free speech.

I feel like you're actually really close to understanding the point with this post.

funny you have to ask this question. one of the core beliefs of this administration is that all people are too stupid to think for themselves…just read the manner of which VB, CB, Wakefield and some of the other libs post with. There are no limits to what they think the government should be able to do…liberals as a group are highly educated smart people with no idea how to function in the real world. That is why they tend to be teachers, professional students and lawyers….come hell or high water they will do anything to get what they want.

Your formatting is the besssssstttt.

[vbnautilus 48]

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 your purposes. That is just obnoxious.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

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, which makes it hard to take you seriously. That is the law that provides the regulations about contraception that we are discussing. It was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, the governmental bodies which represent us. A bill to repeal it (authored by your pro-life senator) was summarily rejected. This wasn't forced on the American people by some outside force.

I am saying that the Religious Exemption to the Health Care Law violates the 1st Amendment Free Exercise clause by placing an undo burden on religious organizations. It gives them the ultimatum to violate their religious beliefs and bow down to the Govt. or be forced out of institutions that they have run for years. I think I have been fairly clear on this.

[DJ Vu 176]

This thread = "my head is full of fuck"Can we go back to the beginning on this for a second? What are we talking about again? Insurance must cover contraception? I'm not clear on how this infringes on religious beliefs.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

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 your purposes. That is just obnoxious.

By fighting against infringement on religious liberties we are fighting for everyone's liberties. The Church doesn't want to force anyone to do anything, it is the government that is constantly doing that. We aren't fighting against contraception in this case, we are fight against infringements upon our freedom to practice our religion free of government interference. I will be fighting against the Health Care Law because it will greatly limit liberty.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Never!Oh, can we talk about bigamy now? I've seen Big Love. The youngest one was super cute. Are there non-religious bigamists? I can't imagine that set-up actually working without a higher authority compelling you to think it's right.

It doesn't work, but there are lots of people who have mutiple sexual partners and father children with different women. So I guess they think it will work, I mean it is not like society or pop culture tells them there is anything wrong with it. Just as long as you don't commit to take care of any of these women or children society is all right with this kind of behavior.

[vbnautilus 48]

By fighting against infringement on religious liberties we are fighting for everyone's liberties. The Church doesn't want to force anyone to do anything, it is the government that is constantly doing that. We aren't fighting against contraception in this case, we are fight against infringements upon our freedom to practice our religion free of government interference. I will be fighting against the Health Care Law because it will greatly limit liberty.

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.

[vbnautilus 48]

It doesn't work, but there are lots of people who have mutiple sexual partners and father children with different women. So I guess they think it will work, I mean it is not like society or pop culture tells them there is anything wrong with it. Just as long as you don't commit to take care of any of these women or children society is all right with this kind of behavior.

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

[DJ Vu 176]

It doesn't work, but there are lots of people who have mutiple sexual partners and father children with different women. So I guess they think it will work, I mean it is not like society or pop culture tells them there is anything wrong with it. Just as long as you don't commit to take care of any of these women or children society is all right with this kind of behavior.