Howard Baker passes

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Nope. Only bias is against those trying to shove their religion down their throats or bring their religion into public places such as public schools. Religion is personal and should not be pushed on others especially in a country founded on seperation of church and state.

What is your definition of "shoving it down people's throats? For example, sometimes we will see an athlete win a competition, and in the post-competition interview he says he "wants to thank his lord and savior, Jesus Christ". Do you have a problem with that?

[Danzig]

Shoving down throats....let's see...

Schools still having prayers, still have icons up? Yep. Then when someone points out its against the rules, panties get in a wad.
Laws being introduced to allow discrimination due to religion? Yep.
Christian groups who insist that the first amendment only applies to christians? Check.
Christians fighting to have non science taught in science class, while fighting to ban science?. Indeed.
Business owners trying to dictate health coverage? Sure enough
Christian icons continuously placed in public areas, but said christians don't want other groups to have the same ability? Of course.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Shoving down throats....let's see...

Schools still having prayers, still have icons up? Yep. Then when someone points out its against the rules, panties get in a wad.
Laws being introduced to allow discrimination due to religion? Yep.
Christian groups who insist that the first amendment only applies to christians? Check.
Christians fighting to have non science taught in science class, while fighting to ban science?. Indeed.
Business owners trying to dictate health coverage? Sure enough
Christian icons continuously placed in public areas, but said christians don't want other groups to have the same ability? Of course.

I'll just respond to your first one. Having a moment of silence where students can do anything from reflecting on the day, to praying (any religion they want), to daydreaming is hardly shoving anyone's religion down anyone's throats. You have it upside down. When states have ruled that a moment of silence is totally legal, it is the atheists whose panties get in a wad and take it to court and sue. God forbid some students exercise their right to think about whatever they want during the moment of silence. Some of them may actually pray silently. We can't have that.

The only ones in this case who want to control people's thoughts are the atheists. Maybe we should take it a step further. Would you be in favor of giving students a lie-detector test to make sure that they never thought about God during the school day? To think silently about God while you are on school grounds is a violation of the Constitution. LOL.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...constitutional

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'll just respond to your first one. Having a moment of silence where students can do anything from reflecting on the day, to praying (any religion they want), to daydreaming is hardly shoving anyone's religion down anyone's throats. You have it upside down. When states have ruled that a moment of silence is totally legal, it is the atheists whose panties get in a wad and take it to court and sue. God forbid some students exercise their right to think about whatever they want during the moment of silence. Some of them may actually pray silently. We can't have that.

The only ones in this case who want to control people's thoughts are the atheists. Maybe we should take it a step further. Would you be in favor of giving students a lie-detector test to make sure that they never thought about God during the school day? To think silently about God while you are on school grounds is a violation of the Constitution. LOL.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...constitutional

Well played Robert. You say respond to the first but addressed an issue she didnt bring up. Then you ignored every other point she brought up. Then you dip into the absurd. She flat out crushed you. You may as well just typed two random characters on the page and pressed enter.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Well played Robert. You say respond to the first but addressed an issue she didnt bring up. Then you ignored every other point she brought up. Then you dip into the absurd. She flat out crushed you. You may as well just typed two random characters on the page and pressed enter.

I only responded to the first one because it was an easy one to respond to and I didn't feel like spending 2 hours researching all the other ones. With regards to the first one, it was a straw man argument in the first place. Christians don't try to force anyone to do Christian prayers in schools. That is nonsense. What credible (or not credible) Christian has suggested that schools should force christianity on the students?

The only issue with regard to prayer in schools is whether a moment of silence is ok. There is no issue about forcing christianity on the students because nobody is in favor of that. Anyone who claims there is such an issue is completely mischaracterizing the facts. There definitely is an issue about a moment of silence. Atheists are against it and they have gone to court over it numerous times. The issue is whether a moment of silence is constitutional and whether being in favor of it is an attempt to try try to impose your religion on people. I can debate you guys on the issue of a moment of silence. I can't debate you on straw man issues that don't exist.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'll just respond to your first one. Having a moment of silence where students can do anything from reflecting on the day, to praying (any religion they want), to daydreaming is hardly shoving anyone's religion down anyone's throats. You have it upside down. When states have ruled that a moment of silence is totally legal, it is the atheists whose panties get in a wad and take it to court and sue. God forbid some students exercise their right to think about whatever they want during the moment of silence. Some of them may actually pray silently. We can't have that.

The only ones in this case who want to control people's thoughts are the atheists. Maybe we should take it a step further. Would you be in favor of giving students a lie-detector test to make sure that they never thought about God during the school day? To think silently about God while you are on school grounds is a violation of the Constitution. LOL.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...constitutional

yeah, except i wasn't talking about moments of silence, which are fine as long as they are 'neutral'. i'm talking about prayer being lead (such as at my kids school, so glad they're all out) because people in these areas are far from dc, and thinks 'everyone' is the same. they're counting on people not complaining, not pointing it out.

the aclu successfully fought for a student to pray before eating her lunch. it's not an issue at all, except where people ignore the laws and rulings that is.

many christians think that because they are the majority, they have the right to dictate continuing to have religious icons on display in schools (see the recent case in the northeast), in contradiction to long standing rules regarding things like that. they also think majority rules (not true) and that 'natural law' is the first rule we all must follow. all that's incorrect, the constitution rules, and is there to protect even the most hated minority group-in this case, atheists.
if some amongst us didn't believe in rocking the boat, we'd still have english accents and sing god save the queen.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, except i wasn't talking about moments of silence, which are fine as long as they are 'neutral'. i'm talking about prayer being lead (such as at my kids school, so glad they're all out) because people in these areas are far from dc, and thinks 'everyone' is the same. they're counting on people not complaining, not pointing it out.

the aclu successfully fought for a student to pray before eating her lunch. it's not an issue at all, except where people ignore the laws and rulings that is.

many christians think that because they are the majority, they have the right to dictate continuing to have religious icons on display in schools (see the recent case in the northeast), in contradiction to long standing rules regarding things like that. they also think majority rules (not true) and that 'natural law' is the first rule we all must follow. all that's incorrect, the constitution rules, and is there to protect even the most hated minority group-in this case, atheists.
if some amongst us didn't believe in rocking the boat, we'd still have english accents and sing god save the queen.

Ok, then I agree with you. I am in favor of a neutral moment of silence. Many atheists are not and have gone to court over it.

I'm not in favor of forcing a specific religion on students and I don't know any christians that are either.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Ok, then I agree with you. I am in favor of a neutral moment of silence. Many atheists are not and have gone to court over it.

I'm not in favor of forcing a specific religion on students and I don't know any christians that are either.

Wouldn't wanting to teach creationism in public schools be forcing your religion on students. Many Christians want that and have gone to court over it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Wouldn't wanting to teach creationism in public schools be forcing your religion on students. Many Christians want that and have gone to court over it.

I don't really know much about the whole scientific debate. From what I've heard, there is a lot more science that supports the evolution theory, but I've heard there are plenty of holes in that theory too. I think a lot of the stuff that they were teaching has turned out to be totally false. Didn't they used to claim that we evolved from monkeys? Now they know that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either.

Anyway, I don't know exactly what the science is now claiming. But as I said in the last paragraph, I think a lot of the evolutionary theories we were taught as kids have turned out to be false. So if there are hugs gaps in the evolution argument, is it reasonable to teach an alternative approach, in addition to evolution? I'm not sure. I'd have to hear the latest scientific arguments from both sides.

Here is an article that says that everything we've been taught about evolution is wrong. This is not a partisan article either. So if everything we're being taught is wrong, should we just continue to teach that and exclude alternatives?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...on-genes-wrong

[Danzig]

that's intelligent design, that's different.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What is your definition of "shoving it down people's throats? For example, sometimes we will see an athlete win a competition, and in the post-competition interview he says he "wants to thank his lord and savior, Jesus Christ". Do you have a problem with that?

"Shoving it down peoples throats"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby...ry?id=24364311

[OldDog]

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' rubbers is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

As long as you are Pro-choice and support your local Planned Parenthood, then certainly, you have the right to say that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

all that happened is HL will probably get an exemption, like the little sisters of the poor...the employees will still get their contraception, as they should. that way you don't have to pay for pregnancy, which is far more expensive than a pill.

and the suit only covered four methods of contraception.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

all that happened is HL will probably get an exemption, like the little sisters of the poor...the employees will still get their contraception, as they should. that way you don't have to pay for pregnancy, which is far more expensive than a pill.

and the suit only covered four methods of contraception.

Hobby Lobby has no problem buying their stock from China. China, land of forced abortions. The Green family are such, such hypocrites.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...g-nation-China

No word yet on whether they plan on instituting an exemption from the employee discount on knitting needles.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Hobby Lobby has no problem buying their stock from China. China, land of forced abortions. The Green family are such, such hypocrites.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...g-nation-China

No word yet on whether they plan on instituting an exemption from the employee discount on knitting needles.

i know, right?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Wonder what wise man said that?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

Yes, exactly. I don't know how not wanting to pay for someone's contraception qualifies as "shoving your religion down people's throats". Granted HL may claim that they don't want to pay on religious grounds. But does their reason really matter? Whatever their reason, they shouldn't be forced to pay IMO.

The government makes no sense. Things that they shouldn't be involved in, they want to get involved in. But things that they should do, they won't do. They won't let a person write off medical bills, unless it is over a certain amount. If you make $100,000 in a year and you have a $5,000 medical bill, you can't even write it off. It needs to be over 5%. That is absurd. If it was for a necessary medical procedure, it should come right off of your taxes. They won't even give you a tax break on a necessary medical procedure. I think you should be able to write off 100% of medical bills.