OT? - Separation of Church and State?

[George Anthony]

...only when if fits the liberal template. It's okay for state interference
in the church but not vice versa. Liberals are a pathetic lot.


http://tinyurl.com/9qceaxe

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

Ahh, he might contemplate moving his company to the enlightened "North
Carolina" where the fine people there will think like he does....well,
possibly, but I suspect the "State Religion" won't be Catholic in
North Carolina ---- more likely Southern Baptist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/04/04/a-state-religion-whats-next-north-carolina-secession/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/state-religion-bill-north-carolina_n_3016154.html

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/north-carolina-speaker-snuffs-state-religio

But that might not be such a good idea either since them Southern
Baptist might be going after Catholics after they tire of gays and
lesbians.

mike
--


Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[Hank]

Just another whinner trying to make a religeous-vs-government point. We have ONE country with One government. We have MANY different religeous beliefs. As a country, we cannot let religeous beliefs (of ALL the MANY different beliefs) dictate the laws of the land.

Hank

[Bob Hatch]

So you and Mike don't believe that "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof;" really means that. It only means that we cannot have
prayer in schools, or school sports, or at graduation, or crosses on
public land, or religious statements in public buildings, but once a law
is passed that forces an individual to violate their belief, they "must"
do so.

Bob, who doesn't think Hank really understands the "establishment clause".


--
I do not carry a gun hoping that
I'll be able to shoot someone, anymore than
I carry a jack hoping I'll have a flat
tire.
Me.

[Vito00]

"George Anthony" <gant...@gmail.net> wrote in message
news:kjp7aq$su$1...@dont-email.me...

What exactly is "liberal" about expecting/forcing people to obey the law?
I did not want the Vietnam war or the Iraq war but I had to pay (my share)
for them. I dispise supporting crack whores with unwanted/abused children
but ... ditto. I fervently hoped the Courts would overturn 0bamacare but
they did not. If one does not like your health insurer paying for birth
control pills as 0bamacarerequires then one is free to lobby to change the
law (Good luck). Meanwhile, pay up or go to jail or renounce your
citizenship and move to the Vatican.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:56:41 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/6/2013 9:37 AM, Hank wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 9:20:00 AM UTC-4, George Anthony wrote:
>>> ...only when if fits the liberal template. It's okay for state interference
>>>
>>> in the church but not vice versa. Liberals are a pathetic lot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/9qceaxe
>>
>> Just another whinner trying to make a religeous-vs-government point. We have ONE country with One government. We have MANY different religeous beliefs. As a country, we cannot let religeous beliefs (of ALL the MANY different beliefs) dictate the laws of the land.
>>
>> Hank
>>
>
>So you and Mike don't believe that "Congress shall make no law
>respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
>exercise thereof;" really means that. It only means that we cannot have
>prayer in schools, or school sports, or at graduation, or crosses on
>public land, or religious statements in public buildings, but once a law
>is passed that forces an individual to violate their belief, they "must"
>do so.
>
>Bob, who doesn't think Hank really understands the "establishment clause".

I understand the establishment cause though I have a small issue with
how it is interpreted. Freedom of vs freedom from is my issue.

What puzzles me is the idea that religion is not intrinsicly part of
all decisions. It seems that for the majority of folks their value
system is closely tied to their religious background. I first started
looking at why common sense was not common. The more I looked the
more it seemed that "normal" behaviour was tied to the
ethnic/religious background of the person in question. A lot of
Philosophical questions are answered that way. What is better top
down or bottom up? Am I lucky Mr X built his factory here so I could
have a job or is he lucky I am available to work for him? Do we keep
voting in the same "expert" or churn them every election? Should I
share how I live with my neighbor or ignore how he lives? How
significant is the Pope? etc.

[Bruce S]

On 4/6/2013 9:37 AM, Hank wrote:

Have you ever read the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

In case you missed it, telling a person he must do something that
violates his religious beliefs is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

--
Bruce

Grammar - The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.

[Bruce S]

On 4/6/2013 9:56 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:
> On 4/6/2013 9:37 AM, Hank wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 9:20:00 AM UTC-4, George Anthony wrote:
>>> ...only when if fits the liberal template. It's okay for state
>>> interference
>>>
>>> in the church but not vice versa. Liberals are a pathetic lot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/9qceaxe
>>
>> Just another whinner trying to make a religeous-vs-government point.
>> We have ONE country with One government. We have MANY different
>> religeous beliefs. As a country, we cannot let religeous beliefs (of
>> ALL the MANY different beliefs) dictate the laws of the land.
>>
>> Hank
>>
>
> So you and Mike don't believe that "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof;" really means that. It only means that we cannot have
> prayer in schools, or school sports, or at graduation, or crosses on
> public land, or religious statements in public buildings, but once a law
> is passed that forces an individual to violate their belief, they "must"
> do so.
>
> Bob, who doesn't think Hank really understands the "establishment clause".

In this case, it is the "free exercise" clause he doesn't understand.

As to the "establishment clause" the American public has been lied to by
politicians for so many years that almost no one understands it unless
they have actually sought out the information.

[MaxD]

As a senior citizen who has no intention of impregnating any woman I am
opposed to insurance coverage for pregnant women.
As a non-pilot I am opposed to pilots getting insurance.
As a non-drinker of alcoholic beverages I am opposed to drinkers getting
insurance.
And as a...
well, if you don't get the point there's no use continuing.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:56:41 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/6/2013 9:37 AM, Hank wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 9:20:00 AM UTC-4, George Anthony wrote:
>>> ...only when if fits the liberal template. It's okay for state interference
>>>
>>> in the church but not vice versa. Liberals are a pathetic lot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/9qceaxe
>>
>> Just another whinner trying to make a religeous-vs-government point. We have ONE country with One government. We have MANY different religeous beliefs. As a country, we cannot let religeous beliefs (of ALL the MANY different beliefs) dictate the laws of the land.
>>
>> Hank
>>
>
>So you and Mike don't believe that "Congress shall make no law
>respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
>exercise thereof;" really means that. It only means that we cannot have
>prayer in schools, or school sports, or at graduation, or crosses on
>public land, or religious statements in public buildings, but once a law
>is passed that forces an individual to violate their belief, they "must"
>do so.

What makes you think I believe anything but that Congress should stay
out of the religion business.

What leaves me scratching my head is the religious Right getting their
panties in a wad when a college professor does a class
discussion/example where the students write "Jesus" on a piece of
paper then stomp on it......

Yet these same "religious Right" folks want to force prayer in school
and religious statements in/on public buildings.

You get the drift. If someone is screwing with the religious Right it
is one thing but when the religious Right forces their belief system
on others it is entirely another issue.

[Bruce S]

Which Constitutionally protected religion do you belongs to that would
be violated if you did any of those things?

Do you have even the slightest inkling of what the 'Free exercise" of
religion means?

[Owen McKenzie]

On 4/6/2013 5:01 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>
> What leaves me scratching my head is the religious Right getting their
> panties in a wad when a college professor does a class
> discussion/example where the students write "Jesus" on a piece of
> paper then stomp on it......
>
>
>

> mike
>

Mike, what do you think the reaction would've been if instead of "Jesus"
on the paper it said "Mohamed"?
--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Largo, FL

"Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful
consideration to both sides of the same side."
-- Anonymous

[bill horne]

Has someone actually forced someone to pray in school? Forced them to
put religious statements in/on public buildings? I could be wrong, but
I remember it as the non-religious Left forcing people to stop praying
in school, and to remove stuff that's been there for decades.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=suspended+for+wearing+cross&oq=wearing+cross+%2B+suspended&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i8i30l4.22610.23255.1.32735.8.5.0.0.0.3.185.751.0j5.5.0...0.0...1c.1.8.psy-ab.-mpvbCw8S74&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.eWU&fp=2db448a44df53951&biw=1280&bih=554

> You get the drift. If someone is screwing with the religious Right it
> is one thing but when the religious Right forces their belief system
> on others it is entirely another issue.

I'm not religious, but I'm more concerned with the non-religious Left
suspending people for wearing a crucifix.


--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[George Anthony]

"Vito00" <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:euZ7t.14134$aF1....@fed15.iad...

Absolutely nothing wrong with forcing people to obey the law as long as it's
constitutional. Prohibiting one from the free exercise of one's religion is
not constitutional, i. e., illegal. And on that note, why are we not forcing
illegal aliens to obey the law; the president to "support and defend" the
Constitution; congress to submit a budget?

[Bob Hatch]

When has this ever happened in our lifetime? What sort of "force" was
used? Was the person tied down, chained, whipped? You get the drift.

it is entirely another issue.
>
>
> mike
>


--

[MaxD]

The post to which I responded, regardless of whatever transpired
previously concerning this thread, alluded to religious groups resisting
paying premiums for insurance that would cover birth control.
The resistance ostensibly was/is based on their beliefs.
My point is that there are several insurance covered conditions to which
I could claim the same resistance and allege that the coverage is
against my religion.
For the benefit of those who seem to have a simplistic understanding of
how insurance works, the idea is to manage risk, one method of which is
to spread the risk over a large number of policy holders.
In the attempt to develop a universal health care system for the country
a key requirement is for *everyone* to be covered for as many
conceivable health care needs as is possible including the costs of
birth control.
The *facts*:
America's health care costs have reached an unsustainable percent of the
GDP.
The health care figures (death rates, infections, cure rates, etc) are
disproportionately low compared to the costs.
The solution is a Universal Health Care, single payer system so
structured as to insure free market competition.
I have previously posted suggestions for such a system and see no need
to repeat it.

And, by the way, "free exercise" includes my right to *my* religious
beliefs which is freedom from intimidation by Bible thumpers.

[Bob Hatch]

Intimidation? Really, Max. Really, intimidation?

[Bruce S]

Which brings up back to the question I asked: "Which Constitutionally

protected religion do you belongs to that would be violated if you did
any of those things?"

Since you claim you are not a believer, you have no religious beliefs to
be protected. (As the atheists always claim, an absence of belief is
not, in itself, a belief.)

> For the benefit of those who seem to have a simplistic understanding of
> how insurance works, the idea is to manage risk, one method of which is
> to spread the risk over a large number of policy holders.
> In the attempt to develop a universal health care system for the country
> a key requirement is for *everyone* to be covered for as many
> conceivable health care needs as is possible including the costs of
> birth control.

If the use of artificial means of birth control violates one's religious
beliefs, then forcing that person to provide birth control for others is
a violation of his/her beliefs, and therefore, the 1st Amendment.

> The *facts*:
> America's health care costs have reached an unsustainable percent of the
> GDP.

And they have gone up (way up) since the 0bamacare became law. Only a
moron would believe that forcing insurance companies to provide more
coverage (children up to age 26 or additional services) could possibly
be done for the same premiums.

> The health care figures (death rates, infections, cure rates, etc) are
> disproportionately low compared to the costs.

Since we have the best cure rates for cancers and heart disease in the
world, you are wrong. Death rates are irrelevant in that death still
comes one to a customer, and if you factor out deaths for reasons that
have nothing to do with health care (drug use, obesity, homicide, auto
accidents) our longevity is as good as anywhere in the world. If you
want to being down costs, start with tort reform.

> The solution is a Universal Health Care, single payer system so
> structured as to insure free market competition.
> I have previously posted suggestions for such a system and see no need
> to repeat it.

You have been wrong repeatedly, and I also see no need to repeat why. A
free market solution would provide better care and better prices. Why
is it that people like you have no faith in free markets for health care
when the proof is right in front of you that free markets provide better
services and products in EVERY area of life where they are tried. And
in health care, look at cosmetic surgery and vision corrective surgery
to see the benefits of a free market - since health insurance does not
cover those areas, the costs have gone down and the results have gotten
better. We would see that same type of result with free markets in all
of health care.

> And, by the way, "free exercise" includes my right to *my* religious
> beliefs which is freedom from intimidation by Bible thumpers.

And just when and where have you been subjected to "intimidation by
Bible thumpers?"

[Bruce S]

Is Max claiming that he is such a pussy that he finds it impossible to
tell a person he has no interest in being "preached" to?

By the way Max, you have NO RIGHT to be free from hearing about someone
else's religious beliefs. The "free exercise" clause means no such
thing. Just like freedom of speech does not guarantee a right to be
free from hearing someone elses speech, the free exercise clause does
not give you the right to be free from hearing about someone elses
religion. Your recourse to their free exercise is to not listen.

I suspect that what you meant (but were too ignorant to understand) was
that you believe you are protected by the establishment from being
exposed to religion. You would, once again, be wrong. All you are
protected from is the government subjecting you to a religion.

[Lone Haranguer]

Max:

"I could claim the same resistance and allege that the coverage is
against my religion. "

But do you have a track record to prove it?

LZ

[MaxD]

On 4/6/2013 5:56 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> On 4/6/2013 3:47 PM, MaxD wrot

>> The post to which I responded, regardless of whatever transpired
>> previously concerning this thread, alluded to religious groups resisting
>> paying premiums for insurance that would cover birth control.
>> The resistance ostensibly was/is based on their beliefs.
>> My point is that there are several insurance covered conditions to which
>> I could claim the same resistance and allege that the coverage is
>> against my religion.
>
> Which brings up back to the question I asked: "Which Constitutionally
> protected religion do you belongs to that would be violated if you did
> any of those things?"
>
> Since you claim you are not a believer, you have no religious beliefs to
> be protected. (As the atheists always claim, an absence of belief is
> not, in itself, a belief.)

LOL. Why is it that when someone says they're not a Christian they get
called a "non-believer"? Is that like when someone who doesn't hew to
the conservative line they automatically become liberals?
I *believe* there is an entity, an existence, an omniscience who created
the universe, can, by definition, control every happening in the
universe; a being that possesses an intelligence beyond comprehension by
humans. Beyond that, I doubt that you would understand what else I
believe in the way of "religion".

>> For the benefit of those who seem to have a simplistic understanding of
>> how insurance works, the idea is to manage risk, one method of which is
>> to spread the risk over a large number of policy holders.
>> In the attempt to develop a universal health care system for the country
>> a key requirement is for *everyone* to be covered for as many
>> conceivable health care needs as is possible including the costs of
>> birth control.
>
> If the use of artificial means of birth control violates one's religious
> beliefs, then forcing that person to provide birth control for others is
> a violation of his/her beliefs, and therefore, the 1st Amendment.
>
>> The *facts*:
>> America's health care costs have reached an unsustainable percent of the
>> GDP.
>
> And they have gone up (way up) since the 0bamacare became law. Only a
> moron would believe that forcing insurance companies to provide more
> coverage (children up to age 26 or additional services) could possibly
> be done for the same premiums.

True.

>
>> The health care figures (death rates, infections, cure rates, etc) are
>> disproportionately low compared to the costs.
>
> Since we have the best cure rates for cancers and heart disease in the
> world, you are wrong. Death rates are irrelevant in that death still
> comes one to a customer, and if you factor out deaths for reasons that
> have nothing to do with health care (drug use, obesity, homicide, auto
> accidents) our longevity is as good as anywhere in the world. If you
> want to being down costs, start with tort reform.

I get my figures from friends at the NIH. A few years ago my wife was a
participant in a study protocol concerning afflictions associated with
rheumatoid arthritis. The study was conducted over a period of five
years. We went to Bethesda, MD every 90 days for the first year; every 6
months for the next four years. In that period of time we both developed
friendships with several medical professionals, friendships we still
maintain.

>> The solution is a Universal Health Care, single payer system so
>> structured as to insure free market competition.
>> I have previously posted suggestions for such a system and see no need
>> to repeat it.
>
> You have been wrong repeatedly, and I also see no need to repeat why. A
> free market solution would provide better care and better prices. Why
> is it that people like you have no faith in free markets for health care
> when the proof is right in front of you that free markets provide better
> services and products in EVERY area of life where they are tried. And
> in health care, look at cosmetic surgery and vision corrective surgery
> to see the benefits of a free market - since health insurance does not
> cover those areas, the costs have gone down and the results have gotten
> better. We would see that same type of result with free markets in all
> of health care.

You obsession with the "free market" is laughable. If you think the
economic system in the US is a true free market you are laboring under a
false impression. Either that or you're the one who doesn't understand
what "Free Market" really means.

>> And, by the way, "free exercise" includes my right to *my* religious
>> beliefs which is freedom from intimidation by Bible thumpers.
>
> And just when and where have you been subjected to "intimidation by
> Bible thumpers?"

The remark to which you refer was made as a general observation. I am,
personally, not intimidated by either voodoo, witch doctors, priests,
pastors, bishops or the Pope. But I know that, to use an example,
individuals who practice religions other than Christianity feel much
like someone who is listening to others speak another language or to
others who are whispering to each other. In the greater society there
are social circles that will exclude a person who is a "non-believer".
There are businesses that will not hire a "non-believer" or will find a
way to get rid of such a person. The media has reported that there have
been cases in the military where "non-believers" were..."intimidated".

And, as Mike mentioned, on Facebook, one sees posts that infer that the
reader should be ashamed if he/she doesn't re-post some Christian
message. And, tell me, do you really respect those atheists, agnostics,
Muslims, Sikhs, and other non-Christians?

[Bruce S]

On 4/6/2013 5:45 PM, MaxD wrote:
> On 4/6/2013 5:56 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> On 4/6/2013 3:47 PM, MaxD wrot
>
>
>>> The post to which I responded, regardless of whatever transpired
>>> previously concerning this thread, alluded to religious groups resisting
>>> paying premiums for insurance that would cover birth control.
>>> The resistance ostensibly was/is based on their beliefs.
>>> My point is that there are several insurance covered conditions to which
>>> I could claim the same resistance and allege that the coverage is
>>> against my religion.
>>
>> Which brings up back to the question I asked: "Which Constitutionally
>> protected religion do you belongs to that would be violated if you did
>> any of those things?"
>>
>> Since you claim you are not a believer, you have no religious beliefs to
>> be protected. (As the atheists always claim, an absence of belief is
>> not, in itself, a belief.)
>
> LOL. Why is it that when someone says they're not a Christian they get
> called a "non-believer"? Is that like when someone who doesn't hew to
> the conservative line they automatically become liberals?
> I *believe* there is an entity, an existence, an omniscience who created
> the universe, can, by definition, control every happening in the
> universe; a being that possesses an intelligence beyond comprehension by
> humans. Beyond that, I doubt that you would understand what else I
> believe in the way of "religion".

Shall I repeat the question again? "Which Constitutionally protected

religion do you belongs to that would be violated if you did any of

those things?" Do you have any evidence of a history of religious
beliefs that would preclude any of those listed activities?

>>> The solution is a Universal Health Care, single payer system so
>>> structured as to insure free market competition.
>>> I have previously posted suggestions for such a system and see no need
>>> to repeat it.
>>
>> You have been wrong repeatedly, and I also see no need to repeat why. A
>> free market solution would provide better care and better prices. Why
>> is it that people like you have no faith in free markets for health care
>> when the proof is right in front of you that free markets provide better
>> services and products in EVERY area of life where they are tried. And
>> in health care, look at cosmetic surgery and vision corrective surgery
>> to see the benefits of a free market - since health insurance does not
>> cover those areas, the costs have gone down and the results have gotten
>> better. We would see that same type of result with free markets in all
>> of health care.
>
> You obsession with the "free market" is laughable. If you think the
> economic system in the US is a true free market you are laboring under a
> false impression. Either that or you're the one who doesn't understand
> what "Free Market" really means.

You would have to be blind or stupid to believe that I think (or have
ever said) we have a totally free market in this country. On the other
hand, you would have to be blind or stupid not to see free market
influences on many products and services in this country. And in every
one of those areas, the free(er) markets have provided consistently
better and cheaper products and services than any market that if rife
with government intervention.

>>> And, by the way, "free exercise" includes my right to *my* religious
>>> beliefs which is freedom from intimidation by Bible thumpers.
>>
>> And just when and where have you been subjected to "intimidation by
>> Bible thumpers?"
>
> The remark to which you refer was made as a general observation. I am,
> personally, not intimidated by either voodoo, witch doctors, priests,
> pastors, bishops or the Pope. But I know that, to use an example,
> individuals who practice religions other than Christianity feel much
> like someone who is listening to others speak another language or to
> others who are whispering to each other. In the greater society there
> are social circles that will exclude a person who is a "non-believer".
> There are businesses that will not hire a "non-believer" or will find a
> way to get rid of such a person. The media has reported that there have
> been cases in the military where "non-believers" were..."intimidated".

So, your problem with religious types is not personal, it is simply your
arrogant belief that if you don't protect them, most people will be
intimidated by religious believers?

> And, as Mike mentioned, on Facebook, one sees posts that infer that the
> reader should be ashamed if he/she doesn't re-post some Christian
> message. And, tell me, do you really respect those atheists, agnostics,
> Muslims, Sikhs, and other non-Christians?

Those Facebook pages don't INFER anything. If you were functional in
English, you would know that the speaker (Facebook writer) IMPLIES, the
listener (reader) infers. I almost never repost anything that tells me
I am supposed to repost it. And my respect for "atheists, agnostics,
Muslims, Sikhs, and other non-Christians" has nothing to do with their
religious belief system, it has to do with their behavior (and political
beliefs of course - I don't respect liberals or anyone else who is anti
freedom).

[George Anthony]

"MaxD" <gmd...@att.net> wrote in message
news:5160a617$0$39096$c3e8da3$dbd...@news.astraweb.com...

You liberals are in for a shock if ObamaCareLess goes into full effect. If
you think health care costs are high now... Why are you so afraid of
religion, by the way? Personally, I think you people are not so much afraid
of religion as you are the morality that goes with it. Homosexuality and
homosexual marriage, unborn baby killings, taking money from producers and
giving it to the lazy asses who won't lift a finger to help themselves
(where are you nothermark?), open marriages, promotion of promiscuity
(handing out condoms in school and morning after pills for young girls) and
other liberal leanings are all immoral. If there was no religion, no bible,
no higher power, they would still be immoral acts.

"There are no atheists in a foxhole."
- Ernie Pyle?

[MaxD]

ROFL. See what I mean.
I'm a Liberal. ROFL.
Afraid of religion? At my age and after many death defying experiences
the only thing left that I'm afraid of is severe pain experienced on a
continuing basis.
Afraid of "morality"? LOL. George, I will match my record against yours
any day of the week. You gotta be kidding.
I'll have to admit that the vast majority of Americans need their
religion just to behave themselves but the accusation that a
non-Christian can't be moral is prejudice.

Homosexual marriage? My opinion has been stated here at least twice and
it wasn't in favor of homosexual *marriage*.
Having said that, I feel compelled to give you a little information
about homosexuality:
The sex of a human is determined at conception; there is very little
conflict about that. But anomalies can occur and an individual can be
born with both male and female anatomy; rare but it does happen.
But sexual *orientation* is another matter. There is a point in the
gestation period during which the mother secretes a hormone essential to
sexual orientation. Not only is the type of hormone critical but the
amount is just as important. Homosexual orientation is an anomaly in the
normal human reproduction process. A person cannot unlearn
homosexuality. They can't be re-trained. Homosexuality, of and by
itself, is not a psychological problem. Mental problems can occur when
attempts are made to "cure" homosexuality with "counseling".

Abortion:
I am against abortion as birth control.
But there are circumstances of which I am directly aware where it would
be immoral to allow a fetus to survive only to see it suffer
excruciating pain until death a few minutes to a few hours later.
Be advised that those circumstances aren't as rare as you might believe.
I suppose as a God fearing Christian you might say, "Let it be God's
decision." Well, how do you *know* that God didn't allow the invention
of medical equipment that could detect a terminal affliction in the womb
and a method to limit the suffering via an abortion?

Welfare:
Means testing, drug testing and government labor if none is available in
the private sector.

I am not a fan of Obamacare; it won't work any better than the prior
system. But the Republicans had a chance to put forth a system that
could work and they didn't.
So just to repeat, the system is not financial sustainable and all the
propaganda about the American health care system being the world's best
is just wishful thinking.

Do I have an alternate plan? You betcha!

Now, save this, George, because I don't want to have to explain it all
again.

[K Miller]

"bill horne" <red...@rye.net> wrote in message
news:5160998f$0$26901$c3e8da3$3388...@news.astraweb.com

>
> Has someone actually forced someone to pray in school?

I seem to recall reciting the Pledge of Allegiance containing that loathsome
phrase "under god" a lot when I was but a frail youth. Didn't you? I also
attended a Catholic school where the recital of "prayers" was mandatory,
though I didn't last long there. As I recall failure during recital
frequently involved corporal punishment but maybe that isn't what you meant
by "forced"?

[dm_callier]

On Apr 6, 2:54 pm, bill horne <redy...@rye.net> wrote:

>
> Has someone actually forced someone to pray in school?

Yes. I'm a bit younger than you but I can remember public grade
schools in Utah and Colorado in the 50's. Kindergarten in Salt Lake
started with a prayer and the Pledge. When the teacher found out I
wasn't Mormon she said, "We'll make a good Mormon of him, won't we
class?" I told my Dad and he visited the school with me the next day.
I didn't learn what was discussed until years later, but there was no
longer a mention of being turned into a good Mormon. My circle of
buddies did diminish slightly, as well. As an aside, the Pledge didn't
yet include "under God", that was added a year or two later...I
vaguely recalled getting disciplined when I didn't recite it
correctly.

We moved to Houston around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I
don't know if prayer was mandatory at the high school I attended, but
do recall non-participants getting pulled out of class for a visit to
the principal's office for "correction". I was a real rule follower by
that time and went along with whatever the teachers were laying
down...I'd had enough of the "Assume the position" and a sore behind
that came from open rebellion. And I'm pretty sure that was after the
Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory school prayer. But it
was Texas, after all.

[bill horne]

K Miller wrote:
> "bill horne" <red...@rye.net> wrote in message
> news:5160998f$0$26901$c3e8da3$3388...@news.astraweb.com
>>
>> Has someone actually forced someone to pray in school?
>
> I seem to recall reciting the Pledge of Allegiance containing that loathsome
> phrase "under god" a lot when I was but a frail youth.

The pledge is not a prayer.

> Didn't you? I also
> attended a Catholic school where the recital of "prayers" was mandatory,

Well, my goodness. Prayer in a Catholic school. How obnoxious and unusual.

> though I didn't last long there. As I recall failure during recital
> frequently involved corporal punishment but maybe that isn't what you meant
> by "forced"?
>
>

[bill horne]

I've been trapped a few times, and had to listen to a prayer. A few
times, I've found myself in group reciting the Lord's prayer. I
remained silent, but lo and behold, I survived with my idoanoism
intact. Immense inner strength, I suppose.

I feel great compassion for those of you who have been irreparably
damaged by similar experiences, and have had to carry the distaste
throughout your lives. Y'all probably even have to use filters in
newsgroups.

However, I've never been in a school that forced me to pray, so maybe
I just don't understand the problem.

However again, even as a confirmed idoanoist, I think that a kid
getting suspended for wearing a crucifix in school is much more
worrisome than feeling pressured to say "under God".

[Hank]

On Saturday, April 6, 2013 7:56:05 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

> And they have gone up (way up) since the 0bamacare became law. Only a
>
> moron would believe that forcing insurance companies to provide more
>
> coverage (children up to age 26 or additional services) could possibly
>
> be done for the same premiums.
>

> Bruce

I must be the exception because my health care premiums hasn't risen much in the last 5 years (only $4 a month this year). However, they did rise DRAMATICALLY during the Bush years. I'm sure you have a chart somewhere to prove me wrong.

I will agree that you can't cover a person to the age of 26 without some kind of increase. But, I do believe the increase would be minimal due to the fact most people between 18-26 don't visit the doctor nearly as much as people over 65.

Hank

[Will Josephs, Douglas County, OR]

On Apr 6, 6:20 am, "George Anthony" <ganth...@gmail.net> wrote:
> ...only when if fits the liberal template. It's okay for state interference
> in the church but not vice versa. Liberals are a pathetic lot.

There is only one true "poster boy" for pathetic behavior and that is
Little Georgie Antonio.

[Will Josephs, Douglas County, OR]

On Apr 6, 9:56 am, Bob Hatch <bob.ha...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/2013 9:37 AM, Hank wrote:
>

> > On Saturday, April 6, 2013 9:20:00 AM UTC-4, George Anthony wrote:
> >> ...only when if fits the liberal template. It's okay for state interference
>
> >> in the church but not vice versa. Liberals are a pathetic lot.
>

> >>http://tinyurl.com/9qceaxe
>
> > Just another whinner trying to make a religeous-vs-government point. We have ONE country with One government. We have MANY different religeous beliefs. As a country, we cannot let religeous beliefs (of ALL the MANY different beliefs) dictate the laws of the land.
>
> > Hank
>
> So you and Mike don't believe that "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof;" really means that. It only means that we cannot have
> prayer in schools, or school sports, or at graduation, or crosses on
> public land, or religious statements in public buildings, but once a law
> is passed that forces an individual to violate their belief, they "must"
> do so.
>

> Bob, who doesn't think Hank really understands the "establishment clause".

ACTUALLY YOU SHOULD HAVE ENDED YOUR POST WITH ....

"Bob, who doesn't think, because his nutcase brain deteriorated beyond
productive thought years ago."

[Will Sill]

On 4/6/13 6:47 PM, MaxD wrote, in the course of an illogical rant:

> And, by the way, "free exercise" includes my right to *my* religious
> beliefs which is freedom from intimidation by Bible thumpers.

Do you REALLY feel intimidated, Max? Or are you, as usual, blowing smoke?

Or are you like poor Hunter, who feels "attacked" when someone disagrees
with her?

Will

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:28:49 -0400, Owen McKenzie
<owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/6/2013 5:01 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>
>> What leaves me scratching my head is the religious Right getting their
>> panties in a wad when a college professor does a class
>> discussion/example where the students write "Jesus" on a piece of
>> paper then stomp on it......
>>
>>
>>
>> mike
>>
>
>Mike, what do you think the reaction would've been if instead of "Jesus"
>on the paper it said "Mohamed"?

--------------------
Owen, at least ONE rag head would have gone absolutely bandannas with
his jockies firmly wadded in his crack and you could not have told the
difference between the rag head and Rush or O'Riley.

It was a class exercise, make that COLLEGE class on communications
designed to show how emotional some things can be. The professor got
his point across. Some folks in the class will learn something,
others ......... well, they will just get their panties in a wad.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:54:22 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
wrote:

--------------------------

bill, no one was forcing that COLLEGE student to write Jesus on that
piece of paper then stomp on it. It was a VOLUNTARY exercise.
However the COLLEGE student Russ Limbaugh and O'Riley really got their
panties in a wad over the VOLUNTARY exercise.

It sure looks to me that some folks only get riled up when their OX
gets gored!

[nothermark]

Your Church maybe. My Church does not care about your moral values.


What seems to be missing is that if there is a separation of Religion
and State values then the State cannot regulate what the Pulpit
preaches but the Pulpit cannot regulate what the state requires
outside the Church.

We also need a public understanding of what values made our country
work. Those values should be preached in all school systems. It they
run afoul of religious values that is too bad. If you think that is
harsh and we should not contradict your religious views then stand by
for Sharia law as we a headed that way.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:18:22 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>

Hey Bob, no one was forcing that COLLEGE student to write Jesus on the
piece of paper and stomp on it. That was a voluntary exercise in a
communications class......only the STUDENT, Rush Limbaugh and O'Riley
decided to get their panties in a wad.

That is the point...... The Religious Right acts just like the Rag
Heads if their feelings are hurt.

>it is entirely another issue.

It is NOT another issue at all. Rag Heads and the Religious Right act
identically.

[Bob Hatch]

Voluntary? Really? Then why was the student suspended for "not"
completeing the "voluntary exercise"?

FAU student and devout Mormon, Ryan Rotela, has been suspended from all
academic activity at the University for refusing to stomp on the name of
Jesus and then having the audacity to complain about the professor who
asked him to do so.
http://persecution.in/content/fau-student-disciplined-refusing-stomp-jesus

And if the exercise was such an OK deal, why did the University issue an
apology?

"A Florida academic institution that had a professor tell his students
to write the name Jesus on paper and trample on it has issued a formal
apology for the lesson.
"This exercise will not be used again. The University holds dear its
core values. We sincerely apologize for any offense this caused," said
Florida Atlantic University, a multi-campus institution, in a prepared
statement posted on its website.

Read more at
http://www.christianpost.com/news/university-apologizes-for-stomp-on-jesus-lesson-92566/#a2t4OHHbTzZ3Wkwt.99
"

http://www.christianpost.com/news/university-apologizes-for-stomp-on-jesus-lesson-92566/

>
> That is the point...... The Religious Right acts just like the Rag
> Heads if their feelings are hurt.

Really? How many cars were burnt and overturned? How many flags burned?
How many people injured in the riots? How many businesses looted and
windows broken?

>
>> it is entirely another issue.
>
> It is NOT another issue at all.

You wrote that, I didn't. Try to keep up with what you post.

Rag Heads and the Religious Right act
> identically.
>

Bigoted liar!!!!!!!!!

[nothermark]

I wonder what the perception would be if the students wrote the name
of the professor on the paper instead...

;-)

[bill horne]

You must've misread my response. I didn't say a word about stomping on
Jesus - voluntary or not. But in addition to agreeing with Bad Hat,
I'll say this about VOLUNTARY: Very few things in school are actually
VOLUNTARY. You may not be disciplined, suspended, or expelled for
refusing to do something "voluntary", but it's highly likely that it
will be reflected in your grade.

> It sure looks to me that some folks only get riled up when their OX
> gets gored!

Yes, you do. But what do you think about suspending or disciplining a
school child for wearing a crucifix?

[George Anthony]

"MaxD" <gmd...@att.net> wrote in message

news:5160e60e$0$28477$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com...

What record?

> I'll have to admit that the vast majority of Americans need their religion
> just to behave themselves but the accusation that a non-Christian can't be
> moral is prejudice.

Another thing that seems to be problematic with liberals, no
reading comprehension. Nowhere did I imply that you had to be a Christian to
be moral.

> Homosexual marriage? My opinion has been stated here at least twice and it
> wasn't in favor of homosexual *marriage*.
> Having said that, I feel compelled to give you a little information about
> homosexuality:
> The sex of a human is determined at conception; there is very little
> conflict about that. But anomalies can occur and an individual can be born
> with both male and female anatomy; rare but it does happen.
> But sexual *orientation* is another matter. There is a point in the
> gestation period during which the mother secretes a hormone essential to
> sexual orientation. Not only is the type of hormone critical but the
> amount is just as important. Homosexual orientation is an anomaly in the
> normal human reproduction process. A person cannot unlearn homosexuality.
> They can't be re-trained. Homosexuality, of and by itself, is not a
> psychological problem. Mental problems can occur when attempts are made to
> "cure" homosexuality with "counseling".

Thanks for enlightening me, you pompous ass. You do seem to know a
lot about homosexuality, however. Hmmm.

> Abortion:
> I am against abortion as birth control.
> But there are circumstances of which I am directly aware where it would be
> immoral to allow a fetus to survive only to see it suffer excruciating
> pain until death a few minutes to a few hours later.
> Be advised that those circumstances aren't as rare as you might believe.
> I suppose as a God fearing Christian you might say, "Let it be God's
> decision." Well, how do you *know* that God didn't allow the invention of
> medical equipment that could detect a terminal affliction in the womb and
> a method to limit the suffering via an abortion?
>
> Welfare:
> Means testing, drug testing and government labor if none is available in
> the private sector.
>
> I am not a fan of Obamacare; it won't work any better than the prior
> system. But the Republicans had a chance to put forth a system that could
> work and they didn't.
> So just to repeat, the system is not financial sustainable and all the
> propaganda about the American health care system being the world's best is
> just wishful thinking.
>
> Do I have an alternate plan? You betcha!
>
> Now, save this, George, because I don't want to have to explain it all
> again.

Again, thanks for the enlightenment, you pompous ass.

[bill horne]

Or what if they wrote "black professor" and stepped on it?

[K Miller]

"bill horne" <red...@rye.net> wrote in message

news:5161953c$0$7638$c3e8da3$12bc...@news.astraweb.com

>
> Yes, you do. But what do you think about suspending or disciplining a
> school child for wearing a crucifix?

http://www.wncn.com/story/21859047/tenn-child-suspended-from-school-for-smelling-bad-24-times

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/strange_news/child-suspended-over-pop-tart-gun

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/child-suspended-from-school-for-kombucha-in-lunchbox/

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16159302/

http://www.care2.com/causes/child-suspended-from-school-for-crying.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2408228/posts

I think goofiness is rampant... You also have to wonder why someone would
want their kids to wear a symbol of torture around their necks. Would it be
OK if they wore little ovens, or electric chairs, or noose pendants?

[Frank Howell]

George Anthony wrote:
> "There are no atheists in a foxhole."
> - Ernie Pyle?

I was in a foxhole in Vietnam and I was an atheist then as I am now. So I
guess ole' Ernie was full of shit then and if he was alive today still full
of shit.

--
Frank Howell

[nothermark]

Sounds like we need to start suspending school administrators...

[bill horne]

I wear a little flag pin on my shirt, and I have an NRA decal on my
Nerdafari. And there are two guns on an NRA decal. I'm glad I don't go
to school. You got any idea how much crap I'd have to endure for
driving a Nerdafari here in Z71, Superduty, and Ramdiesel Land? As it
is, the guy with the Super Duty F-250 King Ranch snickers behind his
hand every time I go to the store in my Nerdafari.

[MaxD]

Nah, Will. "Intimidated" was not a well chosen word.
The truth is, concerning prayer or other plainly religious rituals
practiced in my presence, is that I experience a bit of disappointment
to realize that there are still reasonably well educated people who are
so totally superstitious.
I recently watched a news article on TV where Evangelicals were crying,
waving their hands in the air, weaving to and fro and I was immediately
reminded of a National Geographic program about African tribes who were
going through the same types of gyrations. How little the difference is!

Having said that, I have many friends who are truly fine people, good
citizens, moral to a fault and I have nothing but deep respect for all
of them.
I also have in my acquaintance several total hypocrites who claim to be
"believers" but whose actions betray them.

Max

[Bruce S]

I seem to have missed something - When did the government take over the
running of Catholic schools?

Someone paid (your parents, perhaps?) for you to attend a Catholic
school, therefore anything they required for your attendance was
approved of, and encouraged by, the person paying the bills.

[Bruce S]

I often wonder if you really are as stupid as the character you play
here, or if it is just an act.

Do you really believe that you, being an "older" person, and therefore,
in the highest risk rate group (already paying higher premiums) would
see as much of an increase as someone who is 30 and in good health?

Are you really such a thief that you would demand that young healthy
people pay all your bills for you, or are you just asking them to pay
your medical bills?

[Bruce S]

On 4/7/2013 5:46 AM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
> bill, no one was forcing that COLLEGE student to write Jesus on that
> piece of paper then stomp on it. It was a VOLUNTARY exercise.
> However the COLLEGE student Russ Limbaugh and O'Riley really got their
> panties in a wad over the VOLUNTARY exercise.
>
> It sure looks to me that some folks only get riled up when their OX
> gets gored!
>
> mike

No, Mike, it was not a voluntary exercise. When the teacher tells the
student they will be failed (and possibly expelled) for not
participating, then it is a COERCED exercise - and in case you are not
familiar with the concept of coercion, it is FORCE.

[bill horne]

MaxD wrote:
> On 4/7/2013 5:32 AM, Will Sill wrote:
>> On 4/6/13 6:47 PM, MaxD wrote, in the course of an illogical rant:
>>
>> > And, by the way, "free exercise" includes my right to *my* religious
>>> beliefs which is freedom from intimidation by Bible thumpers.
>>
>> Do you REALLY feel intimidated, Max? Or are you, as usual, blowing
>> smoke?
>>
>> Or are you like poor Hunter, who feels "attacked" when someone
>> disagrees
>> with her?
>>
>> Will
>>
>
> Nah, Will. "Intimidated" was not a well chosen word.
> The truth is, concerning prayer or other plainly religious rituals
> practiced in my presence, is that I experience a bit of disappointment
> to realize that there are still reasonably well educated people who
> are so totally superstitious.

What my wife doesn't understand - or me either - is why non-religious
grownups get worked up about - or disappointed with - religious grownups.

> I recently watched a news article on TV where Evangelicals were
> crying, waving their hands in the air, weaving to and fro and I was
> immediately reminded of a National Geographic program about African
> tribes who were going through the same types of gyrations. How little
> the difference is!

Christ on a crutch! How unPC and potentially racist is that, Maxman?

> Having said that, I have many friends who are truly fine people, good
> citizens, moral to a fault and I have nothing but deep respect for all
> of them.
> I also have in my acquaintance several total hypocrites who claim to
> be "believers" but whose actions betray them.

And I know some non-believers who claim to be moral and ethical, but
whose actions betray them. We're awash in hypocrites of many stripes.

And as a confirmed Idoanoist, I take shit from both sides.

[Bruce S]

On 4/7/2013 5:47 AM, nothermark wrote:
> What seems to be missing is that if there is a separation of Religion
> and State values then the State cannot regulate what the Pulpit
> preaches but the Pulpit cannot regulate what the state requires
> outside the Church.

We've been thru this before, but I'll give you another chance to either
learn how to write, or to admit you are wrong.

Can you provide even one instance (in the last 50 years) of a church
REGULATING what the state requires outside the Church?

Do you know what REGULATE means? Do you understand that no church in
this country can REGULATE the government in any manner?

[Bruce S]

I wonder if the people defending the professor would say the same things
if he had insisted that they write "Barack Obama" on the paper and stomp
on it. He would have been fired by the end of the workday.

[MaxD]

On 4/7/2013 10:03 AM, George Anthony wrote:
>


> Again, thanks for the enlightenment, you pompous ass.

ROFLMAO. Thanks, George, I always enjoy a laugh in the morning; makes my
day go better.

You know what? I am a little pompous. Disagree about the ass though;
it's relatively small.

[Hank]

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 1:14:28 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>
> > I must be the exception because my health care premiums hasn't risen much in the last 5 years (only $4 a month this year). However, they did rise DRAMATICALLY during the Bush years. I'm sure you have a chart somewhere to prove me wrong.
>
> >
>
> > I will agree that you can't cover a person to the age of 26 without some kind of increase. But, I do believe the increase would be minimal due to the fact most people between 18-26 don't visit the doctor nearly as much as people over 65.
>
> >
>
> > Hank
>
>
>
> I often wonder if you really are as stupid as the character you play
>
> here, or if it is just an act.
>
>
>
> Do you really believe that you, being an "older" person, and therefore,
>
> in the highest risk rate group (already paying higher premiums) would
>
> see as much of an increase as someone who is 30 and in good health?
>
>
>
> Are you really such a thief that you would demand that young healthy
>
> people pay all your bills for you, or are you just asking them to pay
>
> your medical bills?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

Your inability to accept the fact that not all peoples circumstances are the same amazes me. I can only view that as ignorance on your part, which you seem to have an abundance of.

When I retired (think older person), my retirement plan paid 100% of our health care premiums for both me and my wife. Starting in about year 2000 they started making us pay a small portion of about $30 month. Every year our portion has increased and the largest increases were during the Bush years. I now pay $9k a year. Your ignorance is the only reason you fail to recognize that.

Hellooooo!, is this thing on? I'm not demanding anything. If you could read, you would see that I recognize the fact that younger people need less medical care than older.

Hank

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 11:48:15 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
wrote:

>Yes, you do. But what do you think about suspending or disciplining a
>school child for wearing a crucifix?

bill, it is wrong headed.

Both sides do absolutely crazy things when dealing with religion.

mike
--

------


Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:17:50 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/7/2013 5:46 AM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> bill, no one was forcing that COLLEGE student to write Jesus on that
>> piece of paper then stomp on it. It was a VOLUNTARY exercise.
>> However the COLLEGE student Russ Limbaugh and O'Riley really got their
>> panties in a wad over the VOLUNTARY exercise.
>>
>> It sure looks to me that some folks only get riled up when their OX
>> gets gored!
>>
>> mike
>
>No, Mike, it was not a voluntary exercise. When the teacher tells the
>student they will be failed (and possibly expelled) for not
>participating, then it is a COERCED exercise - and in case you are not
>familiar with the concept of coercion, it is FORCE.

------------------------
But Bruce, everything I read on the subject and I read a bunch, said
that it was a voluntary exercise.

Do you have any evidence that it was not a voluntary exercise?

[Bruce S]

The fact that he was suspended and threatened with failure and expulsion
is absolute proof that it was not voluntary. Did you bother to read the
link bill provided to that information?

[Bruce S]

On 4/7/2013 10:31 AM, Hank wrote:
> On Sunday, April 7, 2013 1:14:28 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>>
>>> I must be the exception because my health care premiums hasn't risen much in the last 5 years (only $4 a month this year). However, they did rise DRAMATICALLY during the Bush years. I'm sure you have a chart somewhere to prove me wrong.
>>
>>> I will agree that you can't cover a person to the age of 26 without some kind of increase. But, I do believe the increase would be minimal due to the fact most people between 18-26 don't visit the doctor nearly as much as people over 65.
>>
>>> Hank
>>
>> I often wonder if you really are as stupid as the character you play
>> here, or if it is just an act.
>>
>> Do you really believe that you, being an "older" person, and therefore,
>> in the highest risk rate group (already paying higher premiums) would
>> see as much of an increase as someone who is 30 and in good health?
>>
>> Are you really such a thief that you would demand that young healthy
>> people pay all your bills for you, or are you just asking them to pay
>> your medical bills?
>>

>> Bruce
>
> Your inability to accept the fact that not all peoples circumstances are the same amazes me. I can only view that as ignorance on your part, which you seem to have an abundance of.
>
> When I retired (think older person), my retirement plan paid 100% of our health care premiums for both me and my wife. Starting in about year 2000 they started making us pay a small portion of about $30 month. Every year our portion has increased and the largest increases were during the Bush years. I now pay $9k a year. Your ignorance is the only reason you fail to recognize that.
>
> Hellooooo!, is this thing on? I'm not demanding anything. If you could read, you would see that I recognize the fact that younger people need less medical care than older.
>
> Hank

Good grief, you really are as stupid as the character you play here.

If you had the capacity to read and comprehend what you read, you would
have noticed that my complaint was not that people have different
medical needs, it was that people are being asked (forced by the
government) to pay disproportionate amounts for the care they need and
use.

Young people are being forced to pay more so that you can pay less.
That is the very nature of government supported health care. Every time
some healthy 30 year old sees an increase in his health insurance
premiums and you don't, it is because he is paying YOUR bills.

And your continued support for 0bamacare means you ARE demanding that
those young, healthy people pay your bills.

And when you point out that your premiums haven't gone up as much as
others, you are simply bragging that your theft from younger people, who
are paying a lot more, is working.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 07:48:50 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>

Bob, there appears to be a dispute over whether the student was
disciplined over the incident.

Here is the FAU response:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/jesus-stomping-exercise-at-florida-atlantic-u-draws-rebuke-from-governor/57651

The university also disputed reports that a student who complained
about the exercise had been disciplined. �No students were forced to
take part in the exercise,� the statement says. �The instructor told
all of the students in the class that they could choose whether or not
to participate. No students will be disciplined in any way related to
this exercise, either inside or outside the classroom.�

However, when Florida's "REPUBLICAN" Governor got involved ..... can
you say "Christian's" influence with the Governor the University
apologized. The professor was put on Administrative
leave....(supposedly for his protection)... Protection from who?
Christians?

Keep in mind that this professor took the exercise out of the teachers
manual for the course. Shame on the Professor! What was he thinking?

>
>And if the exercise was such an OK deal, why did the University issue an
>apology?

Well Duh! The Republican Governor of Florida got involved and you
know what folks do when the "Governor" gets involved.

But, mind you, the "Christians" are not persecuting the
professor....they are just making things "right"!

>
>"A Florida academic institution that had a professor tell his students
>to write the name Jesus on paper and trample on it has issued a formal
>apology for the lesson.
>"This exercise will not be used again. The University holds dear its
>core values. We sincerely apologize for any offense this caused," said
>Florida Atlantic University, a multi-campus institution, in a prepared
>statement posted on its website.
>
>Read more at
>http://www.christianpost.com/news/university-apologizes-for-stomp-on-jesus-lesson-92566/#a2t4OHHbTzZ3Wkwt.99
>"
>
>http://www.christianpost.com/news/university-apologizes-for-stomp-on-jesus-lesson-92566/

Bob, thanks for providing "christianpost" perspective.

>
>>
>> That is the point...... The Religious Right acts just like the Rag
>> Heads if their feelings are hurt.
>
>Really? How many cars were burnt and overturned? How many flags burned?
>How many people injured in the riots? How many businesses looted and
>windows broken?

It looks to me that the Governor is involved and he is going to make
things "RIGHT" ......well, right as far as the religious right is
concerned. At this point the religious right might not have burned
any cars but it does appear they have gotten the professor
suspended.....even if it is for his "protection".

>
> Rag Heads and the Religious Right act
>> identically.
>>
>
>Bigoted liar!!!!!!!!!

Look at what happened...... the religious right is persecuting the
professor, much to your glee.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:05:12 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
wrote:

bill, I think I recall that the Teacher's manual that the exercise
came from gave several examples that could be used for the stomping
exercise. If I remember correctly Martin Luther King, President Bush,
President Obama, Hillery Clinton as well as Jesus were on the list in
the teacher's manual.

No I do not recall "Black Professor" on the list. VBG

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:27:05 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

-----------------------------
One of the articles I read defending the professor was conservative
columnist Walter Williams. He declined appearing on the O'Riley show
to discuss the incident. Walter made good points about this being a
COLLEGE class on (intercultural communications). College students
were given an exercise in critical thinking......which is what COLLEGE
is about.

It appears to me that no matter which name was written on the paper
and then stomp on it ........someone in the class was going to get

their panties in a wad.

If only we could go back to having "prayer" in school every morning
then things would be made right. Eh!

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:17:12 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

--------------------------

You did note that he was quoting Ernie Pyle.......enough said.

[nothermark]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:17:50 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/7/2013 5:46 AM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> bill, no one was forcing that COLLEGE student to write Jesus on that
>> piece of paper then stomp on it. It was a VOLUNTARY exercise.
>> However the COLLEGE student Russ Limbaugh and O'Riley really got their
>> panties in a wad over the VOLUNTARY exercise.
>>
>> It sure looks to me that some folks only get riled up when their OX
>> gets gored!
>>
>> mike
>
>No, Mike, it was not a voluntary exercise. When the teacher tells the
>student they will be failed (and possibly expelled) for not
>participating, then it is a COERCED exercise - and in case you are not
>familiar with the concept of coercion, it is FORCE.

You mean like when folks onlty pay by direct deposit so one must have
a bank account to get paid?

;-)

I think that might have been a gotcha. ;-))

[nothermark]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:23:40 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/7/2013 5:47 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> What seems to be missing is that if there is a separation of Religion
>> and State values then the State cannot regulate what the Pulpit
>> preaches but the Pulpit cannot regulate what the state requires
>> outside the Church.
>
>We've been thru this before, but I'll give you another chance to either
>learn how to write, or to admit you are wrong.
>
>Can you provide even one instance (in the last 50 years) of a church
>REGULATING what the state requires outside the Church?
>
>Do you know what REGULATE means? Do you understand that no church in
>this country can REGULATE the government in any manner?

The Roman Catholic Church is trying hard to do it with birth control.

[Lone Haranguer]

Or a photo of Obama?

LZ

[D-R]

On 4/7/2013 11:24 AM, Mike Hendrix wrote:

>
> Keep in mind that this professor took the exercise out of the teachers
> manual for the course. Shame on the Professor! What was he thinking?
>

Good deity Mike take a chill pill.... I would not want this
professor teaching me or my kids, not because of this specific incident
but because he did not seem to know what the incident would cause.
Without knowing I suspect it was more of a political shot like you
seem to enjoy then any real lesson. It might have been non political
but it was defiantly stupid. Maybe this was an example of the ivory
tower with no sense of reality.


--

AJ - deep in the Sonoran Desert

[bill horne]

Mike, you know as well as I that if a teacher "suggests" that a
student do something, or if a military superior "asks" you to
volunteer for something, in both cases there will be consequences if
you decline to do it.

Under your reasoning, everything is voluntary. And you're right - if
you're willing to accept the consequences of declining, resisting, or
complaining.

[bill horne]

That's probably because the professor was Black.

[dm_callier]

Sounds more like the typical lynch-mob reaction to being asked to
actually use the brain for critical thinking. Any divergence from the
"norm" brings howls from the low information knuckle draggers.
Questioning "common sense" and the reasons behind behaviors and laws
regulating them is threatening to the closed mind...

[Hank]

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 2:17:53 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

> > When I retired (think older person), my retirement plan paid 100% of our health care premiums for both me and my wife. Starting in about year 2000 they started making us pay a small portion of about $30 month. Every year our portion has increased and the largest increases were during the Bush years. I now pay $9k a year. Your ignorance is the only reason you fail to recognize that.
>
> >
>
> > Hellooooo!, is this thing on? I'm not demanding anything. If you could read, you would see that I recognize the fact that younger people need less medical care than older.
>
> >
>
> > Hank
>
>
>
> Good grief, you really are as stupid as the character you play here.
>
>
>
> If you had the capacity to read and comprehend what you read, you would
>
> have noticed that my complaint was not that people have different
>
> medical needs, it was that people are being asked (forced by the
>
> government) to pay disproportionate amounts for the care they need and
>
> use.
>
>
>
> Young people are being forced to pay more so that you can pay less.
>
> That is the very nature of government supported health care. Every time
>
> some healthy 30 year old sees an increase in his health insurance
>
> premiums and you don't, it is because he is paying YOUR bills.
>
>
>
> And your continued support for 0bamacare means you ARE demanding that
>
> those young, healthy people pay your bills.
>
>
>
> And when you point out that your premiums haven't gone up as much as
>
> others, you are simply bragging that your theft from younger people, who
>
> are paying a lot more, is working.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

I can't say much other than you truly are fucked up in the head. Did you see how much MORE i am paying now than when I first retired? Apparently not. No one is paying for me, whereas I paid for those older than me when I was younger and worked, but I don't expect you to understand that because you are a fucktard.

Hank <~~~~ can sling shit too

[Lone Haranguer]

Dean wrote:

> Yes, but you have an option. Find another f'in job. Just as the
> students have the option to find another class. I signed up for a
> class in 'spanish'. It was spanish like that spoken in downtown
> Barcelona.

Not to criticize but in downtown Barcelona a good share of the
population will be speaking Catalan, which is the native language
of Catalonia.
It sounds more like French than Spanish. After Franco's rule
ended the road signs are in both Catalan and Spanish

Castillian Spanish is what you hear in most of Spain. I can
understand Spanish from Cuba or the South American countries that
speak Spanish but in order to understand the Mexican version, it
has to be spoken slowly.

LZ
> Well, I wanted to speak/understand messikan. My option
> was to drop the class which I did. Along with all but two of those
> originally signed up.

[Hank]

Or, maybe it was just an example of how brainwashed people become. It could've been a spanish guy named Jesus (pronounced Hey-sus). It is all about perception. :-)

Hank

[ozm...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 6, 2013 8:20:00 AM UTC-5, George Anthony Stirred up more crap with:

> in the church but not vice versa. Liberals are a pathetic lot.
> http://tinyurl.com/9qceaxe

heh, heh, heh..........

Here I am, gone 48 hours, and, upon getting home and signing on, I find the same old shit, argued by the same old people.

But.....it it entertaining....

oz, who does NOT have an invisible friend....

[ozm...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 4:53:28 PM UTC-5, ozm...@gmail.com wrote:

> But.....it it entertaining....
...."is"....

[nothermark]

But is there a limit?

I think so. I also think we can work out teaching values without
causing folks to do things that may be upsetting in their future when
they keep thinking about it or in the present if they refuse.

[nothermark]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:30:34 -0700, Dean <roa...@k7no.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:40:13 -0400, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>

>Yes, but you have an option. Find another f'in job. Just as the
>students have the option to find another class. I signed up for a
>class in 'spanish'. It was spanish like that spoken in downtown

>Barcelona. Well, I wanted to speak/understand messikan. My option

>was to drop the class which I did. Along with all but two of those
>originally signed up.
>
>

>>;-)
>>
>>I think that might have been a gotcha. ;-))

Considering that my current "employer" who does that is Social
Security the option of another "employer" is slim at best... ;-))

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:3a83m8dmn10q5ud22...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:16:27 -0700, "K Miller"
> <i09...@removethisspamblockerstuff-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"bill horne" <red...@rye.net> wrote in message
>>news:5161953c$0$7638$c3e8da3$12bc...@news.astraweb.com

>>>
>>> Yes, you do. But what do you think about suspending or disciplining a
>>> school child for wearing a crucifix?
>>

>>http://www.wncn.com/story/21859047/tenn-child-suspended-from-school-for-smelling-bad-24-times
>>
>>http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/strange_news/child-suspended-over-pop-tart-gun
>>
>>http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/child-suspended-from-school-for-kombucha-in-lunchbox/
>>
>>http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16159302/
>>
>>http://www.care2.com/causes/child-suspended-from-school-for-crying.html
>>
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2408228/posts
>>
>>I think goofiness is rampant... You also have to wonder why someone would
>>want their kids to wear a symbol of torture around their necks. Would it
>>be
>>OK if they wore little ovens, or electric chairs, or noose pendants?
>>
>>
> Sounds like we need to start suspending school administrators...

That would be an excellent start, especially if they took the incompetent
teachers with them.

[George Anthony]

"bill horne" <red...@rye.net> wrote in message

news:51619935$0$11656$c3e8da3$6901...@news.astraweb.com...

> nothermark wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 07:49:50 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>> (dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:18:22 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 2:01 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:56:41 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 9:37 AM, Hank wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 9:20:00 AM UTC-4, George Anthony wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...only when if fits the liberal template. It's okay for state
>>>>>>>> interference
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> in the church but not vice versa. Liberals are a pathetic lot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/9qceaxe
>>>>>>>

> --
> bill
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

Hey, that better not happen!

[George Anthony]

"Mike Hendrix" <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote in message
news:ske3m897hvg6n9ej6...@4ax.com...

Certainly better.

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message

news:tdf3m897k000nvb8b...@4ax.com...

You are, as usual, wrong. The church is trying to keep the government out
of it's business, not trying to regulate government. The church does
advocate against baby killers but only expects it's rules on birth control
to be followed by it's members.

[George Anthony]

"Mike Hendrix" <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote in message

news:15f3m8tgkf9ai275h...@4ax.com...

You did notice that I used a question mark? That quote, in one form or
another, has been attributed to several people.

[George Anthony]

"Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:51619c11$0$13551$c3e8da3$dd96...@news.astraweb.com...

> George Anthony wrote:
>> "There are no atheists in a foxhole."
>> - Ernie Pyle?
>
> I was in a foxhole in Vietnam and I was an atheist then as I am now. So I
> guess ole' Ernie was full of shit then and if he was alive today still
> full of shit.
>
> --

> Frank Howell
>

Well aren't you special.

[George Anthony]

"MaxD" <gmd...@att.net> wrote in message
news:5161a605$0$63730$c3e8da3$1e92...@news.astraweb.com...
> On 4/7/2013 5:32 AM, Will Sill wrote:
>> On 4/6/13 6:47 PM, MaxD wrote, in the course of an illogical rant:
>>
>> > And, by the way, "free exercise" includes my right to *my* religious
>>> beliefs which is freedom from intimidation by Bible thumpers.
>>
>> Do you REALLY feel intimidated, Max? Or are you, as usual, blowing
>> smoke?
>>
>> Or are you like poor Hunter, who feels "attacked" when someone disagrees
>> with her?
>>
>> Will
>>
>
> Nah, Will. "Intimidated" was not a well chosen word.
> The truth is, concerning prayer or other plainly religious rituals
> practiced in my presence, is that I experience a bit of disappointment to
> realize that there are still reasonably well educated people who are so
> totally superstitious.
> I recently watched a news article on TV where Evangelicals were crying,
> waving their hands in the air, weaving to and fro and I was immediately
> reminded of a National Geographic program about African tribes who were
> going through the same types of gyrations. How little the difference is!
>

Kinda' like Obama supporters at a rally.

> Having said that, I have many friends who are truly fine people, good
> citizens, moral to a fault and I have nothing but deep respect for all of
> them.
> I also have in my acquaintance several total hypocrites who claim to be
> "believers" but whose actions betray them.
>
> Max
>

[George Anthony]

<ozm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d318a35d-a5d8-41e6...@googlegroups.com...

It's obviously entertaining enough to keep your interest. If you think it's
the same old, why bother reading it? By the way where were you, in OZ?

[MaxD]

Or a Cuban ex-pat named Jesus. LOL.

[MaxD]

On 4/7/2013 4:22 PM, George Anthony wrote:
>
>
> "Mike Hendrix"

>> If only we could go back to having "prayer" in school every morning
>> then things would be made right. Eh!
>>
>> mike
>> --
>>

>

> Certainly better.

Well, of course. Hypocrites are better than Agnostics any day.

[MaxD]

On 4/7/2013 4:36 PM, George Anthony wrote:
>
>
> "MaxD" <gmd...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:5161a605$0$63730$c3e8da3$1e92...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On 4/7/2013 5:32 AM, Will Sill wrote:
>>> On 4/6/13 6:47 PM, MaxD wrote, in the course of an illogical rant:
>>>
>>> > And, by the way, "free exercise" includes my right to *my* religious
>>>> beliefs which is freedom from intimidation by Bible thumpers.
>>>
>>> Do you REALLY feel intimidated, Max? Or are you, as usual, blowing
>>> smoke?
>>>
>>> Or are you like poor Hunter, who feels "attacked" when someone disagrees
>>> with her?
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>
>> Nah, Will. "Intimidated" was not a well chosen word.
>> The truth is, concerning prayer or other plainly religious rituals
>> practiced in my presence, is that I experience a bit of disappointment
>> to realize that there are still reasonably well educated people who
>> are so totally superstitious.
>> I recently watched a news article on TV where Evangelicals were
>> crying, waving their hands in the air, weaving to and fro and I was
>> immediately reminded of a National Geographic program about African
>> tribes who were going through the same types of gyrations. How little
>> the difference is!
>>
>
> Kinda' like Obama supporters at a rally.

You said it, I didn't. ;-)

[D-R]

On 4/7/2013 2:31 PM, Hank wrote:

>
> I can't say much other than you truly are fucked up in the head. Did you see how much MORE i am paying now than when I first retired? Apparently not. No one is paying for me, whereas I paid for those older than me when I was younger and worked, but I don't expect you to understand that because you are a fucktard.
>
> Hank <~~~~ can sling shit too

Class act .... do you feel better now????

[Bruce S]

On 4/7/2013 2:31 PM, Hank wrote:

> On Sunday, April 7, 2013 2:17:53 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>
>>> When I retired (think older person), my retirement plan paid 100% of our health care premiums for both me and my wife. Starting in about year 2000 they started making us pay a small portion of about $30 month. Every year our portion has increased and the largest increases were during the Bush years. I now pay $9k a year. Your ignorance is the only reason you fail to recognize that.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Hellooooo!, is this thing on? I'm not demanding anything. If you could read, you would see that I recognize the fact that younger people need less medical care than older.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Hank
>>
>>
>>
>> Good grief, you really are as stupid as the character you play here.
>>
>> If you had the capacity to read and comprehend what you read, you would
>> have noticed that my complaint was not that people have different
>> medical needs, it was that people are being asked (forced by the
>> government) to pay disproportionate amounts for the care they need and
>> use.
>>
>> Young people are being forced to pay more so that you can pay less.
>> That is the very nature of government supported health care. Every time
>> some healthy 30 year old sees an increase in his health insurance
>> premiums and you don't, it is because he is paying YOUR bills.
>>
>> And your continued support for 0bamacare means you ARE demanding that
>> those young, healthy people pay your bills.
>>
>> And when you point out that your premiums haven't gone up as much as
>> others, you are simply bragging that your theft from younger people, who
>> are paying a lot more, is working.
>>

>> Bruce
>
> I can't say much other than you truly are fucked up in the head. Did you see how much MORE i am paying now than when I first retired? Apparently not. No one is paying for me, whereas I paid for those older than me when I was younger and worked, but I don't expect you to understand that because you are a fucktard.
>
> Hank <~~~~ can sling shit too

I'm going to waste a minute responding to you although I don't know why
- you won't understand it anyway.

From the information you provided, we don't know if your health
insurance premiums have gone up or not - all we know is that today you
are paying the bill and in the past someone else paid it for you. Tell
us what your retirement plan was paying premiums in 2000 and we can
attempt to figure out if the premiums have gone up or it is just
inflation - all we know now is that you still want someone else to pay
your bills.

Do you understand how insurance (in general) and government funded
insurance in particular works?

With a personal insurance policy the insurance company figures out what
sort of risk YOU present. Do you drink to excess? Do you smoke? Are
you obese? Do you have a history of disease? Are you sick now? Look
at all those risks and figure out if the person is (probably) going to
need medical care during the premium period or not. If yes, charge a
high premium. If no, charge a low premium. If you were buying insurance
in a free market, your premium cost would be equal to your risk (just
like your car insurance premiums).

On the other hand, with any group insurance (including 0bamacare) they
don't give a damn about YOUR personal risk they look at the group. They
figure out that some people will use a lot of medical care and others
won't use any (people like me - 1 instance of hospital care in the last
60 years). Since individual risk is not counted, they attempt to figure
out group risk and charge everyone the same thing. (That is how your
insurance was rated and billed when you worked - you didn't see the bill
because your employer paid it - the bill was still there, and you paid
it indirectly because the money that went for insurance was not included
in your paycheck).

I have no problem with group insurance when joining the group is
voluntary. When I worked, every employer I had gave me the choice of
being in the group insurance plan or not. My problem is being forced to
join a group and pay for something I don't want.

Right now, because of 0bamacare, people who made the choice that they
did not want to pay for insurance (their health is good and they can
afford day to day costs of injuries and illnesses) are being forced to
pay for insurance. The reason they are being forced to buy insurance
now is because when they pay $10,000 a year for insurance it means your
bill does not go up any more. You, like them, only pay $10,000 a year,
even though if you were billed based on risk, your premiums would be
$15,000.

So, you might not see much difference in YOUR life because of 0bamacare,
but the healthy 25 year old who doesn't want to spend a thousand a month
on premiums certainly will.

--
Bruce

Thomas Jefferson - "The policy of the American government is to leave
their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of
another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

[Bruce S]

On 4/7/2013 11:40 AM, nothermark wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:17:50 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/2013 5:46 AM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>> bill, no one was forcing that COLLEGE student to write Jesus on that
>>> piece of paper then stomp on it. It was a VOLUNTARY exercise.
>>> However the COLLEGE student Russ Limbaugh and O'Riley really got their
>>> panties in a wad over the VOLUNTARY exercise.
>>>
>>> It sure looks to me that some folks only get riled up when their OX
>>> gets gored!
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> No, Mike, it was not a voluntary exercise. When the teacher tells the
>> student they will be failed (and possibly expelled) for not
>> participating, then it is a COERCED exercise - and in case you are not
>> familiar with the concept of coercion, it is FORCE.
>
> You mean like when folks onlty pay by direct deposit so one must have
> a bank account to get paid?
>

> ;-)
>
> I think that might have been a gotcha. ;-))

I'm sorry that you aren't smart enough to see the difference, but it is
there.

And if your memory goes back a week, I conceded that you were forced by
your employer but not (as you claimed) by the bank.

In this case, the force comes directly from the teacher.

[George Anthony]

"MaxD" <gmd...@att.net> wrote in message

news:5161fa53$0$52336$c3e8da3$92d0...@news.astraweb.com...

...
Just to clarify, I wasn't commenting from a racial stereotype standpoint
(I'd be among the last to do that!). I was referring to the ritualistic
blind allegiance of Obama's followers.

>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>

[Bruce S]

On 4/7/2013 11:42 AM, nothermark wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:23:40 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/2013 5:47 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> What seems to be missing is that if there is a separation of Religion
>>> and State values then the State cannot regulate what the Pulpit
>>> preaches but the Pulpit cannot regulate what the state requires
>>> outside the Church.
>>
>> We've been thru this before, but I'll give you another chance to either
>> learn how to write, or to admit you are wrong.
>>
>> Can you provide even one instance (in the last 50 years) of a church
>> REGULATING what the state requires outside the Church?
>>
>> Do you know what REGULATE means? Do you understand that no church in
>> this country can REGULATE the government in any manner?
>
> The Roman Catholic Church is trying hard to do it with birth control.

Prove it. You made the claim, now back it up.

Once more, do you understand what it means to regulate something?

[Vito00]

"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote.
| Have you ever read the First Amendment?

|
| "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
| prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
|

| In case you missed it, telling a person he must do something that
| violates his religious beliefs is "prohibiting the free exercise
thereof"
|

In this case, I disagree. We do not force concientious objectors to serve
in combat but we do, and always have made them pay to support our wars.
This is similar. The government is NOT forcing anybody to use birth
control, et cetera, it is merely making them buy health insurance for
their employees that covers their birth control expenses.

No, I do not think the government has any right to force anyone to buy
insurance but unhappily the SCotUS disagrees so .... everybody must pay
up.

We do not allow "honor killing" either.

[Bruce S]

An honest (and more accurate) comparison to conscientious objectors
would be to require those employers whose religious beliefs forbid birth
control to purchase insurance plans for employees but without a
provision for birth control as part of the plan.

It would also be acceptable (from a legal standpoint - even though
government mandated insurance is intrinsically immoral) to mandate that
the insurance company add the missing birth control component to the
insurance upon receiving a written request (along with an agreement to
pay the difference in premium costs) from the employee.

[MaxD]

Yabbut, it's ok for you to say that but I'm just an old white trash Honky.

[nothermark]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 17:06:30 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It is not acceptable to the employee that wants coverage either.

What it is is a sop to the misogynists of the world.

[Lone Haranguer]

Germans who served on the Russian front during WWII said they
could always tell when the Russians were starting to panic
because the godless Russians started praying to God.

LZ

[Bruce S]

Try this again - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Anytime ANY (American) government orders a person to perform an act that
is in direct violation to the teachings of his religion, that government
is in violation of the 1st Amendment.

For the government to order ANY (practicing) Catholic to purchase birth
control, for anyone, is a violation of Church doctrine, and therefore a
violation of the 1st Amendment. This is absolutely no different than
the government ordering an Amish or Quaker person to serve in the
military in a combat role - and that has been recognized as a violation
of the 1st Amendment since before there was a 1st Amendment.