Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
This seems to suggest that you think morals depend on religion. While some religious people have argued that in the past, most philosophers / ethicists would strongly disagree. Plato encapsulated this view neatly by asking “Are things right because the gods command them, or do they command them because they are right?” - if things are right simply because the gods command them, then their commands are arbitrary and morality becomes meaningless. - if the gods command them because they are right then there is a separate standard of what is right that exists independently of the gods (and is just as accessible to an atheist as a religious person).
While I wouldn't say morals depend on religion in the sense that they are impossible to have without religion, it seems to me an absurd idea that your religion or lack thereof wouldn't influence your morals. A large part of religions are about laying out a list of vices and virtues, often complimentary with other religions, but sometimes not.
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
This seems to suggest that you think morals depend on religion. While some religious people have argued that in the past, most philosophers / ethicists would strongly disagree. Plato encapsulated this view neatly by asking “Are things right because the gods command them, or do they command them because they are right?” - if things are right simply because the gods command them, then their commands are arbitrary and morality becomes meaningless. - if the gods command them because they are right then there is a separate standard of what is right that exists independently of the gods (and is just as accessible to an atheist as a religious person).
You are correct in your point about religion and morals. People who are as educated as Socrates and the philosophers would no doubt find religion unnecessary for their morality. Unfortunately the masses, especially the uneducated ones, think philosophers are a bunch of dandies who sit around NOT working all day (if they have time to think about philosophy at all that is). I'm pretty sure the threat of Hellfire and damnation kept more than a few folks from harming themselves and others back in the day.
It gave the peasants one day off a week too. I'm sure that chafed the nobles to no end...
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
I dare you to go to a Muslim country and ask for something for a Gay Wedding. I double dare you.
That's where we are headed in the States. And that's a problem. Religious extremists rule many Muslim countries. That's the way we are headed here.
Why is a extremist Christian government better than a Muslim extremist goverment? There's a reason for a big part of the 1st amendment - freedom from state religion.
Senator Jeff Merkley was denied access to a detention facility (which is actually a converted Wal-Mart) where children seperated from their parents at the border are supposedly being held. I have no idea what legal authority a US Senator has to enter the facility to check on the welfare of the children, but the real question is this: what is going on in that building that is so awful a US Senator is turned away by law enforcement?? Incidentally, it appears this location is being run by a private contractor. We have monetized immigration enforcement to the tune of god knows how much money to the prison industrial complex. A "non-profit" providing millions in payments to it's top two officers:
It appears the a massive influx of funds appeared just DAYS after Jeff Sessions announced the new policy of purposefully separating children from their parents at the border. Hundreds of millions of dollars in installments in the month of May.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
I dare you to go to a Muslim country and ask for something for a Gay Wedding. I double dare you.
Why is a extremist Christian government better than a Muslim extremist goverment?
Because we'll all be going to Heaven of course! Well except for all those heathens anyway, but they can be deported. We'll have to keep one eye open for all those sinners too. Think of the kids! Even better, the New Crusade against Islam would do wonders for population control! After that we can deal with those Pope lovers...
(Tongue in cheek, but not really kidding.)
There's a reason I didn't vote for Pat Robertson back in the days of yore.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
I dare you to go to a Muslim country and ask for something for a Gay Wedding. I double dare you.
That's where we are headed in the States. And that's a problem. Religious extremists rule many Muslim countries. That's the way we are headed here.
Why is a extremist Christian government better than a Muslim extremist goverment? There's a reason for a big part of the 1st amendment - freedom from state religion.
You are not headed that way. The sky is not falling, yet.
There are no "Extremist Christian" governments in this world. If the U.S. was one, we would not be having this discussion over the internet.
There are anti Christian and Hebrew ones though unfortunately.
Mueller Prosecutors are asking Manafort's bail be revoked and he be jailed because of alleged witness tampering, apparently using encrypted messaging apps to repeatedly contact two witnesses:
@TakisMegas: I'm guessing you mean extremist anti-Christian and anti-Hebrew governments.
If you count Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar as ones, sure.
** Sorry forgive me. I forgot Bosnia and Albania as well.
Wait, Yemen has a government? Don't forget India, although they're more hostile to Islam they have plenty of hate left for Christians, Jews and Buddhists.
If you think you can find any example of an entire city with a population greater than or equal to 250 doing such a thing, please let the rest of us know. Of course, if you can find *any* city doing such a thing then you should still let us know about it. This is 2018, not 1918.
Gay person wants to open gay bar and gets shot down by the mayor and six aldermen of Shannon (pop. 1,700), Mississippi because of a stated reason being that the bar would present a public health and safety hazard.
Now keep in mind this only made news because the owner sued. How many other would be business owners get turned down at the municipal level for dubious reasons just have to shrug since they can not afford a legal fight in a highly conservative area with conservative judges.
So the argument of 'just open your own business" falls flat if you have a government that objects to your presence. Liberty does not exist in Shannon, Mississippi. It isn't a surprise (to me at least) that Mississippi signed the House Bill 1523, when its municipalities were already getting away with "public health" excuses for gay bars 3 years prior. Who knows what they'll be able to get away with 3 years from now.
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
This seems to suggest that you think morals depend on religion. While some religious people have argued that in the past, most philosophers / ethicists would strongly disagree. Plato encapsulated this view neatly by asking “Are things right because the gods command them, or do they command them because they are right?” - if things are right simply because the gods command them, then their commands are arbitrary and morality becomes meaningless. - if the gods command them because they are right then there is a separate standard of what is right that exists independently of the gods (and is just as accessible to an atheist as a religious person).
Good thing we have just proved that calling people crazy for being religious is okay, but anyone criticizing the lack of religion IMMEDIATELY gets pushed back. Way to show your obvious hatred and predjudice of people different than you thread.
@ThacoBell what is it about my post you think is so offensive? I was trying to make the point that religion does not have to be the basis for morality rather than commenting about whether religion was a good thing in itself. Are you arguing that religion is the only base for morality, or is there something else about my post you object to?
I don't believe I displayed any hatred for religions and certainly I don't feel any. I would generally now describe myself as agnostic, but was brought up as a Unitarian and I feel comfortable with that as a faith. It's an unusual religion in lots of ways, for instance in specifically stating that it (and any other religion) doesn't have a monopoly on theological truth (and, relevant to my previous post, also believes that science, philosophy and rational thought can coexist with faith in God). I don't have a clear view about whether religions in general have been and are an overall force for good in the world, but I am concerned about religions that state strongly that they have all the right answers and you must believe in them for your own good.
While I wouldn't say morals depend on religion in the sense that they are impossible to have without religion, it seems to me an absurd idea that your religion or lack thereof wouldn't influence your morals. A large part of religions are about laying out a list of vices and virtues, often complimentary with other religions, but sometimes not.
I agree that your religion, in the same way as any strong belief system you hold, will have an effect on your morals. As indicated above though I don't think religion and morality are the same thing. It would for instance be perfectly possible for a strongly religious person to give charity to the poor simply as a religious duty, even though their personal moral conviction was that charity was not a good idea.
Let's stick to what I said, not a caricature of what I said you are trying to make. I never said anything about a deep state, period.
Comey, who I did refer to, is absolutely no Trump fan but he's certainly an Obama fan. So far in 2018 he's said he "deeply respects" Obama and that Trump is a "small man". Make of that what you will.
Fishgate was important enough for it to be mentioned in this thread and for me to point out CNN's fakery, at least.
How was that a caricature of what you said? You clearly said that FBI is not a right leaning organization because it was being staffed by "opponents of the right" for the last 8 years. This is the literal and absolutely heart of the deep-state conspiracy: That the previous establishment party (whomever that has been) has placed people in bureaucratic positions so as to subvert the desire of the party in power.
You still havent clarified Fishgate for me. Seriously - mind doing that? I actually did a google search, and didnt hit upon a single seemingly reliable news article about it.
Regarding Comey liking Obama more than Trump. That clearly has nothing to do with political ideology. Turns out serving 3 years without having to investigate your boss makes you like him more than having to start investigations before your next boss is even inaugurated. It's certainly in no way proof of Deep State.
It's a caricature of what I said because I didn't say anything about a Deep State and didn't mean anything about a Deep State, no matter how many times you try to say I meant something about a Deep State. I actually agree with your last paragraph, that you end up liking the boss who hired you and who you had a working relationship for years more than the replacement. Nobody is immune to bias no matter where it comes from, political or personal.
A guy who is on his third trophy wife and can't spell bible and certainly throws the first stone and is just an ass has high support from christian extremists in America. These people are trying to pack the courts, including the Supreme Court, with extremist bigoted Christians. What else can you call it?
If you are a muslim, buddist, atheist, or something else then yeah being able to deny cakes because of your extremist beliefs might seem like a first step towards something pretty extreme.
It's a caricature of what I said because I didn't say anything about a Deep State and didn't mean anything about a Deep State, no matter how many times you try to say I meant something about a Deep State. I actually agree with your last paragraph, that you end up liking the boss who hired you and who you had a working relationship for years more than the replacement. Nobody is immune to bias no matter where it comes from, political or personal.
Sure. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...
To the more recent turn in the thread, I'll only say this: I dont think it's really possible to attack a particular religion without attacking the people of that religion. You may not mean to be offensive in doing so, but people strongly identify and define themselves as believers of a particular religion... so they cannot help but feel as though they're being attacked.
If I were to hypothetically call Jainism dumb, then Jainists would (justifiably) see that as an attack on them. They in some measure define their life by their beliefs, and Jainism isn an integral part of that.
A guy who is on his third trophy wife and can't spell bible and certainly throws the first stone and is just an ass has high support from christian extremists in America. These people are trying to pack the courts, including the Supreme Court, with extremist bigoted Christians. What else can you call it?
If you are a muslim, buddist, atheist, or something else then yeah being able to deny cakes because of your extremist beliefs might seem like a first step towards something pretty extreme.
We would not be having this conversation either.
Yes of course Christians are going around decapitating people and screaming Hallelujah. How ignorant of me.
I do not want to continue this because it's beating a dead horse. Crusades happened, Islamic Jihad is happening. Unfortunately the world has to suffer the mistakes made in the middle east by the U.S. Canada, England and France. Also the Wahhabism coming out of Saudi Arabia cannot exist in a Democratic Society. Christianity has made concessions over the centuries, Islam has not.
**Also, judging all Christians because of your hatred for Trump is not very nice.
@Matthieu Oh wow. Looks at all that sweeping genralization and blatant ignorance of any kind of religious history.
Hey, wanna another of these you can't disprove?
When European civilization went down the drain and entered the dark ages it was way too religious, when it recovered and became significant again it challenged the principles of the churches and threw them out of laws.
Ironicaly the islamic civilization followed the opposite path, the caliphate at its peak was much more secular and tolerant than those radical backwater mud-dweller europeans and now islamic countries are competing for who's the most islamic (and incidentally who turns into the worst place on earth).
It's a caricature of what I said because I didn't say anything about a Deep State and didn't mean anything about a Deep State, no matter how many times you try to say I meant something about a Deep State. I actually agree with your last paragraph, that you end up liking the boss who hired you and who you had a working relationship for years more than the replacement. Nobody is immune to bias no matter where it comes from, political or personal.
Sure. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...
To the more recent turn in the thread, I'll only say this: I dont think it's really possible to attack a particular religion without attacking the people of that religion. You may not mean to be offensive in doing so, but people strongly identify and define themselves as believers of a particular religion... so they cannot help but feel as though they're being attacked.
If I were to hypothetically call Jainism dumb, then Jainists would (justifiably) see that as an attack on them. They in some measure define their life by their beliefs, and Jainism isn an integral part of that.
So are you suggesting religion is beyond criticism? That is a horrible idea.
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
This seems to suggest that you think morals depend on religion. While some religious people have argued that in the past, most philosophers / ethicists would strongly disagree. Plato encapsulated this view neatly by asking “Are things right because the gods command them, or do they command them because they are right?” - if things are right simply because the gods command them, then their commands are arbitrary and morality becomes meaningless. - if the gods command them because they are right then there is a separate standard of what is right that exists independently of the gods (and is just as accessible to an atheist as a religious person).
Good thing we have just proved that calling people crazy for being religious is okay, but anyone criticizing the lack of religion IMMEDIATELY gets pushed back. Way to show your obvious hatred and predjudice of people different than you thread.
Are you seriously offended by people pointing out @Balrog99 's argument was erroneous and logically invalid? No one is saying criticism is not allowed.
If you think you can find any example of an entire city with a population greater than or equal to 250 doing such a thing, please let the rest of us know. Of course, if you can find *any* city doing such a thing then you should still let us know about it. This is 2018, not 1918.
Gay person wants to open gay bar and gets shot down by the mayor and six aldermen of Shannon (pop. 1,700), Mississippi because of a stated reason being that the bar would present a public health and safety hazard.
On the one hand I said "if you can find x then do it" and you definitely found x--I concede that point.
On the other hand, the article you cite states quite plainly
Newton said Tuesday in a phone interview that she first opened a gay bar called O'Hara's in the same location in Shannon in 1994 and operated it without problems until 1998, when she sold it to take on new business ventures.
The new owners continued to run a gay bar there called "Rumors" until 2010, according to the lawsuit. Rumors was profiled in a 2006 documentary called "Small Town Gay Bar" about the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the rural South.
The parcel of land is zoned as a general commercial district and requires establishments like churches, dog kennels and bars to get a "special exception," according to the lawsuit.
Ms. Newton is just upset that she got told "no" the second time around. I agree with her assessment--the city council's decision is a load of horse manure--but just because someone wants something doesn't mean that everyone else has to go along with it. People have forgotten how to be told "no" these days.
Why doesn't she just open "a bar" then make every night ladies' night? Simple.
Mueller Prosecutors are asking Manafort's bail be revoked and he be jailed because of alleged witness tampering, apparently using encrypted messaging apps to repeatedly contact two witnesses:
Translation: Mueller can't secure a conviction for the charges Manafort is currently facing--many of those charges were the same charges against Gates and his charges got dropped--so they are going to try and convict him *this* way.
At this point they aren't trying to get to the bottom of the situation and prosecute people for actual crimes; instead, they are trying to get any conviction they can, by any means necessary, ahead of this November's elections.
*************
I have not touched the other discussion going on here at all and I advise everyone else to walk away from it immediately.
Couldn't they use the same or similar excuse to stop her from opening any bar
At this point, yes--the genie is out of the bottle, especially since their town was featured in a documentary. I guarantee that everyone in town knew about the previous bar and none of them were concerned about it. They are only protesting, themselves, because they got some media attention. Like I said, their reasoning is crap but their vote to deny is legal. Ms. Newton would have had to appeal that to a higher State court, which she probably did.
Ms. Newton is just upset that she got told "no" the second time around. I agree with her assessment--the city council's decision is a load of horse manure--but just because someone wants something doesn't mean that everyone else has to go along with it. People have forgotten how to be told "no" these days.
Why doesn't she just open "a bar" then make every night ladies' night? Simple.
I don't think being told no was the problem. If the no reason was due to there being X amount of bars already on the same street (or area), then that would have been probable cause to prevent another bar from opening. This is generally why bars have to go through this extra step.
It wasn't the no, it was who she was and the reason for the no, (The mayor allegedly encouraging certain citizens to come and protest, without informing other citizens, or the potential owner about the upcoming backlash of the establishment) that had more to do with her launching the lawsuit.
You also have to remember what a gay bar is. It is a place where the LGBQT community can go, socialize without being patronized and harassed. Denying them this type of space just empowers those that do not want to accept them into the community at large and allows those people to push even further such as the ant-lgbt bill signed 3 years later.
Translation: Mueller can't secure a conviction for the charges Manafort is currently facing--many of those charges were the same charges against Gates and his charges got dropped--so they are going to try and convict him *this* way.
At this point they aren't trying to get to the bottom of the situation and prosecute people for actual crimes; instead, they are trying to get any conviction they can, by any means necessary, ahead of this November's elections.
That's reading an awful lot into things. Manaford was apparently tampering with two witnesses. He was caught red handed repeatedly contacting people he wasn't supposed to. He was told not to do something, and he did it anyway.
That's a crime in and of itself. Felony.
Criminal actions by Trump's former campaign manager. If you don't want to be charged with felonies, maybe don't do the act. Especially now, why risk it? Oh right Trump's pardoning people to send a message and he just doesn't give a damn because the rule of law means nothing when Trump's your bud.
**Also, judging all Christians because of your hatred for Trump is not very nice.
I don't know what that means. Do you mean all Christians support Trump? Where are you drawing this from? That's a big generalization.
I find the gay wedding cake ruling problematic. As in it allows bigotry and is based on a fake cause rooted on the made up standard of "sincerely held beliefs" that can't be measured. The gay couple sincerely believed that they wanted to get a wedding cake. Their beliefs were violated. See what a ridiculous standard. You want to base it solely on religious beliefs that's a violation of the Constitution, The Government is not supposed to pick winners and losers in the Religion department. The gay couple had the" gays deserve wedding cakes" religion. Their sincere beliefs were violated. Ridiculous standard.
Translation: Mueller can't secure a conviction for the charges Manafort is currently facing--many of those charges were the same charges against Gates and his charges got dropped--so they are going to try and convict him *this* way.
At this point they aren't trying to get to the bottom of the situation and prosecute people for actual crimes; instead, they are trying to get any conviction they can, by any means necessary, ahead of this November's elections.
That's reading an awful lot into things. Manaford was apparently tampering with two witnesses. He was caught red handed repeatedly contacting people he wasn't supposed to. He was told not to do something, and he did it anyway.
That's a crime in and of itself. Felony.
Criminal actions by Trump's former campaign manager. If you don't want to be charged with felonies, maybe don't do the act. Especially now, why risk it? Oh right Trump's pardoning people to send a message and he just doesn't give a damn because the rule of law means nothing when Trump's your bud.
**Also, judging all Christians because of your hatred for Trump is not very nice.
I don't know what that means. Do you mean all Christians support Trump? Where are you drawing this from? That's a big generalization.
I find the gay wedding cake ruling problematic. As in it allows bigotry and is based on a fake cause rooted on the made up standard of "sincerely held beliefs" that can't be measured. The gay couple sincerely believed that they wanted to get a wedding cake. Their beliefs were violated. See what a ridiculous standard. You want to base it solely on religious beliefs that's a violation of the Constitution, The Government is not supposed to pick winners and losers in the Religion department. The gay couple had the gay wedding cake religion. Their sincere beliefs were violated. Ridiculous standard.
I guess they wanted their cake and to eat it too. It's all good, their 15 minutes are now case closed.
"A guy who is on his third trophy wife and can't spell bible and certainly throws the first stone and is just an ass has high support from christian extremists in America." This is what you said. You hate the guy, I get it.
Mueller Prosecutors are asking Manafort's bail be revoked and he be jailed because of alleged witness tampering, apparently using encrypted messaging apps to repeatedly contact two witnesses:
Translation: Mueller can't secure a conviction for the charges Manafort is currently facing--many of those charges were the same charges against Gates and his charges got dropped--so they are going to try and convict him *this* way.
At this point they aren't trying to get to the bottom of the situation and prosecute people for actual crimes; instead, they are trying to get any conviction they can, by any means necessary, ahead of this November's elections.
You've said this before about Gates and I'm not quite sure why. The charges against Gates were dropped as part of a plea deal. It's implicit in such a deal that the charges are well-founded as it effectively involves Gates (or anyone else) accepting the charges, but seeing them reduced in recognition of his agreement to cooperate.
I find it hard to believe that Gates would have taken the plea deal unless he considered there was a good chance that he would be convicted. That also suggests to me that there is a good chance that Manafort will be convicted in due course. In the meantime I don't see any requirement for the new charges against Manafort to reflect anything except that's he's been breaching the terms of his bail conditions and the FBI don't approve of that. I agree that it's possible the FBI are just looking for another way to ramp up the pressure in order to try and get Manafort to cooperate as well, but the prosecution would make sense even without that as a motive.
"A guy who is on his third trophy wife and can't spell bible and certainly throws the first stone and is just an ass has high support from christian extremists in America." This is what you said. You hate the guy, I get it.
That doesn't say all Christians, some I assume are good people.
Comments
...
...
...
It gave the peasants one day off a week too. I'm sure that chafed the nobles to no end...
Why is a extremist Christian government better than a Muslim extremist goverment? There's a reason for a big part of the 1st amendment - freedom from state religion.
http://www.newsweek.com/ceo-non-profit-shelter-called-police-senator-trying-visit-detained-children-956802
It appears the a massive influx of funds appeared just DAYS after Jeff Sessions announced the new policy of purposefully separating children from their parents at the border. Hundreds of millions of dollars in installments in the month of May.
(Tongue in cheek, but not really kidding.)
There's a reason I didn't vote for Pat Robertson back in the days of yore.
There are no "Extremist Christian" governments in this world. If the U.S. was one, we would not be having this discussion over the internet.
There are anti Christian and Hebrew ones though unfortunately.
** Sorry forgive me. I forgot Bosnia and Albania as well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/manafort-attempted-to-tamper-with-potential-witnesses-us-special-counsel-idUSKCN1J1043
The witness tampering alone is a major felony that could put away Manafort for most of the rest of his life.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/01/lesbian-sues-miss-town-for-denying-gay-bar-permit/2903265/
Gay person wants to open gay bar and gets shot down by the mayor and six aldermen of Shannon (pop. 1,700), Mississippi because of a stated reason being that the bar would present a public health and safety hazard.
Now keep in mind this only made news because the owner sued. How many other would be business owners get turned down at the municipal level for dubious reasons just have to shrug since they can not afford a legal fight in a highly conservative area with conservative judges.
So the argument of 'just open your own business" falls flat if you have a government that objects to your presence. Liberty does not exist in Shannon, Mississippi. It isn't a surprise (to me at least) that Mississippi signed the House Bill 1523, when its municipalities were already getting away with "public health" excuses for gay bars 3 years prior. Who knows what they'll be able to get away with 3 years from now.
I don't believe I displayed any hatred for religions and certainly I don't feel any. I would generally now describe myself as agnostic, but was brought up as a Unitarian and I feel comfortable with that as a faith. It's an unusual religion in lots of ways, for instance in specifically stating that it (and any other religion) doesn't have a monopoly on theological truth (and, relevant to my previous post, also believes that science, philosophy and rational thought can coexist with faith in God). I don't have a clear view about whether religions in general have been and are an overall force for good in the world, but I am concerned about religions that state strongly that they have all the right answers and you must believe in them for your own good.
I agree that your religion, in the same way as any strong belief system you hold, will have an effect on your morals. As indicated above though I don't think religion and morality are the same thing. It would for instance be perfectly possible for a strongly religious person to give charity to the poor simply as a religious duty, even though their personal moral conviction was that charity was not a good idea.
and Wikipedia has an extensive page on Christian Terrorism and violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence#Genocidal_warfare
A guy who is on his third trophy wife and can't spell bible and certainly throws the first stone and is just an ass has high support from christian extremists in America. These people are trying to pack the courts, including the Supreme Court, with extremist bigoted Christians. What else can you call it?
If you are a muslim, buddist, atheist, or something else then yeah being able to deny cakes because of your extremist beliefs might seem like a first step towards something pretty extreme.
To the more recent turn in the thread, I'll only say this: I dont think it's really possible to attack a particular religion without attacking the people of that religion. You may not mean to be offensive in doing so, but people strongly identify and define themselves as believers of a particular religion... so they cannot help but feel as though they're being attacked.
If I were to hypothetically call Jainism dumb, then Jainists would (justifiably) see that as an attack on them. They in some measure define their life by their beliefs, and Jainism isn an integral part of that.
Yes of course Christians are going around decapitating people and screaming Hallelujah. How ignorant of me.
I do not want to continue this because it's beating a dead horse. Crusades happened, Islamic Jihad is happening. Unfortunately the world has to suffer the mistakes made in the middle east by the U.S. Canada, England and France. Also the Wahhabism coming out of Saudi Arabia cannot exist in a Democratic Society. Christianity has made concessions over the centuries, Islam has not.
**Also, judging all Christians because of your hatred for Trump is not very nice.
When European civilization went down the drain and entered the dark ages it was way too religious, when it recovered and became significant again it challenged the principles of the churches and threw them out of laws.
Ironicaly the islamic civilization followed the opposite path, the caliphate at its peak was much more secular and tolerant than those radical backwater mud-dweller europeans and now islamic countries are competing for who's the most islamic (and incidentally who turns into the worst place on earth).
On the other hand, the article you cite states quite plainly Ms. Newton is just upset that she got told "no" the second time around. I agree with her assessment--the city council's decision is a load of horse manure--but just because someone wants something doesn't mean that everyone else has to go along with it. People have forgotten how to be told "no" these days.
Why doesn't she just open "a bar" then make every night ladies' night? Simple.
*************
Translation: Mueller can't secure a conviction for the charges Manafort is currently facing--many of those charges were the same charges against Gates and his charges got dropped--so they are going to try and convict him *this* way.
At this point they aren't trying to get to the bottom of the situation and prosecute people for actual crimes; instead, they are trying to get any conviction they can, by any means necessary, ahead of this November's elections.
*************
I have not touched the other discussion going on here at all and I advise everyone else to walk away from it immediately.
It wasn't the no, it was who she was and the reason for the no, (The mayor allegedly encouraging certain citizens to come and protest, without informing other citizens, or the potential owner about the upcoming backlash of the establishment) that had more to do with her launching the lawsuit.
You also have to remember what a gay bar is. It is a place where the LGBQT community can go, socialize without being patronized and harassed. Denying them this type of space just empowers those that do not want to accept them into the community at large and allows those people to push even further such as the ant-lgbt bill signed 3 years later.
That's a crime in and of itself. Felony.
Criminal actions by Trump's former campaign manager. If you don't want to be charged with felonies, maybe don't do the act. Especially now, why risk it? Oh right Trump's pardoning people to send a message and he just doesn't give a damn because the rule of law means nothing when Trump's your bud. I don't know what that means. Do you mean all Christians support Trump? Where are you drawing this from? That's a big generalization.
I find the gay wedding cake ruling problematic. As in it allows bigotry and is based on a fake cause rooted on the made up standard of "sincerely held beliefs" that can't be measured. The gay couple sincerely believed that they wanted to get a wedding cake. Their beliefs were violated. See what a ridiculous standard. You want to base it solely on religious beliefs that's a violation of the Constitution, The Government is not supposed to pick winners and losers in the Religion department. The gay couple had the" gays deserve wedding cakes" religion. Their sincere beliefs were violated. Ridiculous standard.
"A guy who is on his third trophy wife and can't spell bible and certainly throws the first stone and is just an ass has high support from christian extremists in America." This is what you said. You hate the guy, I get it.
I find it hard to believe that Gates would have taken the plea deal unless he considered there was a good chance that he would be convicted. That also suggests to me that there is a good chance that Manafort will be convicted in due course. In the meantime I don't see any requirement for the new charges against Manafort to reflect anything except that's he's been breaching the terms of his bail conditions and the FBI don't approve of that. I agree that it's possible the FBI are just looking for another way to ramp up the pressure in order to try and get Manafort to cooperate as well, but the prosecution would make sense even without that as a motive.