And probably woke up my neighbours.
Combo Dog | Know Your Meme
I hyperventilated laughing.
And probably woke up my neighbours.
Combo Dog | Know Your Meme
Meh
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
^ that
Which is funnier, that...
...or this?
O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Yahoo! News
The left is taking the establishment clause way too literally, going so far as to not teach the founding documents of this very country or even banning them from the schools all because they contain the word "God" in them. Want to talk about funny, that's fricken hilarious. Mentioning creationism theory alongside evolutionary theory in biology class is hardly anything that would violate the establishment clause of the constitution IMHO.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
The answer is Bill Cosby.
Quaero Veritas.
CLIMB THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN
EAT THE FACE OF GOD
The notion that you are at all humble... may be the funniest statement of all.
Anybody who reads a translation of the Iranian constitution and who then sees all of the statements in there about how Iranian laws "shall be" in accordance with Islamic doctrine that are mysteriously missing from the U.S. Constitution will then realize how silly some of these debates about separation of church and state in the U.S. are. Kinda makes it awkward for Christians living in Iran, when the Islamic laws mandated in their constitution are in direct conflict with their religion. Nobody here has any problem practicing any religion that they want to, even Islam.
Now here's where it gets tricky. There was a story in the news a year or so ago where some Muslim dad living in the U.S. killed one or both of his daughters. Some sort of honor killing which Islam allows for, as backwards as that might seem to us westerners. Something about the daughters posting inappropriate pictures of themselves on Facebook, which never would have been considered inappropriate to any of us (they were fully clothed). But murder is against the law in most western countries the last time I checked. Technically the U.S. laws against murder are "anti-Islam", which might be considered an 'establishement' of Christianity which says thou shalt not kill. I wonder if this case was ever prosecuted? I don't think they are, or they're given wrist slaps. Would be an interesting Google-fu project.
This stuff about creationism and evolution in classrooms is trivial in comparison, and just stupid shit that politicians argue over trying to get votes and attention.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
...said the pot to the kettle.
Quaero Veritas.
I agree it's stupid. But creationism like as not does not belong in biology class. History, maybe... even probably. Science, no.
We aren't here because of random chance -- there is something bigger going on -- but that that thing was able to succeed in its goal when it did, had nothing to do with its actual will, but simple chance and opportunity.
U.S. laws against murder probably do descend from a more Christian era in American history, true. But they also make good sense from a psychoanalytic perspective. I wrote a paper on rights and ethics a few weeks ago. I'll post it to my journal.
A brief side mention to creationism theory was given in my high school biology class at the same time we were covering evolutionary theory. I remember that even though it was a loooong time ago now because of all the stupid disclaimers and crap that the teacher had to read. It was covered in like one day of class.
There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says that a bunch of Christians can't found a country and write laws for that country based on their religious beliefs, so long as those laws don't infringe upon the religious freedoms and rights of others. Like they can't make a law that says all US citizens "shall" go to church on Sunday. I tried to Google-fu this Islam honor killing thing and couldn't really find it, but I did find one page that suggested that they are indeed treated differently from the normal population. Like a guy was given a light 2 year sentence which probably would have been a few months in jail in reality, vs many many years for somebody else. Probably treading a fine line. You don't want to let the guy off completely free, because then all some disgruntled dad has to do is "convert to Islam" to get away with killing his kids. Way too easy.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
Everything about you suddenly makes more sense.
Isn't it true that the first amendment mostly states that the government should not have an officially established religion? Not this whole everything in the government must be entirely separate from religion. I think that idea was more brought about by court rulings and the like.
“No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov
http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0
Activists
Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
Two threads derailed in a week!
I seem to have real talent for this
Steve it's very hard to pin down what the founders meant. The only thing we know for sure is that (most) everyone at the constitutional convention agreed with it, meaning that they thought it was representative of their specific views. There's the rub: it's got to respect many different points of view (though primarily views associated with liberal beliefs and conservative beliefs). Generally one side is free to project its interpretations except to the extent that a majority can be convinced otherwise. That's how reform in the country happens: you show people that X law is in your personal best interest in a very direct way. Abortion rights are in the best interests of a lot of women (and men), so majorities support them. But yeah every law in this country has a certain relationship to personal ethical egoism, somehow or another.
You can see more about what the Founders beliefs and intentions were in things like the Federalist papers. As far as abortion rights, you have to put a really big asterick on things like that. I don't think (opinion here) that abortion rights are in the best interests of women and men. I think being responsible and not getting pregnant with a child you don't want or won't have the ability to raise is what's in everyone's best interest. While a majority do support "abortion rights" in general, a strong majority are also appaled at the current unrestricted nature of those rights and would like to see the laws become a lot more restrictive and limited. I forget what the exact numbers were, but Pew research covers things like this.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote