Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Education Attack Poisons 150 Afghan Schoolgirls
An anonymous reader writes "The water at a high school in Afghanistan was contaminated today, poisoning roughly 150 girls in attendance. Afghan officials say this was a deliberate attack: 'We are 100 percent sure that the water they drunk inside their classes was poisoned. This is either the work of those who are against girls' education or irresponsible armed individuals.' From the article: 'Some of the 150 girls, who suffered from headaches and vomiting, were in critical condition, while others were able to go home after treatment in hospital, the officials said. They said they knew the water had been poisoned because a larger tank used to fill the affected water jugs was not contaminated. ... None of the officials blamed any particular group for the attack, fearing retribution from anyone named.'"
is what happens when you coddle and religious groups extreme behavior and the myth that they have a right to tell governments what to do.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And occasionally blowing up a building full of innocent people, but that is the absolute limit.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The comment is absolutely on the mark.
The story makes me absolutely sick and reinforces my easy evaluation system for world religions: How they treat their women is in direct proportion to the value the religion brings to all societies of the world. That said, I fail to see how this relates to technology.
If the message is that women shouldn't go to school, then maybe they learned something at school. But wait... someone just taught those girls something! Kill the offenders!!!!!
None of the officials blamed any particular group for the attack, fearing retribution from anyone named.'"
Bad guys do bad things and people are afraid to even name them for doing the said bad things... I think the bad guys might be winning.
Religion of Peace. We should be tolerant of their views.
Show me in the Koran where it prohibits educating girls?
It's a cultural thing. Traditional (read patriarcal) societies that treat women as second class citiczens or as property all do horrible things like this.
And it's not right at all. Any culture that values males more than females is a backwards culture. In varying degrees, India, China, Japan, the Arab nations, Persians, most of the African countries, you names them - all backwards cultures. And most of them are paying a very heavy price for it. And in just about all cases, religion is used as an excuse for their deplorable behavior - it's not the cause.
There were many, many opportunities during the 20th Century to deliver sorely needed aid to Afghanistan, and put some money into helping the country modernize and industrialize. Under Western Cold War Political Doctrine, however, that simply wasn't seen as being "necessary" or a "priority". So after the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan by the Western-armed Afghan Mujahedeen, Afghanistan was left to its own devices (= the country was left to rot in abject poverty). With the bone-crunching poverty, and political-abandonment by the Developed World came support for the Taliban. With the Taliban came a particularly hateful, denigrating view of women (women should cover at all times, girls should not go to school, girls should be married to older men by arranged-marriage). ----- Here we are many decades later, wondering why Afghanistan is an underdeveloped s__thole of place, where someone can so pissed at girls being educated, that he poisons their drinking water. Afghanistan should have been helped decades ago. The West, at the time, was too cheap to commit money to such a project. And now we have a genuinely "failed state" to deal with. "You reap what you sow", as they say.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
...able to go home almost immediately aka insta-antidote is kind of odd/unusual.
Perhaps the contaminant was a strong emetic or diuretic causing extreme dehydration, which explains the headache.
In the cases where they could go simply home after "treatment in the hospital", perhaps those girls didn't drink as much of the tainted water (duh).
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
In Star Trek, the Federation had a rule that they did not interfere with primitive societies regardless of how "barbaric" the primitive societies were. Perhaps the world needs to have a prime detective as well. Leave the Afghans to their own devices. Let the Taliban rule. So, may be their women will not get educated and have a hard life because of the unfortunate circumstance of their birth there. If those are such bad things, eventually, they themselves will bring about a cultural change from within. Yes, they will get stoned for being unfaithful but, at least, the young girls won't get poisoned or have acid thrown in their face for merely going to school.
Remember that crap like this is carried out by a fundamentalist extremists. Don't start a witch-hunt on religion just because the wack-jobs killing people claim to be religious.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Ah, so Republicans' desire to outlaw birth control is cultural, not religious. Poor backward Republicans.
Well, it did say that some were in critical condition and only some were able to go home.
I would imagine the ones that could go home didn't consume as much poison as the others.
Religion of Peace. We should be tolerant of their views.
Show me in the Koran where it prohibits educating girls?
It's a cultural thing. Traditional (read patriarcal) societies that treat women as second class citiczens or as property all do horrible things like this.
And it's not right at all. Any culture that values males more than females is a backwards culture. In varying degrees, India, China, Japan, the Arab nations, Persians, most of the African countries, you names them - all backwards cultures. And most of them are paying a very heavy price for it. And in just about all cases, religion is used as an excuse for their deplorable behavior - it's not the cause.
A distinction without a difference.
Where was religion mentioned anywhere in the article or summary?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Aside from that, its an excellent example of why multiculturalism should not exist. My daughter gains nothing by the existence of that culture. Let american consumerism steamroll it out of existence, no substantial loss.
Right, because the American culture is the One True Culture. Your ridiculous statement implies a false choice: American culture vs. poisoning girls who want to go to school. This is, in fact, a great argument for multiculturalism. If Afghanistan were more of an educated multi-cultural society, these nutjobs would have a harder time getting a following. As it is, when everyone only sees one culture (their own), treating women like this is the only "normal" they know.
It didn't actually say that they were treated and released. It just said that some were able to go home immediately, which could just mean that they didn't drink enough and weren't ill enough to be concerned about them.
Or it could be bacteria in their water tank (e.g. legionella). If you drink bacterially-infected water, you would expect vomiting, and headaches often accompany it—you can get headaches from just about anything that causes enough stress to raise your blood pressure, which an entire school full of sick kids almost certainly would.... As with any infection, some people would not be sick enough to require hospitalization.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I was just watching a talk by NDT on "Intelligent Design". In that, he made an excellent observation about how, for a 300 year period, the Arab world was the center of intellectual progress in the world. 2/3 of all stars with names have Arabic names. They discovered 0, they gave us algebra.
Then... a new religious philosophy arose that taught that mathematics was the work of the Devil. This wasn't Mohamed.... it wasn't there in the beginings of Islam. For many years, these problems didn't exist.
The sobering thought there is... as he points out.... this period of advancement ended with the rise of this anti-scientific ideology. Just think, there are a Billion Muslims, and only a handful of Muslim/Arab nobel prize winners. If they hadn't ended their period of advancement hundreds of years before Europe became the new center of intellectual progress... where would we be today? How much raw talent just went totally unused because of these ideologies.
Honestly.... I have little doubt that there would be people posting comments from Lunar or martian colonies by now if not for this terrible ideology.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I agree, I heard that in India, a man set his wife on fire for THINKING she was having an affair, and he got off with a slap on the wrist, even though she may or may not have been cheating, as he had no real proof.
I hate any cheater, but come on....that is just sick!
Well, we should all fear retribution from a group that poisons schoolgirls. They must be a terrifying bunch!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
"able to go home almost immediately aka insta-antidote"
Not really. It probably means that some girls received a smaller dose of the poison. That's exactly what one should expect in a large-scale poisoning - simple chance would create such clusters.
Does anyone know why they're doing this? Do they think these schools are teaching girls to reject Islam and embrace Satan, or something? Citations?
Finding God in a Dog
The bible may be just as bad (especially in the early bits) but the quran "god" awfull. It is quite explicit that at least in the case of courts of law and of inheritance a woman is worth half of a man, and that the lot of women is to obey their husbands on account of their inferiority, if their husband does badly they will get sent to hell with them but if they do badly so long as he is good... etc
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html
The anti education stuff is not taken directly from the quran but there is no way you can say it does not encourage such behaviour, indeed if you think that education makes women think that they are as good as men then the quran does in fact justify this.
...they're afraid to accuse people whom they think poisoned over a hundred schoolgirls, for fear that they'll tick the criminals off (and have trouble as a result). Sure, angering terrorists (or whatever they're calling these scoundrels--if anything) is likely to provoke them to try other acts of terrorism. What are you going to do, though, let them get away with it? I can't see how that won't encourage further acts of terror just as thoroughly (if not necessarily as quickly).
Side note: yes, Afghanistan is strongly Muslim, and yes there are some extremists who utterly pervert and abuse that faith; but unless there's some mention in TFA about religious motivations, let's please not jump to inflammatory conclusions about this being faith-motivated. In point of fact, this sort of thing has happened here in the USA, as recently as in the 20th century, so let's not throw stones based on our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty) being somehow superior to theirs. Horrible people exist in all countries, and infest all religions, as you should all well know.
I hate any cheater, but come on....that is just sick!
Why would you hate someone for doing something that doesn't affect you, for reasons you have no idea of?
If Pakistan and Afghanistan want their Islamic paradise, let them have it.
It's a conservative thing. Conservatives everywhere attack education. Whether it's literacy for women in Afghanistan, or sex ed and evolution in the United States, conservatives are anti-education.
Why are conservatives anti-education? Because their beliefs cannot be supported by facts, and so the more factual ideas you teach, the less conservative your people will be. There is a positive correlation between education and liberalism for a reason.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That's kind of the problem.
Many people in Afghanistan are only slightly beyond the bronze age. So really old stupid tribal beliefs and cultural conventions have become intertwined with religious fervor.
Many people simply wouldn't consider them civilized. They're not much more advanced that goat herders from 1000 years ago in many cases.
People with access to modern weapons and who hold archaic beliefs are pretty much who you're fighting against. The Taliban were pretty much against everything modern. Same idea as in places where female genital mutilation happens. It has nothing at all to do with their religion, but they believe it does.
They've got modern technology without ever having gone through and cultural growth. So they're kind of like Children.
I don't even think this is a problem with Islam. It's a problem with taking ancient biases and mixing them into your religion, and then trying to force everyone else to follow your beliefs.
Kind of like Fundamentalist Christians who want laws passed to prevent other people doing things they consider immoral. Sorry, I don't believe in your god, and I don't care that you think something is immoral -- mind your own fucking business. But to them, it's their (self appointed) duty to make sure nobody sins against their beliefs.
Are there no cell phones there? Can't someone start an anonymous tip line? If this happened in the US we'd have detectives so far up everybody's ass that the ACLU would be foaming at the mouth.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Culture and Religion are very intertwined.
The Catholic Church while a Unified church, operate rather differently cross different cultures. Even with them following the same rules, the importance of the rules they follow are prioritized differently.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Republican's don't want to outlaw birth control. They just don't think the government should pay for it.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Why? Its a fucking health service. Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare. Its a religious objection, flat out.
Good-bye
They got zero from India, and the Babylonians had a placeholder for it back before 1000 B.C.
The problem is that we have a religious culture that encourages extremely high levels of obedience, faithfulness and passion. And this is not necessarily going to cause problems, but....
But it's unstable, like a dictatorship. Your first dictator might be a fine Wise Benevolent Leader, and everybody's happy. But then his son takes over, and he's maybe something more on the Cackling Lunatic Leader side of thing. You're trapped in a system that doesn't regulate itself. As long as you're shackled to the ideologies attached to a name, rather than the rationale behind the ideologies themselves, something horrible can go wrong.
And it has.
Would you like a slice of toast?
By this line of reasoning, we need 2 more bills before Congress:
1 - Doctors and hospitals are absolved of blame in refusing to tread non-paying patients, and are permitted to eject them.
2 - We need a public health organization to collect and cremate uncollected bodies found on public property, or upon request uncollected bodies found on private property. This is of course subject to finding that the death was natural and not the result of foul play. This is necessary to safeguard the water supply, and because trained personnel are required to safely handle such bodies.
EITHER !!!
You are going to be compassionate about medical care, in which case you'd better be as efficient about it as possible. In which case paying for birth control is a heck of a lot cheaper than paying for emergency childbirth care.
OR !!!
You have to adopt the, "Go away and die," model. There is very little in-between. Health care as practiced in the US today is one of the lease efficient ways to run it. There is effectively universal emergency care, but no universal preventive care. That pretty much guarantees that some portion of the population will require expensive medical care.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I 1000% agree with you. Its not necessarily Republican-ism, but or fiscal conservatism, or gun rights, etc, etc. You can be a rocket scientist and a fiscal conservative - those things are all matters of opinion. You can argue over the virtues of owning hand guns or not or the merits of a charity based approach to welfare versus government-financed. Its all well and good; one can agree to disagree. Education, on the other hand, is all based on fact. Religious people who are not open minded to the fact that other people have different beliefs cannot cope with the idea that science is fact based. Education teaches children to think for themselves and make their own decisions, which is deadly to a faith-based ideological system. Sure, any one can choose to be a Muslim or a Christian or a Buddhist once they are educated in these religions and agree with the teachings - but the vast majority of logical people would not when confronted with ALL the evidence. this is the problem. To keep forcing your faith on other people, they must remain ignorant or you cannot control them.
Pretty sure they're generally disinclined to pay for health services, too.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Sarcasm detected. Yes, Republicans are a cultural movement, not religious. They cater to both moral and fiscal conservatives despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.
They use religion to back up their opinions where it is supported, and any other useful tidbit when it doesn't. Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA? Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?
Yes, it is cultural, yes religion is used as an excuse. Same as Taliban extremists - they have their views, including outlawing education for women for a few years, and they use religion to back it up.
Many Christian groups treat women as second class citizens because they are to remain silent in church, and obey their husbands. Most Christians understand that contextually, but a few take it literally and frequently out of context. Every culture, every religion has people who do this, and it is not tied to the religion. It is an interpretation used as a convenient excuse to impose what some people believe on others.
It's a girls' school.
Well, the middle east is going through it's own version of the Dark Ages, nothing more nothing less.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
nothing causing 3 of 3.
Three kids with food poisoning, plus 147 cases of mass hysteria?
My guess is if the hardliners wanted to kill a school full of girls, they'd actually kill some.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
You put the LSD in the water, and then you start playing techno. Absence of female companionship problem: solved.
It's not a troll. He calls the attention on the injustice committed upon a woman suspect of infidelity. Then he ends saying he hates the cheaters. That's a contradiction.
(Women) infidelity used to be severely punished in Western societies, then we evolved to a state where we consider it to be a private matter and not the business of society to mess with. Anyway, there's an implicit social condemnation against those that cheat in marriage, though a good proportion of people do it and it's really not that harmful. Why should you hate cheaters when you're not the one being cheated? It's likely you'll find a few of them in your friends and family.
Now, why is this a troll? It's related to the subject, and I'm not insulting or provoking anyone.
birth control is ridiculously cheaper than health insurance costs for a kid, so your argument doesn't *actually* work. It only sounds good If you actually wanted to save money, you'd support it. It's simply you trying to force moral values on someone else OR you're just brainwashed by those who want to impose their moral values on someone OR you're dumb. Let me know which you choose. also, birth control is officially allowed to treat other issues, yet the block stops it from being used for other hormonal issues simply because it can be used as birth control as well.
You don't seriously expect that both boys and girls go to the same school in Afghanistan, do you?
baby steps...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
All superstition is bad because all superstition is based on lies. Any good it does is by accident.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
In the 40's and 50s there was a rise in religious extremest. The toleration of the extremest is how they got power and made laws and are trying to revert to the 'good ole' days that never where.
With a rise of religious extremism in the US, America should take some lessons from what happened in the mid east in the last 60 years.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Let these girls and their families (and other females who are attacked for wanting an education) have asylum in the USA or other country where girls don't get killed for wanting an education.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
religious Conservatives .
While the current republican party has join social/religious/ and economic conservatism into some sort of sick and twisted evil, we shouldn't forget that you can be economic conservative and social moderate.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It has taken a very long time for some Klan associated murderers to come to trail. Yet the Klan has been on the losing side even from its inception.
Quick question... Which do you think costs more in the long run? Government covering costs of birth control to help reduce unwanted pregnancies, the cost to government and society that result from unwanted parenthood? These unwanted children will incur additional costs in welfare, education, and (statistically speaking) increases in crime.
A party complaining about "welfare mothers" doesn't have a lot of room to complain about making birth control more accessible.
So instead of paying $10 in public money for an abortion pill they want to pay $thousands in public money later to educate and treat the resulting child?
"Not even religious fanatics are stupid enough to think this helps their cause."
Who are you to speak for them?
Also, they are winning.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Correct: An Arabic scholar translated Indian math and taught the Europeans.
our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty)
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail? What about the anthropomorphic mushroom that lives at the bottom of Lake Titicaca and controls mankind's thoughts?
Oh wait, you don't have any beliefs about those? Kind of like me and God(s).
As a kid, it never even *occurred* to me that a God(s) could/should exist. The entire idea is so far removed from reality that it never even entered my head. It wasn't until I was in early grade school that I was like "You believe WHAT?" when talking to other kids. I thought they were from the Moon, and I still do. Insanity.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Not every "creed" or political system is a religion. There are plenty of liberal Christians for instance.
Republicans just don't want to have to pay for someone else's birth control, you troll
They do, however, want someone else to pay for their hardons.
Also, if you honestly believe a group referred to as the "Religious Right" does not use religion as their motivation, well, I've got this bridge in NY state you may be interested in purchasing...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The discussion has only been cast that way recently to take advantage of the Tea Party and in an effort to bring in moderates to their cause. Their objection in the past has been exclusively on moral grounds.
Yes, that is correct. The anti-birth-control, anti-abortion movements stem as much from a sociocultural condemnation of premarital and unprotected sex (primarily by Limbaugh's "sluts") as any religious proscription. A birth control/abortion ban is a way of controlling sex, particularly sex out of wedlock, which is a cross-cultural phenomenon all over the world that exists independently of religion. Religion is a means of codifying that cross-cultural pre-marital sex taboo, not the root of it.
It's all part of the same set of simplistic beliefs. Beliefs like "Tax cuts on the weatlhy always leads to more revenue", "jobs are created by rich people, not demand", are every bit as fantastical as believing that a zygote and infant are identical.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Here's the take away lesson. Why you fight a war, it has to be total war, not a "police action" type war. And yes I am a liberal and no I don't like that fact much but it's still a fact.
The Nazis and the Japanese ( suggested reading: The Rape of Nanking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)) weren't any better than this in WWII. It represents a total devaluing of human life and unlimited freedom to make war on the opposition in any way conceivable.
We won WWII despite this because ultimately we fought back in just the same way . Millions of Germans died during the bombing of Berlin and many millions more starved to death AFTER the war during the occupation and this was deliberate. We were going to submit the nazis totally and absolutely and a part of that was the 1200 calories a day we allowed them. It's hard to maintain your fighting spirit and think of maintaining the ole Sig Heil when you're living amongst rubble and so mal-nourished and hungry you can barely stand.
Little Boy and Fat Man had the same effect on Imperial Japan. It wasn't about winning the war, it was about the psychological conversion of the population through REAL shock and awe, a total and absolute devastation and final full on shit-fuck invalidation of the poisoned government that population had permitted to arise.
That is how you fight subhuman scum like the Tali. Total war because that's what they're going to use against you. We should have nuked Kabul on Sept 12th. We should have turned Tora Bora into a radioactive wasteland and let Northwest Pakistan contemplate their fate if they decide they're going to continue to put the finger in the eye of civilian government in Islamabad. Fuck you and the god you rode in on.
As it stands, the world has learned the same lesson it learned in Vietnam. America fights civilized, limited wars and can be triumphed over by fighting a war of attrition with her.
Thanks, Colin Powell for your crucial speech at the UN which greenlighted a couple of fucking draft-dodging alcoholics to use the exact same failed tactics you yourself warned the country against after Vietnam.
Go fuck yourself and the son who rode in on you too.
Aside from that, its an excellent example of why multiculturalism should not exist. My daughter gains nothing by the existence of that culture. Let american consumerism steamroll it out of existence, no substantial loss.
Right, because the American culture is the One True Culture. Your ridiculous statement implies a false choice: American culture vs. poisoning girls who want to go to school. This is, in fact, a great argument for multiculturalism. If Afghanistan were more of an educated multi-cultural society, these nutjobs would have a harder time getting a following. As it is, when everyone only sees one culture (their own), treating women like this is the only "normal" they know.
vlm didn't say that there's anything particularly exceptional about American culture. However, in the context of American entertainment media, I think it's diverse, and it's definitely in demand. In any case, I think exposing Afghans to any culture that isn't so hostile/misogynistic might be beneficial for the advancement of their society. Even if it isn't influential, it's difficult to hurt people while watching a movie, reading a book, etc.
I'm not a supporter of imperialism, American or otherwise; I don't advocate pushing any of the above onto any populace. However, I would support a program that effectively seeks to protect Afghan families from extremist elements. For anyone who's further interested in how Afghanistan is hostile towards families, please watch Frontline's Opium Brides.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
You're either uninformed or plain old lying.
Here's the bill in virginia that makes the pill illegal: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+HB1
passed the republican controlled house and senate with ease.
And all the current candidates bar Romney have gone on record agreeing with it explicitely for religious reasons: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-republican-presidential-candidate-pledge
Of course Romney flip-flops back and forth but here he is saing he "absolutely" agrees too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkrOt9Qposg#t=5m25s
Part if the mechanism of the pill is to prevent fertilized eggs from impanting - that's after conception has occured. It's not the only mechanism, but it's part of the package. So all those republicans are trying to outlaw the pill. Not just not pay for it.
No it's not. It's four and a half days old. Any evidence to the contrary was planted by George to fool you into thinking otherwise, including your false memories of what you had for breakfast last Tuesday..
Pshhht. You are not supposed to say it out loud before "traditional values" and "christian morality" are reinstated. Then it is time to gloat. That is why you got modded troll by the moral majority, after all.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
...despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.
Jesus advocated helping the poor. He didn't say to help the poor with somebody else's money. Christians donate more and run more charities as a group than any other.
:wq
Don't forget Genghis Khan or his children overran and destroyed much of the Middle East. Not sure if this contributed to the end of the golden age of Islam.
love is just extroverted narcissism
No; what you're proposing is akin to extortion - pay me now for protection or I'll destroy your store (costing you a lot more).
What conservatives want is for you to be responsible for yourself. It may not be a tenable position in this day and age, but it certainly is ideologically sound. Unfortunately we've gone too far down the road of giving up responsibility to the government, too few people are willing to take responsibility for their own actions anymore.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
No, antibiotics are reactive, they are given after a problem already exists. Birth control is preventative, it prevents a 'problem' from occurring. Birth control could be better compared to hand sanitizer, it helps to prevent something. Most health care is reactive rather than preventative, it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that reactive care provides metrics that are easy to measure short-term, and preventative care can be a never-ending money pit where results are only able to be calculated after years of funding.
Maybe they should have thought of that before targeting women with poison.
Idiots.
I'm not aware of any philosophy that claimed that. The most common philosophy that is blamed for wrecking the Muslim's worlds scientific progress was that espoused by Al-Ghazali in his highly influential book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers. The most damaging thing in that philosophy was the idea that there were no actual laws of the universe, only things occurring the way Allah decided to. So for example if one lit a piece of cloth with a candle, the cloth catches fire not from any property of the cloth but because Allah has decided in this particular instance for the cloth to catch fire. And according to Al-Ghazali, asserting otherwise was essentially heresy. This sort of view of things is extremely inimical to discovering or codifying laws of the universe. There were other problems that happened about the same time such governments becoming more intertwined with religion in much of the Muslim world. But I suspect that is the philosophy that Neil deGrasse Tyson was talking about.
Why are conservatives anti-education? Because their beliefs cannot be supported by facts, and so the more factual ideas you teach, the less conservative your people will be.
Not all conservatives have religious or anti-educational ideas and motivations.
BUT... What they all DO have is a very strong preference for the status quo. THAT is why they can't accept new ideas, or find them threatening.
To them it's good as it is. Perfect in fact.
To fundamentalists among them, ANY change is a tantamount to an attack on their entire way of life.
Those girls weren't being taught to be atheists, feminists, witches or whatever the fundamentalists would find undermining to their religious beliefs.
In fact, they probably had religious studies at school as well.
They were simply girls, being taught.
That's the idea that breaks the status quo world of the(se) fundamentalists.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I certainly don't have the right to tell government what to do. Of course, I'm willing to admit it.
You're either not an American, or you are and you're part of the problem.
Either way, a blatantly ignorant statement.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Republican's don't want to outlaw birth control. They just don't think the government should pay for it.
... Republicans are trying to prevent people from getting birth control in the private market.
No, the person you're responding to is correct - while there are a few "objectors" that work in pharmacies, few people want to BAN birth control, and there's more than just religious grounds... I pay for insurance - why should I subsidize your birth control? It's not a "health" choice, it's a lifestyle choice. If you want to have sex, and you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, go ahead and buy birth control - there's nothing stopping you.
I suggest using the "religious freedom" argument to suggest that employers have ever been the freedom to inflict their religious views on their employees against their will in a way that causes measurable harm.
Hyperbole, much? What measurable harm? That someone has to pay for their own birth control instead of having it subsidized by people who object to it? Heavens to Betsy!
I would argue if it's for health reasons (like the hormonal birth control used to treat other symptoms) you'd have a point. Otherwise... no.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
And that's as crazy as believing that government spending drives an economy. Try this experiment: Reach down, grab your feet, and pick yourself up off the ground. Same concept as the government creating jobs.
:wq
And occasionally blowing up a building full of innocent people, but that is the absolute limit.
Don't forget murdering doctors. They love murdering doctors...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare.
For that matter, the materials and services used to prevent death from other causes should also be provided by the minority of people who pay the majority of the taxes. It's only right. So, let's see ... death by freezing is bad, so a majority of the citizens should have housing and energy paid for by other people. Starving to death is definitely something health-related, so no question that most people should be getting someone else to pay for their food. Certainly nobody (except the minority who pay most of the taxes) should have to pay for things like the water piped to their house, since clean potable water is a necessity for being healthy, and that's health-related, just as much as condoms are, for sure. So, even though a lot of water will be used to wash things like the cars that are medically necessary in order to get you to your so-important-that-someone-else-should-pay-for-it visit to the podiatrist, it's still something other people should pay for.
Which aspects of housing and food and clothing and personal grooming and a mattress that makes you sleep super well and a really nice chair in your cubicle at work and nice hobbies that help you to live a low-stress and this healthier life aren't health services, really, when you get down to it? The government should pay for all of it - everything that will make you happy (and thus healthier - it's been shown in studies!) should be paid for by someone else, always, since it's a right to have everything you want and need in order to be as healthy as possible since that's government's job.
Give it a rest.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Ah well, that proves it conclusively. Thank you for your informative example which in no way illustrates just how stupid you have to be to actually believe in conservative economics.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
he was a fucking hypocrite then, is he still flying around on his cart with flying horses? All religions are full of this shit, say one thing and then contradict it later and then forget about the contradiction.
its time all priests were outlawed and people allowed to "worship" in their own personal space and don't bother anyone else with their delusions. Priests and imams are the major problem as they think they have a line to their imaginary god
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
And they are non-christian christians as they do their level best not to help the less fortunate, bloody hypocrites.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
ask someone who got a STD if their body didn;t get sicker because they didnt have contraception
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
As long as nobody tries to take away their boner pills.
It seems they voted THEMSELVES a pretty nice health plan.
Of course, the problem is that they're trying to pass laws about what other people can do -- whether or not they subscribe to their religious beliefs.
Anybody trying to pass laws that enforce their religious beliefs need to remember that it's not all about them, and that not all of us wish to be subject to their whims. They don't get a vote on what I do. Their god doesn't either -- that'll be between me and him if it comes to that.
I, for instance, think it should be illegal to come to my door peddling your religion or try to inject it into public education. Woe to someone who comes to my door telling me how I can achieve salvation.
Religion is the basis of your morality, fine. But when your religion spills over into telling other people what they should do when it has no impact on you ... well, fuck off and keep your opinion to yourself. (I don't mean "you" or "your" in the specific, but in the general abstract sense.)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Quran-only Muslims are a small minority, and their rejection of Hadith is heavily criticized by mainstream Muslims. So saying "The Quran does not state" really has no weight for the vast majority of Muslims. If it's in Hadith, it's part of the religion.
Against murderers? Yes, I'm afraid so.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
So because the water in the tank wasn't contaminated, they know it was poison?
Afghanistan isn't especially well known for it's hygiene standards. The symptoms of headaches, Nausea and vomiting match up pretty well with salmonella or e-coli poisoning. It's obviously in a public official best interests to blame evil terrorists rather than lax health standards. Put your water jugs in a messy kitchen where meat it prepared, it could easily be contaminated.
Sarcasm detected. Yes, Republicans are a cultural movement, not religious. They cater to both moral and fiscal conservatives despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.
That's just wrong. Republicans... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals; they also donate more blood and time. Paying taxes and sinking this country into a fiscal debt crisis is not "charity." If you are not making the decision, it's not "charity" and it's not "magnanimous" on your part. If you believe in Jesus then you must believe did NOT support not giving people the choice... you have to be judged on your OWN actions, not what you were forced to do. (for the record, I'm not religious, and I use this very same argument against religious people who want to control my life, too)
Who Gives and Who Doesn't.. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
They use religion to back up their opinions where it is supported, and any other useful tidbit when it doesn't. Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA?
I don't think Jesus would care one way or another about the NRA.
Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?
You're right about one thing, it's not based on religion that they do this... it's based on what's written in the constitution; based on the failure of our educational system despite the wanton amounts of money we throw at it (BTW, Bush increased educational spending more than anyone else in the previous four decades... what did he get for it? The disdain of the left, of course.). As far as military spending - you're right. I'm not a republican, I think they've been terrible leaders since Bush's election... but I also think democrats seem to have been inspired to one-up the terribleness.
Think what you want - I won't change your mind, I realize that the people asking the most for open mindedness are typically the most closed minded of all. But between the way liberals want to destroy this country and the way the republicans want to destroy this country, the republicans are much less "bad," even if they're not good.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I'm pretty sure the christians have racked up a much higher body count over each of the last few years.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Really? If the government is paying for birth control, then why am I paying health care premiums?
:(){
Us westerners and our silly misunderstanding of the "religion of peace"tm.
Religion of pieces. As in "blown to".
Religion is just plain evil.
Then why didn't your benevolent "shit-fucking" work in Russia during the 1990s, or in Vietnam in the 1960s? Could it be because in the cases of Germany and Japan, the allies (eventually) offered an alternative way of life under democracy to their defeated opponents? That the US actually engaged in real nation rebuilding at that time and effectively created two of the most successful post war countries as a result? A pity no such long term planning has been applied or indeed even contemplated in either modern Afghanistan or Iraq.
Bombs and tanks wont he battles, but it was the Marshall Plan won the war, and the subsequent Cold war besides. The US and her allies in the present have created no such legacy, for all their costly foreign expeditions.
May the Maths Be with you!
I agree, I heard that in India, a man ...
I also heard that in America a white man shot a black kid with ice tea and a bag of candy dead and claimed self defense. He was not even given a slap in the wrist till there was a huge media outcry following a report in Hindustan Times, Times Of India and a few more English newspapers in India. Shamed by the scathing letters to the editor written by the retired bureaucrats in Chennai, Delhi and Kadumaththinahalli, America finally decided to book the offender.
Politifact would give "mostly true" rating for that passage. How would you like that line of reasoning?
So let us stop hating this or that or any group of people based on what you "heard". OK? Deal? No Deal?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Do you not get that people like to fuck? Its an enjoyable pastime and can be used for good and ill. DO you think it logical to force another sentient being to bear a child it does not want? Further, where does your authority on this matter derive from? Im not talking about society's Im talking about YOU personally. Who in the fuck are you to make reproductive decisions for other sentient human beings?
Good-bye
1873 called... It wants to talk about irrelevant nonsense.
Let's take a look at the text, shall we?
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. -- And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." (Luke 22:36, 38)
So, yeah, I think Christ would've approved of the NRA. He directly advised his disciples to be armed. Also, "turning the other cheek" was never intended to mean passive submission to violence. The culture of the day was one where the wealthy would often slap around the poor using the right hand, but using the left was a mortal insult and would provoke a fight. Christ was telling the poor that if someone wants to bully them and shove them around, they should not initiate violence, but demonstrate their willingness to end a fight if the other guy wanted to start one -- that's what "turning the other cheek" meant.
Christ was not a pacifist. This is the guy who chased moneychangers from the temple with a whip (probably more for preying on the poor than defaming the faith), and who openly welcomed a Roman centurion as one of his followers, and didn't demand the guy give up his life of the sword. Christ's message had more to do with the ethical use of violence than it did with the total abjuration of it.
Nope. Bad guys win only when you stop going to the malls and stop spending money.
Millions of Germans died during the bombing of Berlin
Nope. Not even close. ~100 thousand were killed, not "millions"
They cater to both moral and fiscal conservatives despite obvious inconsistencies, such as Jesus helping the poor and budget cutting anything that helps poor people.
Christian - I give of my time, and money to help the poor. Note, this is not to provide a living for the poor but rather to help them out in times of need.
Non-Christian - You take my money by force (ie. thieft) and give it to people to provide them a living ( the problem of being poor never goes away if the poor are rewarded for their poorness )
I fully suport programs that help people to become productive members of our society. However we should not be rewarding people for having more children than they can care for.
Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA?
After the passover meal and before His arrest Jesus told His deciples to sell their coats and buy a sword. Love your enimies does not mean that you should be deffenceless.
Many Christian groups treat women as second class citizens because they are to remain silent in church, and obey their husbands.
I would not expect a non-Christian to understand the structure of a Christian household, or why that structure applies in church, but I assure you that among Christian groups that hold such beliefs the women is certainly not a "second class citizen". Purhaps, before you make such accusations you should ask some of the women whould live in such households what they think about it. To put the situation into perspective, a second class citizen is someone who is denied certain privlages, not someone who willingly surender certain abilaties. For example, I may be able to sleep with my neighbors wife, but I don't for multiple reasons. One of which is that I am commanded in the Bible "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Does that make me a second class citizen to someone who would commit adultery? I realize that Roman Catholicism and its derivatives for a very long time made Christianity mandatory, but they are primarily political organizations who abuse christianity for their gain and do not represent the Christian community.
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
Remember the Koran was written by one person during their lifetime. What is written in the Koran later on (towards the back) overrides what was written before it.
People point to the peaceful and fair parts on the Koran and say see, Islam is a religion of peace. The violent parts written later on override those peaceful parts. That is the problem.
We never fought a total war with either Russia or Vietnam. That's the point. Nation building and how to do it is an absolute must and one of the facts conservatives are going to have to make peace with going forward. I never suggested we bomb and leave. I suggested that the model we used in WWII- total war followed closely by nation building, is the right one.
In the 1950s, Afghanistan came more under the influence of the Soviet Union, like Eastern Europe did. In 1973, Daud Khan led a coup d'etat and established a new government, crushing resistance. He invited NATO troops into Northern Afghanistan and began shifting toward the US. A similar thing happened in Cambodia around this time with Lon Nol (coup against old monarchy by pro-US figure). And the same thing that happened in Cambodia happened in Afghanistan - the Afghan communist party was more powerful than the US puppet, Daud Khan was booted and the domestic communists (PDPA) took over. The CIA launched a proxy war against the communist government. The CIA recruited Osama bin Laden, at whose father's house then CIA director George Bush used to stay at on trips to Saudi Arabia. It backed the groups which were later to be called Al Qaeda and the Taliban, working to overthrow this secular, atheist actually, government. When the USSR sent troops to support the PDPA government, US support increased. Sylvester Stallone made Rambo III, where he fights with his comrades of Al Qaeda/Taliban against the evil PDPA and Russians who are trying to secularize and modernize Afghanistan.
In fact, this is what the US is still doing everywhere in the Middle East and Afghanistan. It supported Muslim groups to overthrow secular Libya, and is now working with Muslim fundamentalists to overthrow the secular Syrian government. It of course supports the Saudi government which is more fundamentalist than Iran. It's a strange thing how the US creates bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, and the new Muslim fundamentalist forces in Libya and Syria - then turns around and talks about how Muslims are too religious and backward. And not only has done this in the past, is doing it today in Syria. Who is the US supporting against the secular, social democratic Syrian government, Santa Claus?A wide, wide, wide gap between words and deed.
Sheesh... Why can't they act civilized and destroy education the way we do in the U.S. --by slowly leeching away all the funding, while blaming teachers and unions, and introducing magical thinking into science classes. Mission accomplished!
Ask me about my sig!
I think what you are missing is that the discussion about birth control had absolutely nothing to do with you paying for it. Even though Republican politicians and conservative media would love you to continue believing that is what the discussion was about. The discussion was whether corporations and non-profits including (religious institutions) can refuse coverage of contraceptives on an employee insurance plan. This has absolutely nothing to do with you subsidising anyone's birth control at all. Everyone has to pay and no one that pays should be refused and corporations refusing coverage was what kicked off all of this contraception fiasco. And the Republicans keep digging a deeper hole with American women by introducing bills to allow employers to not cover contraception on employee plans on religious grounds and vaginal probe /ultrasound bills. The problem for the Republicans and those who stay glued to nothing but conservative media is that women realise what is going on. They have not been misinformed by the conservative reality distortion field.
A being a tool that is used for B does not imply that B goes away if A does.
It might imply there is less chance of B if A goes away. Or maybe not - we're good at inventing tools.
It's not about the money; birth control saves money. Can you simple arithmetic? Which costs more: a 25-cent condom or a $100,000+ unwanted child? You are the liar, and your lying serves to deny medical care to women, and bring children into the world whose lives will be miserable, and for whom you won't lift a finger or spend a dime to assist.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
I don't want to pay for nuclear weapons, but I don't really get a choice in that do I?
~S
My guess is if the hardliners wanted to kill a school full of girls, they'd actually kill some.
This is insightful. Popular cultural sport over there is setting off IEDs and suicide bombings and sniping. Poisoning is way out of character, not their thing at all. When is the last time an american soldier was killed over there by a roadside water poisoning? Or anyone?
It might turn out that its a very tenuous connection, like if the bad guys would stop blowing up our supply convoys, we could replace our water filter elements on a regular basis, but we can't, so the water is unsafe, therefore the extremists poisoned the girls, using extremely stretched logic.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Jesus on Taxes.
"For truly I say upon to you... Render on to Ceasar what is Caesar's...Render on to the father what is his."
Jesus on the rich.
A rich man approached Jesus. "Teacher how can I enter heaven."
Jesus: "Sell everything you own and give all the money to the poor and the needy. Then you can enter the kingdom of god"
Jesus re-affirms : "For truly I say upon to you. It is much easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle that it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god"
I think Jesus was very very adamant about helping the poor and about the ability for anyone to enter the "kingdom of god" without selling all their riches and giving the proceeds to the poor.
If you don't beat your children but instead lie to them so that they are unprepared to properly deal with the realities of life as adults, have you not injured them just as grievously?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
No, the problem is a religious culture where somehow someone can claim to know the will of G-d and thereby countenance all sorts of stupidity.
Without religion, there are no religious fundamentalist extremists.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
My preference has always been to convert the region into a continuous sheet of radioactive glass. I think "New Iowa" would be a nice name.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Yes. I agree. But nowhere does he say to reach into someone else's pocket and give that to charity.
:wq
Lots of things affect us all. Like people having certain beliefs, for instance. Sometimes things happen that you don't like, and you just have to accept it because it was another person's choice.
"reach into someone else's pocket and give that to charity." That is not what the contraception debate has been about. Ok help me understand how if someone's employer insurance plan includes contraception coverage is reaching into your pocket and giving it to charity.
Well I think we got off topic there. Somehow we got on this "republicans should love welfare" thread.
Ah, the contraception debate. What an absolute liberal lie.
Health insurance already covers contraceptives. Republicans aren't trying to change that. Nobody is trying to change that. This "War on Women" has been invented by liberals and media. Find anything that suggests evil republicans are trying to outlaw insurance coverage of birth control.
:wq
Somebody can be a Muslim without being an Arab. I wonder if they phrased the girl's schools as religious institutions like many of the schools for boys are if they'd attract the same attention. If they publicly released that they were mostly teaching home ec type stuff.
First reaction is taking a baseball bat to the poisoner, second would be to question him(or her!) to find out the reasoning, because only by understanding the problem can we prevent it from happening again.
I don't read AC A human right
Why? Because pregnancy is a 100% preventable condition. How do you 100% prevent it? Don't. Have. Sex.
And if you never touch anybody else you can avoid all kinds of other communicable diseases as well. What's the difference?
If you always wear a face mask you can avoid even more diseases. What you got meningitis? Strep throat? tuberculosis? the measles? where was your face mask? I'm not paying a dime for your treatment if you weren't wearing one.
I have zero sympathy for people expecting insurance to cover birth control.
And zero sympathy for people with ovarian cysts?
Birth control pills also help control painful menstrual cycles and ovarian cysts. Yet they are not covered for these uses because in these cases: they also incidentally prevent pregnancy.
Full disclosure: I'm a libertarian atheist.
Really, the fact that your ignorant is only tangentially relevant here.
It's a cultural thing.
I've heard exactly this position from a local imam (a liberal Turkish Sunni and Sufi too). People associate "old time religion" with whatever their local cultural traditions are.
Same thing happened with Christianity in the Middle Ages.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
My ovaries created cysts that exploded in the middle of the night and sent me screaming in blistering pain to the ER. What was the immediate preventative care? Birth control.
So, what responsibility for my actions could've prevented the cysts from forming? Or is it--I dunno--that most women on birth control aren't taking it for all the DIRTY DISGUSTING SEX they want to have, but for major health issues that impede their lives?
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare.
Because pregnancy isn't a disease that needs to be eradicated to keep the public as a whole safe?
Thanks for finding the link for us, now could somebody with some mod points make this a wee bit more visible?
+1 Disagree
Pretty sure he just feels that since he's not getting any, nobody should get any.
+1 Disagree
Superstition is practice influenced by books of nonsense and current interpretations of those books of nonsense.
"It's a cultural thing" implies lies/superstition are good.
"Any culture that values males more than females is a backwards culture."
Any religion whose practice values males more than females is a more backwards superstition than some of its competitors.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
That, and they want insurance to pay for viagra... Stop kidding yourself here - the system is already in place, and there have been plenty of fights before the health care act over insurance covering birth control. Why would they fight one of the most cost effective measures of public health if it wasn't for religious reasons? Ideologically they can justify all sorts of other drugs to be covered, but birth control is an absolute no no?
+1 Disagree
Thanks for finding the link for us...
That wasn't even the worst example.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
ask someone who got a STD if their body didn;t get sicker because they didnt have contraception
They didn't. They got sick because they had unprotected sex with someone who was already infected. There are some forms of "birth control" that might have limited the exposure. Many of the forms of "birth control", and ALL of the forms of birth control that are being talked about in off-license use (as hormone therapies for ovarian problems, e.g.), provide no STD protection at all.
While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not.
Numbers make a difference? Come on. What's the next step?
Wearing a uniform makes a difference? How about a badge? A tee-shirt? A white sheet and a hood?
Following orders from the head of the church? From a holy book? From god himself talking through your dog?
Not killing people, just torturing them a little? Killing only their pets and farm animals? Burning down their house? Bullying?
How many steps must we remove the perceived responsibility for the act before the guilt is washed away completely?
And it has nothing to do with a particular religion. It has EVERYTHING to do with cultural perceptions.
Those bombing abortion clinics live in a world (born, raised, educated in it - aware of the rules of the society) where exists a law of the state and more importantly they live in a very INDIVIDUALISTIC world.
They see themselves (as individuals) breaking a failed state law, following a higher (god's) law - by punishing individual "evildoers" who are breaking a higher law.
Taking justice into their own hands because they perceive themselves as "righteous" and those over there as "evil", confident that god will look favorably on their acts.
They are interpreting the "holy scripture" to match their view of the world and fortify their actions.
On the other hand...
Islamic fundamentalists in places like Afghanistan were born, raised and educated (with only brand of education available - fundamentalist, religious and quite literal) in a world without anything even resembling a state law.
Also, they were raised in the state of perpetual war with foreign invaders - with or without their own gods.
It's just GOD and god's laws that have kept them safe (for certain values of safe) so far.
Now... take any "holy book" and you'll find more than enough examples of "laws and regulations" which, taken literally, are not only barbaric but down right insane by today's standards.
And NONE of that is open to interpretation. At least not to masses.
Now try to put yourself in that state of mind here - breaking god's laws is the equivalent of opening the inter-dimensional rift to the dimension of evil, a gateway to hell, waking Cthulhu...
There are no gradations for them. It is a very simple black and white world. Disrespect god or his laws == waking Cthulhu.
And it's not the Cthulhu they fear - it's The God who will punish EVERYONE for the sins of the few.
In their mind, they are protecting EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING from being plunged into depths of hell by punishing those sinners who dared to raise against god.
Innocent? They don't see those girls as innocent.
They see them as tainted at best and as pure evil Cthulhu worshipers at worst.
And remember, they are working for the god who burned Sodom and Gomorrah, asked Abraham to slit the throat of his own son... all of that Old Testament stuff is literal instructions to them.
Direct from god. The God. Maker of the Universe and all that stuff.
Angry, pissed off, uncompromising god of the Old Testament.
The kind of god who would reveal himself to people living in the scorching heat and desolation of a desert.
On top of all that (soldiers of god vs. legions of evil) stuff, it is much easier to press a button, toss a grenade at the crowd, or pour poison into a cistern - than to kill a very specific human being.
Burden gets diluted in the numbers.
Just as bomber pilots about the guilt they feel for indiscriminate bombing or accidental civilian "collateral damage".
Then ask front line soldiers.
Then ask generals and politicians who gave out those orders.
If anything, one might argue that the religious fanatics in Afghanistan are LESS responsible for their acts.
After all, they live in a delusion of being
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The Catholic Church while a Unified church, operate rather differently cross different cultures. Even with them following the same rules, the importance of the rules they follow are prioritized differently.
Unless of course the rule in question is, 'Thou shalt protect thine fiddlers of kiddies', follow this rule well and maybe someday you too can be pope.
Umm, were you describing fundamentalist muslims or fundamentalist christians there?
The Quran itself is sexist and is the underlying basis for much anti-women discrimination. See these examples.
It's worse than that. Religion is the only communicable mental illness I know of.
Health care as practiced in the US today is one of the lease efficient ways to run it.
A lot of the founding principles of the United States put freedom before efficiency.
And zero sympathy for people with ovarian cysts?
Birth control prevents ovarian cysts? Why don't they put that into the ads for Trojans? Why isn't ParaGard advertising that?
You responded to a statement about insurance paying for birth control with a question about ovarian cysts. Two different things. Very different things. One can object to coverage for birth control and still expect coverage for true medical issues.
Birth control pills also help control painful menstrual cycles and ovarian cysts. Yet they are not covered for these uses because in these cases: they also incidentally prevent pregnancy.
When they aren't being used for "birth control", then it is wrong to call them "birth control". There are too many other things that "birth control" includes to say that "birth control controls ovarian cysts". Specific hormone treatments do that. Specific birth control pills contain those hormones in a cheap and prepackaged form.
And yes, of course, when a drug is used to treat a disease or illness, there is a strong argument that it should be included in insurance coverage. I'd even say it SHOULD be included, but I don't know that the right answer is to force all insurance companies to cover it. After all, they already choose which conditions to cover and which medications they'll pay for to cover them. In other words, the insurance company I have will pay for some drugs to treat one condition, but not to treat another. Why would paying for hormones to treat one illness but not for a non-illness be different?
Pregnancy is not a disease. Stop treating it like one. If you want a condition covered under insurance, talk about the condition you want covered, not something else. Most people assume when you say you want "birth control" covered by insurance that you mean "birth control", not "ovarian cysts" or "irregular menstrual cycles" or any other medical condition. Call it what it is.
I am a misogynist macho sob and I still think this was a coward thing to do... nothing real men do
I'm sure heaven is not open to assholes who are afraid of women
Great fucking post man-kudo's!
While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not.
How about a Christian who shot and killed 77 people, mostly children, at a summer school, in what he calls a Knights Templar operation carried out to defend Christians, and who has today in court said that the deliberate killing of children was justified because they were not 'non-political children' ?
Correlation is not causation. :)
Again, plenty of conservatives among academics.
Heck, you want to see a scary statistic - look up incidence of conservatism among elderly.
You can draw all kind of crazy conclusions from that. Like that conservative == wise.
Also, check your data.
It may very well be that the percentage of the elderly (those more likely to have worked and retired with only a high-school diploma or a trade) is skewing your statistics.
Cause, according to the link above, they are toe-to-toe with the liberals among those with graduate degrees.
Four-in-ten Americans with graduate degrees say they are politically moderate, while about three-in-ten say they are either liberal or conservative (29% each).
Among those with no more than a high school education, a third says they are moderate, 41% describe themselves as conservative and fewer than one-in-five call themselves liberal (18%).
Granted, this is just USA. Global statistics probably vary a bit.
I'm just saying that it is not prudent to write away the "other side" as uneducated or stupid.
Or too green, frivolous, weak, ginger, whatever...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
No, she was demanding that a private religious university force male students pay for half of the female students' birth control, 99% of the time for sex, 1% of the time for hormone therapy.
Since you bring up the phrase "ONLY liberals" I'll say that it's generally liberals who want to extend the health care system, to improve the net worth you speak of. Last I saw it was conservatives screeching out against any sort of socialized health care, you know, the "everyone will be treated. None are turned away" kind. In fact my "Go away and die" suggested "medical plan" was a liberal's paraphrasing of a conservative's plan. I just stated it up-front, for the provocation.
You also completely missed my point, and perhaps thought I was in favor of the "Modest Proposal." I'm not, and I only bring it up as a strawman, in order to see who salutes.
Personally, I'm in favor of universal preventive care, and that especially includes prenatal care and well-baby checks. No questions, just do it. I also have a very strong suspician the cost for this woudn't be bad - emergency neonatal care is very expensive, and proper preventive care is the best way avoid it.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You miss my point. We currently have neither freedom nor efficiency. Plus freedom had different meanings for different people.
My point was simply this: If we're not going to turn away emergency care - if we're going to make some level of our medical system universally accessable, the we really ought to be doing it in the most cost-efficient way that is reasonably possible. Personally I believe in availability of "universal preventive care" as the best route to that end.
If we're not going to manage health care efficiently, then perhaps we need to take a hard look at ourselves in the mirror, realize what we're really saying, and do the practical alternative - "go away and die" and prepare to handle the consequences.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Yes, Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and he said to give to God the things that are God's. There is actually a very convincing argument that Jesus was not saying anything about whether or not we should pay taxes (that is too complicated for this setting). However, that is not important since Paul clearly says that we should pay our taxes.
Going on, paying taxes does not in and of itself help the poor. I would argue that most government programs that are supposedly intended to help the poor actually do more harm to the poor than actual help. Most of those programs actually transfer more wealth to government workers and wealthy supporters of politicians than they do to the poor (or even in actual assistance to the poor in non-monetary ways).
Jesus did not tell the rich man to sell all that he has and give the money to the government. He told the rich man to sell all that he has and give the money to the poor. If he had given the money to the government very little would have gotten to the poor. While more would get to the poor today, it still isn't all that much.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Many Christian groups treat women as second class citizens because they are to remain silent in church, and obey their husbands.
Almost every Christian group (and by an overwhelming margin) that teach that women are to remain silent in church and obey their husbands base that on Ephesians 5:22-24. Those groups, also, emphasize Ephesians 5:25-30 which says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the Church? As is made clear in the context of this passage, He did so by dying for the Church.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Republicans... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals
"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."
"I'm not taking a stand on what the right answer is to any of these comparisons. The lesson here is, don't just believe the headline for any study. Learn to ask the right questions. "link
I don't think Jesus would care one way or another about the NRA.
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
The people running Georgetown are presumably on the same health plan as the students. (And the analogue of Viagra is estrogen cream for vaginal dryness, which almost certainly is covered, along with all sorts of gynecological goodies that women frequently avail themselves of)
as muslims. you can read any history book of the soviet afghan war and figure this out.
Sounds like a "liberal conservative. As that article points out, in the U.S. the term is considered an oxymoron (perhaps "economic conservative and social moderate" Americans are more likely to self-identify as Libertarian or Democrat).
Why? Its a fucking health service. Why should birth control be special from antibiotics when it comes to healthcare.
A health service?!
I have major medical insurance only, which covers me if I turn into Terry Shiavo (at best). I also have asthma. If I don't have inhalers, I can stop breathing and die. Now, my doctor stopped writing me prescriptions for my rescue inhalers because "I use them too much and that's not good for me to overuse them." Instead, he wants me to to use discus inhalers that cost hundreds of dollars per month. I can't afford to pay that, so I have to get my rescue inhalers from India without prescription.
So I can't afford my doctor-prescribed discus inhalers, but I should pay for people who can't keep their fucking legs closed?
Health service my ass.
Who Gives and Who Doesn't. [go.com]. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
I don't accuse it of any deliberate bias, but I certainly do question the methodology and what's included in "charitable".
I'll tell you what. I will accept at face value your link's figure that Conservatives are 18% more likely to donate blood. However I'm not prepared to accept the figure that Conservatives are supposedly "30% more charitable" until I see some indication that that 30% actually is charity.
Donating money to build yourself a neighborhood church is certainly tax deductible, but in my opinion that is no more "charitable giving" than building yourself a neighborhood golf club. And donating money to maintain your church and pay salaries for ministers and whatnot is no more "charity" than money given to maintain and pay salaries for your golf club.
I would also say that 8,000 Bibles for Hurricane Katrina evacuees doesn't much qualify as charity.
And another 100,000 Bibles for for Hurricane Katrina evacuees doesn't much qualify as charity.
And another nearly one million Bibles for for Hurricane Katrina evacuees doesn't much qualify as charity.
And "food aid programs for starving children" need to be discounted according to whatever percentage of their expenses and efforts are actually diverted to Bibles and proselytizing efforts.
Furthermore, while certain Faith Based Charities (I'm looking at you, Salvation Army) primarily do real charity work, I am SORELY TEMPTED TO PUT EACH DOLLAR IN THE -1 COLUMN when their website has (or had) a Bible quote that homosexuals should be put to death and they lobby one or more governments for homosexuality to be CRIMINAL, and when instead of delivering toy-donations to children they instead DESTROY the donated toys if they are Harry Potter themed or Twilight themed or any other "non-christian" toys they get. They don't even hand those toys over to some other charity to use, they just destroy toys that people tried to donate to poor/sick children. The homosexual-thing is evil but comprehensible, but seriously WTF sort of twisted fuck goes around accepting toy donations for sick children and destroying those toy donations???
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
DO you think it logical to force another sentient being to bear a child it does not want?
No one is suggesting that rape be legalized. Women get away with forcing men into being fathers and bearing that financial responsibility, so it actually wouldn't be inconsistent, however. Limbaugh's proposal to require women's participation in pornographic performances on the whole seems a little too moderate.
reactive care provides metrics that are easy to measure short-term, and preventative care can be a never-ending money pit where results are only able to be calculated after years of funding.
Congratulations, you've just described the kind of thinking that is one of the major reasons why American health care system (which is primarily reactive) is so expensive per capita.
What conservatives want is for you to be responsible for yourself.
But that fails in practice. No matter how much you want someone to be responsible, some will not be. So, what's the plan for that? Let the children starve? Hold rallies blaming the economy on the Democrats and stating that if the Democrats lowered taxes, the charities would get enough donations that there would be no starving children?
too few people are willing to take responsibility for their own actions anymore.
I vote for people who will take care of those who need it. That's responsibility for my actions. I don't punish children for their parents making a mistake. Why do you? What's your fix (other than asking real nicely)?
Learn to love Alaska
You double-tap.
That is inherent in the absolutist nature of superstition, which does not ask how things work (in the manner of science) but poses made-up mumbo-jumbo and Imaginary Friends as "truth".
All religion is bad because it inherently opposes the pursuit of truth.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I've had a knee brace prescribed as a preventative measure. My insurance paid for that preventative measure without any trouble. My mother takes a number of pills for issues as a preventative measure (often after something started, to prevent worsening or an attack of some kind). Insurance routinely pays for preventative measures. So why not this one? Car insurance will cover windshields with zero deductible for chip repair (as replacements cost more than a repair), but to use that analogy for birth control, and I'm a raving liberal trying to push my (lack of) values onto the poor innocent Christians.
It's never been about paying for it, or anything like that. The issue is always that it's available. And the easiest complaint at this point is about the cost, but that's not what they are actually complaining about.
Learn to love Alaska
The Fruit of Knowledge is the enemy of Superstition.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Because insurance is a spreading of cost and risk, some of your premiums will be used for treatment of others. That includes contraception, if so covered. But Religion does advocate reaching into someone's pocket and taking it for others. That's what a tithe is, it's just not backed by law. Jesus didn't talk about the tithe, but instead money and charity.
Learn to love Alaska
If you do something with good intentions and it doesn't work, isn't it time to re-evaluate what you are doing?
Ask Reagan and his voodoo economics. Oh wait, that trickle down that never trickled down is *still* being advocated by conservatives, despite being proven false. The irony is that they then complain that "if it doesn't work, isn't it time to re-evaluate" for other things.
Learn to love Alaska
You take my money by force (ie. thieft)
Since it's theft, how do I stop them from stealing from me to pay for illegal wars started by Republicans?
Learn to love Alaska
You mean like the so-called Christians in the U.S. who've murdered their fellow citizens who don't "believe" properly, or whose politics are not "godly" enough? Pot - kettle - black - etc. Same bullshit, different label. Yawn...
It's important because bloodlines are important. Why bloodlines are is irrelevant, but being able to accurately judge lineage was deemed important, so adultery is a bad thing (tm).
Learn to love Alaska
our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty)
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail? What about the anthropomorphic mushroom that lives at the bottom of Lake Titicaca and controls mankind's thoughts?
Oh wait, you don't have any beliefs about those?
As a matter of fact I do - I have very specific beliefs on the subject.
Kind of like me and God(s).
No, not really, only in the sense that they are both belief. My belief in the non-existence of a giant mushroom at the bottom of Lake Titticaca is based on two things:
- the premise that if such a mushroom existed then it ought to be observable.
- the fact that you don't believe in it either, in fact you are using it as an example of something that does not exist
Thus my belief is linked to a philosophical underpinnning that assumes a reasonably deterministic universe and thus affirms the validity of observation
Your belief is based on the assertion that something defined as unobservable does not exist because it hasn't been observed by you personally. Your belief is irrational. That does not mean it is not valid to hold that belief. You just need to stop claiming to have a rational basis for it.
As a kid, it never even *occurred* to me that a God(s) could/should exist. The entire idea is so far removed from reality that it never even entered my head.
When I was a child, it never occurred occurred to me that Afghanistan existed. The idea of a place like Afghanistan was so far removed from my reality that it never entered my head. But as it happens my ignorance or lack of knowledge on the subject did not, in any way, change the probability that Afghanistan existed.
It wasn't until I was in early grade school that I was like "You believe WHAT?" when talking to other kids. I thought they were from the Moon, and I still do. Insanity.
I think the same about many things that Atheists believe.
Let's support India and China against Pakibanistan. The real problem isn't worthless peasants, it's their nutcase neighbours.
The cure would be a decisive Indian first strike.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The government opens a factory producing widgets. They employ 1000 workers. That improves the economy. The owner of the factory is irrelevant to its economic benefits.
Learn to love Alaska
So it was a version of a bomb scare? Someone didn't want to take her test, so out the poison comes. Look for those who had tests scheduled that day who didn't have strong symptoms, but did report some that aren't verifiable by tests (i.e., just the headache).
Learn to love Alaska
And you don't think that event horizon won't grow larger due to conflict?
Life is not for the lazy.
Birth control prevents ovarian cysts? Why don't they put that into the ads for Trojans? Why isn't ParaGard advertising that?
Pretty sure i said "birth control pills"... yup. I did say that. But don't let that distract you from your fun little rant about condom ads.
When they aren't being used for "birth control", then it is wrong to call them "birth control".
A rose by any other name...
There are too many other things that "birth control" includes to say that "birth control controls ovarian cysts".
Great argument, if anyone had actually said that. But nobody did.
If you want a condition covered under insurance, talk about the condition you want covered, not something else
Everyone discussing the issue conflates them. I would love to have a rational discussion calling things what they are.
But seeing as you've conflated my statement specifically about "birth control PILLS" with "birth control" and then wandered off to rant about condoms... I hardly think you are starting us off on the right foot here.
Ask Reagan and his voodoo economics. Oh wait, that trickle down that never trickled down is *still* being advocated by conservatives, despite being proven false. The irony is that they then complain that "if it doesn't work, isn't it time to re-evaluate" for other things.
Compare Reagan's voodoo economics to FDR's New Deal and Obama's 3 year trillion dollar deficits Keynesian stimuluses.
Which of those economic periods is typified by high unemployment and low economic growth?
Keynesian economics is far more disproven than "voodoo economics", yet that's the supposed solution to our current economic ills. We've tried it for 3 years. It's not working.
Poisoning little girls. Yes Mujahideen are indeed brave souls though terrified of women getting taught anything. Deeply deeply pathetic creatures.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You, sir, are an idiot. You conflate Buddhist philosophy with old Japanese philosophy. Find me one piece of Buddhist philosophy that supports any of the things you mentioned.
It's almost like you believe that religious people obey only what is written in their religious texts, rather than make human judgements of their own. Your ignorance disgusts me.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Republican's don't want to outlaw birth control. They just don't think the government should pay for it."
Well you're half right anyway. Some or most Republicans (I won't say all but might be) are or are trying to tap the political base of Christians in the US who are often openly against birth control (behind closed doors being another situation altogether of course) as it is against god's command to be fruitful and multiply and in some cases is perceived as being equal to abortion.
Not paying for birth control is just one step in the direction that they want to go which is anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-separation of church and state.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
That's just wrong. Republicans... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals; they also donate more blood and time. Paying taxes and sinking this country into a fiscal debt crisis is not "charity." If you are not making the decision, it's not "charity" and it's not "magnanimous" on your part. If you believe in Jesus then you must believe did NOT support not giving people the choice... you have to be judged on your OWN actions, not what you were forced to do. (for the record, I'm not religious, and I use this very same argument against religious people who want to control my life, too)
Who Gives and Who Doesn't.. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
The article makes very interesting associations without any proof of causation. Just because the people in one area that happens to be primarily republican purportedly gave more than the people in another area which is primarily liberal does not at all indicate whether the people giving are republican or liberal, or rich or poor. Already that they were collecting at Macy's and Wal-Mart breaks the comparison as Macy's is a bit more expensive than Wal-Mart. It's a bullshit report. The entire thought of the rich being more generous is idiotic to start with so I didn't bother reading the second part of the article as it only confirms this and has no bearing on the conservative vs. liberal point you're making. It would have been more interesting to know if the rich who do not give are conservative or liberal but of course that would have gone against the slant of the article against 'liberals' so it wasn't included.
They use religion to back up their opinions where it is supported, and any other useful tidbit when it doesn't. Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA?
I don't think Jesus would care one way or another about the NRA.
I want to think you're joking but I suppose that you aren't. How could Jesus, proponent of peace, father of the meek, possibly not care about the propagation of weapons that are only meant to kill? What an amazing thing to say.
Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?
You're right about one thing, it's not based on religion that they do this... it's based on what's written in the constitution; based on the failure of our educational system despite the wanton amounts of money we throw at it (BTW, Bush increased educational spending more than anyone else in the previous four decades... what did he get for it? The disdain of the left, of course.).
It's not based on what's written in the constitution. It's based on pockets being filled - contractors and politicians both.
Bush got disdain because he appeared to be a complete idiot not only during times of crisis but more or less every time he opened his mouth. If he increased educational spending it was no doubt on the request of his wife but whatever. America's problems with education are not particularly financial. More money won't change that conservatives / republicans are trying to teach creationism, for example.
As far as military spending - you're right. I'm not a republican, I think they've been terrible leaders since Bush's election... but I also think democrats seem to have been inspired to one-up the terribleness.
Think what you want - I won't change your mind, I realize that the people asking the most for open mindedness are typically the most closed minded of all. But between the way liberals want to destroy this country and the way the republicans want to destroy this country, the republicans are much less "bad," even if they're not good.
I don't think that either liberals or republicans particularly want to destroy the country, but I di
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Keynesian economics is far more disproven than "voodoo economics", yet that's the supposed solution to our current economic ills. We've tried it for 3 years. It's not working.
I don't believe you, and the Republicans have been pushing voodoo since 1980. Even the person who pejoratively named it practiced it in that time. The only break from it was under Clinton, and he managed a balanced budget (for some definitions of balanced). That's a lot more than Keynesian for 3 years. Keynesian isn't "disproven" it's been proven to not work when poorly implemented.
Learn to love Alaska
I hate the idea of a person setting another living person on fire, regardless of the reason, or lack thereof.
I would go so far as to say that if you don't agree, you don't belong in civilised society.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
If you didn't understand my post, you don't belong in civilised society. Please read it again.
"It's not a "health" choice, it's a lifestyle choice."
Your ignorance is deafening. Sorry, but the pill is not just a "life-style" choice. Please educate yourself.
My wife has poly-cystic ovaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycystic_ovary_syndrome), a pre-cancerous condition. One of the fun things about PCOS is you don't menstruate. So my wife will literally go months without a menstrual cycle but when she does, oh boy. She is constantly cramping, imagine someone grabbing your insides and constantly squeezing. Then when a menstrual cycle starts it does so with even more incredible cramping that she can hardly get out of bed in the morning or even get through the day. Pain meds are the order of the day. Next up comes an extremely heavy and clotty flow that will continue for about 4 weeks that makes her tired and light headed most of the day. If she isn't on birth control she gets to look forward to that 2-3 times a year for a month at a time. In our lives there is no such thing as "lifestyle" choice just pain or no pain.
If you didn't understand my post, you don't belong in civilised society. Please read it again.
Ok, i'll repost it for clarity
Why would you hate someone for doing something that doesn't affect you, for reasons you have no idea of?
Well, the "something that doesn't affect me" in this instance is setting another living person on fire. The idea is abhorrent.
:)
Furthermore, and I probably could have been more clear about this, "you" is not you daem0n1x. "You" in my original reply was the reader. If the reader thinks that setting another living person on fire for any reason whatsoever is an acceptable course of action, it is my opinion that they do not belong in civilised society. I am well aware that calling the society this situation occurred "civilised" would be a point of contention; I'm merely expressing my own view on the matter.
Did I misunderstand your post? If so, I'll be sure to make my way over to you with an accelerant. In for a penny, eh?
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Thanks for the great post exemplifying how conservativism is not reality based. I made a factual claim, based on numerous empirical observations. You came back, not with more data that conflicts with my explanation, not with an alternative explanation of the data, not even with a request for a citation, but with a flat denial. This is how conservatives deal with facts they don't like.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
FWIW, that bill concerns the day-after ABORTION bill, not the day before CONTRACEPTION pill. Big difference, at least in the minds of conservatives. It is your choice and your responsibility to avoid pregnancy by taking/using contraceptives; it is not your choice to kill the fetus after conception because you didn't choose to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
No. This is quite different. In the Newton case, he discovered a set of rules and had a deity that he thought occasionally intervened. That's different than a deity that runs the entire universe by fiat with no rules at all. The rest of what you have to say is simply irrelevant to question at hand, especially given that other Islamic philosophers didn't have this viewpoint, so there's no issue of seeing similarities. This isn't an issue of similarities between Islam and more Western religions, it is an issue about a specific philosophical viewpoint. Your statements about invasion and bombing really have nothing to do with the question at hand of why the Muslim world went from being the center of science and thought to being very much not so. That's not the matter under discussion under this subthread, and whether Al-Ghazali was responsible for this decline doesn't address such issues at all.
ok if you have points to mod me informative, ill give you the links, as I see googling it fo yourself might be too tough...
I hate cheaters, as I was cheated on...my own experience, so why do you say something I know nothing of....or does not affect me?
how do you think I got to this point if it did not affect me, or someone i cared about?
Did I misunderstand your post?
Yes, you did. Hesaigo999ca said he hates people who cheat on their spouses. I asked why. I included a quote from his text to make very clear what I was talking about.
Setting someone on fire is a horrible act. And you can be sure I hate the guy who did it.
Not every "creed" or political system is a religion. There are plenty of liberal Christians for instance.
Jesus was fairly liberal for His time.
You have a good reason to hate the one who cheated on you... or not. But hate is a pretty strong word to apply to every cheater, isn't it?
Who Gives and Who Doesn't.. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
The article you linked concludes that "religious people donate more to charity" by checking the donation levels to a Salvation Army bucket in San Francisco and Sioux Falls.
The Salvation Army is a conservative religious organization; check out their own position statements on abortion or homosexuality, for example. http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/0/B6F3F4DF3150F5B585257434004C177D?Opendocument
And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.
This study might as well have set up a donation table to the Republican party, and concluded that "Republicans donate more than Democrats." Set up a Planned Parenthood donation table in both San Francisco and Sioux Falls, measure the respective donations, and then get back to us on which group *gives more to charity.* Go ahead, we'll wait.
"Intent" matters less than you seem to think (it might if something is ambigious but then we get rants about judges ligislating from the bench and this one isn't ambigious). What is in "the minds of conservatives" is irrelevant too. What matters is what the laws they pass say.
It says that "personhood" starts at conception. The stock standard birth control pill, kills conceived eggs by interfering with implantation, depriving that tiny person of oxygen and nutrients and so murdering them - if you accept the premise (and when it comes to laws you don't get a choice).
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1#.T43CilQo0Tw
Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
Remove churches from the population of charities and watch that figure PLUMMET.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Citation needed.
You are sure, but I'd like a body count comparison please for the last.. say.. 2 decades. Count of number of people killed in the name of Allah vs number of people killed in the name of Christ. Also, a compare against the Jewish would be interesting. Just for the sake of comparison to see where our civilisation is heading.
Here is an interesting quote
for a start from here.
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail?
See, that's such a bad argument. Why do you think it's difficult say "I believe that doesn't eist" and not start frothing at the mouth about "That can't exist! I have a complete lack of belief about it, not just a belief that it doesn't exist!!! Don't you dare call that a belief!"
Yes, Yes, The Sex Abuse scandal... Bla Bla Bla, Joke Joke Jokes, Just to make you feel better about your life to know that even "Religious People" don't live up to their own rules...
The Crime the Church did was cover it up, and just transferred abusers to an other location, which is wrong. However I am willing to be the number of priests who did performed sex abuse is the same as any other sector of the population.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I agree with the idea of total war, but nation building can only be done in very limited circumstances.
Sure it worked in Germany. Germany's culture is almost completely compatible with our own.
Japan had a very different culture, but part of their culture was a willingness to adapt. Look at baseball in Japan. Look how popular American Western stuff became -- cowboys, cattle ranching, etc. I always am like "wtf??"
There is not a single Muslim country that has either of those attributes as far as I can see. If you were to try to nation-build Saudi Arabia it would be a miserable failure, no matter how much total war you threw at them first. For countries with such radically different, non-adaptable cultures, colonization is the only way to impose change, and I don't think anybody really wants to do that. So at that point the best strategy is total war to reduce their offensive capabilities, then gtfo.
not start frothing at the mouth about "I have a complete lack of belief about it, not just a belief that it doesn't exist!!!"
Frothing? I'm simply saying I no more "actively" disbelieve a God exists than actively disbelieve any other of the infinite variety of other nonexistent things that a human mind could conceive of.
I'm not the atheist; the other guys are the theists. Or do you actively define yourself as an aunicornist? Or an asentientmushroomist?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
I don't believe you, and the Republicans have been pushing voodoo since 1980. Even the person who pejoratively named it practiced it in that time. The only break from it was under Clinton, and he managed a balanced budget (for some definitions of balanced). That's a lot more than Keynesian for 3 years. Keynesian isn't "disproven" it's been proven to not work when poorly implemented..
The entirety of the New Deal is Keynesian economics. You'll notice that for FDR's 4 terms and his economic policy, we never did quite get out of the Great Depression. That's almost 16 years of an economic policy that didn't work.
Would you care to explain how the New Deal was "poorly implemented"? Or would you like to point to a good implementation of Keynesian economics?
Keynesian ultimately boils down to a form of central planning, compared to the de-centralized planning a free market would have. And it's not hard to see why a centralized decision making process fails to account for all the millions of variables relevant to the economy, resulting in a "poor implementation".
The reality is that it has nothing to do with "poor implementation". Failure is a system defect of Keynesian economics. Gov't beauracrats are not inerrant prophets who can predict the rise and fall of economic growth and compensate for it with monetary policy. Nor are politicians disciplined enough to avoid buying votes with irresponsible gov't spending.
4 trillion dollars in defecit spending, and we're just not "doing it right". Maybe we should not do it and save 4 trillion dollars - all that requires is us to do nothing.
What kind of body count are you doing? Natural deaths or something? Sure there are more Christians in the world than Muslims, so there's a higher body count.. but that's nonsensical.
If you're talking about war on terror related deaths, you're flat out wrong. Just one example: http://www.pakistanbodycount.org/
As practiced:
Western culture = bad
All other cultures = good
Always "we can learn something from them" and never "they can learn something from us." When it comes to the barbaric practices of other cultures, it's something we should respect, not try to eradicate through cultural imperialism.
Sorry, that's a load of crap.
However, if a doctor prescribes a hormonal birth control pill to remedy an ailment, that's an entirely different story, and I think if you actually asked all those republicans opposed to mandating birth control coverage about it, you'd get the same answer. I'm not religious about it, I'm not even a republican, and I don't believe my premiums should cover your birth control... but if you're not using it as birth control, if you're using it for some other medical condition, I have no problem with it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
What conservatives want is for you to be responsible for yourself.
But that fails in practice. No matter how much you want someone to be responsible, some will not be. So, what's the plan for that? Let the children starve?
It's become a catch-22, but ask yourself this - do you want it to get better or worse? What happens when you keep taking responsibility away from people? They tend to continue on a trend of being less and less responsible. What happens in the long run when you stop taking responsibility for others? They tend to become more and more responsible.
I know it sounds really harsh; I don't want anyone to starve - but I only want to help those I know TRULY cannot help themselves by ANY OTHER MEANS.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
So I see..
Actually, you don't. In fact, you entirely missed the point I clearly spelled out; in fact, I'll repeat the line you completely ignored: "I would argue if it's for health reasons (like the hormonal birth control used to treat other symptoms) you'd have a point."
AIDS may be the result of a lifestyle choice (but not necessarily); it's a medical condition that, left untreated will cause more harm to the person. Same thing with cancer, heart failure ("hart?" really?). Birth control for the purposes of birth control is a lifestyle choice. I shouldn't have to pay higher premiums to cover your lifestyle choices. If you can't understand that, you're helpless... but you keep on pretending wanting birth control is akin to vaccines for a disease or treatments for cancer... if you really think that, I'm not going to change your mind.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I think arguing with some of you is useless... if you think that premiums don't rise to pay for additional coverages, you're just wrong. Nothing I can say will convince you, I think. Health insurance companies certainly DO charge more to cover more.
You're right - the issue is not helping republicans with women. It's a shame... women have now become an entitlement group that democrats use fear-mongering on to maintain a majority.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I would argue if it's for health reasons (like the hormonal birth control used to treat other symptoms) you'd have a point. Otherwise... no.
Wow, until the end there we were re-creating the whole Sandra Fluke discussion. She brings up valid medical uses aside from birth control, Rush yells about sex. See, what you did there was fall down on the last point. The whole point of yelling about sex is to distract away from the "medical value" discussion. Because if you start talking about medicine, you lose. So please continue yelling about sex.
Wow. What? I say if it's for health issues instead of lifestyle choices it should be covered and you babble incoherently about it.
I've already discussed this... I should not have to pay higher premiums to cover your lifestyle choices.
Moreover, it's not simply a matter of religious issues or not, it's a free market one. Insurance companies offer certain protections - you choose to buy it or not. You choose a "limousine" plan to cover all these extra things, and Obama wants you to pay an extra tax on it.... he wants you to pay an extra tax for choosing the best plans in the free market.
I'm not religious, I have no problem with people using birth control and having wantonly free sex (in fact, I encourage it), but I shouldn't have to pay for it. You have a covered medical condition in your policy... and my premiums are helping to pay for it, I have no problem.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
For fucks sake, doesn't anybody read the last line before replying? If it's to treat a MEDICAL condition it's a completely different issue than to support a LIFESTYLE choice.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Again, the extortion argument: pay for my lifestyle choices now, or pay more later.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"that most women on birth control aren't taking it for all the DIRTY DISGUSTING SEX they want to have, but for major health issues that impede their lives?"
They say that about 65% of women are on birth control. You're saying that most of them have "major health issues that impede their lives" that can be mitigated by birth control pills. How many is 'most'? 80% of them? 70%? Are you saying that ~50% of all women have "major health issues"? You can't be serious.
Interesting comparison, but I was stating in the 90s that the IRA were doing a pretty poor job of attacking British interests.
With the resources they had, the IRA could easily have achieved far higher economic harm to the UK, with or without attendant body counts, than they actually even tried.
So the IRA weren't trying to kill people 'in the name of Christ', they were pursuing a limited war to publicise and garner support for their struggle for nationalism. Had they gone for an all-out religious attack they'd have adopted different tactics and achieved a far higher body count.
Also, a compare against the Jewish would be interesting. Just for the sake of comparison to see where our civilisation is heading.
Being honest, I fully expect that Israel has done its fair share of killing. Whether that's caused by religion is a more complicated question.
Sure because educational standards rose so much between 1997 and the current Government taking power.
Sorry, that doesn't pass the laugh test.
They seem to think it is still that century, they will never get anywhere that way. They will remain savages.
Since religious texts have about as many interpretations as there are adherents of the religion. But in the end, a religion is defined by what a large number of its adherents do, and what the adherents overall, and their governments, are willing to accept and not punish.
Christian extremist wackos to this extent are few and far between, almost universally condemned by those of their religion, and prosecuted by their governments. The few abortion clinic bombers and doctor killers were promptly brought to justice in this majority-Christian country.
Muslim extremist wackos are sometimes the ones running the governments. While many Muslims may say "this isn't Islam" they don't do much about it. CAIR preaches peaceful Islam on the front, while providing support for the "extremists" on the back. I know there are non-extremist Muslims, and are probably the majority. But I believe most of those either have no idea what's going on (say a rural mom in Malaysia), or tacitly support it in the same way most American Christians did nothing while the Westboro Baptists bashed gays (they only got upset when Westboro started protesting soldier funerals). This isn't just the right-wing Christians either, since we have pictures of Al Gore chumming it up with Fred Phelps himself.
Some have put the percentage of these murderous "extremists" at maybe five percent of Muslims or less. That's still tens of millions of people out there, many supported by the laws of their country or province, who are willing to kill and maim because their sense of religion was offended.
A simple test was brought up in a previous story: piss on a Bible publicly in the US, declare your name, tape it, and post it to the Internet. What will happen? There will be some grumbles, the 700 Club won't be happy, but that's about it.
Now do the same thing, in the US, with a Quran. There will be deadly riots around the world, there will be people out to kill you. The "peaceful" Muslims in the US will at a minimum be calling for your prosecution. However, your government founded on Western culture will not prosecute you, and will prosecute your killer (unless we keep sliding in this liberal PC direction and respect the Religion Of Peace). When you are killed, few Muslims will shed a tear.
Now do it with a Quran in a Muslim-ruled country. If you somehow manage to be taken into police custody before you are murdered on the spot, expect a lengthy jail sentence or execution.
This tells me what I need to know about whether Islam is a peaceful religion overall, and whether the "extremists" are truly the outliers.
Or check out the liberals who have been running/destroying the US education system for the past several decades. Where it used to be hard subjects taught, and failure punished, now it's touchy-feely subjects, various liberal-agenda study programs, teaching tolerance towards all groups (except conservatives, we don't like them), and nobody fails. Seriously, under this liberal scheme, many kids are no longer given failing grades since it may hurt their sense of self-esteem.
Our teacher unions have become very powerful in many places, and they admittedly put the interests of the teachers before the interests of the kids (well, they are a union, the teachers are their members, not the kids, so you can't really blame them). They negotiate extremely good packages for the teachers, better than most people in the country get. They negotiate health insurance packages that are extremely lucrative for the insurance company -- the company they have a financial stake in. They even lobby against incentive pay to reward better teachers, and make it very difficult to fire underperforming and even abusive teachers.
In the recent troubles in Wisconsin, one grade-school teacher protesting about how poorly teachers are compensated was making over $80,000 a year. Everybody wants a piece of the billions poured into education, and everybody has a rich lobby to make it happen. Except for the kids. Screw them.
Total education funding has more than doubled since 1990, and has risen much higher than that by various other metrics. So that can't be the problem.
Time to look back at your administrators, policy makers, teachers and unions.
The magical thinking (I assume you refer to the Christian creation myth taught as science) has only been attempted in a few states, so you can't place the blame there.
I seem to remember Buddhist monks rioting in Seoul.
But to be fair it was about who gets the power and money to run the temples, not over a religious doctrinal issue.
And even then for some the article recognizes that the violence being driven by the religion itself is questionable.
And they even include Kony, who practices something that pulls elements from many religions into his own unique theology. I know Christians like to use "No True Scotsman" whenever a Christian does something wrong, but this guy's beliefs are so far outside any known Christian sect that it's really wrong to call him Christian.
Anything to flesh out an article that would otherwise be extremely short.
Its text is absolutely authentic and in our own language. The context has a well-documented written history, and the identities, views, intentions and debates of the parties involved in its creation are recorded in writing.
And yet, only 223 years later, the interpretations of that document can vary in the extreme from the original text and clearly documented intent of the writers. For example,
So do you think a religion created 2,000 or 1,400 years ago with various texts, translations and oral histories even has a chance of having a coherent interpretation among the followers?
do you want it to get better or worse?
Since I'm not a Republican, I want it to get better.
What happens when you keep taking responsibility away from people? They tend to continue on a trend of being less and less responsible.
An interesting and unsupported theory unrelated to the topic at hand. You assume your conclusion, and assume it's relevant. I disagree with both (to some degree).
I know it sounds really harsh; I don't want anyone to starve - but I only want to help those I know TRULY cannot help themselves by ANY OTHER MEANS.
How is that identified?
Learn to love Alaska
The more dualistic any philosophical system is, the further it should be stayed away from. Dualism creates separation => for something to be RIGHT something else has to be WRONG the deeper the dualism, the deeper the RIGHT needs to destroy the WRONG! but what has become the WRONG! So disheartening to read about these types of acts. How would anyone know what white is without a black to compare it to? It is an impossibility! Therefor one should not try to dwell in black or white, because night turns into day day turns into night. The two are mutually dependent. One cannot exist without the other, so why try to put one above the other. Remain constant and aware in all circumstances, love without any exception, bias, exclusion, INCLUSION, attachment. .... ok, ok my little rant for the day is done
Both the house and the senate approved amendments adding the text, "Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful contraception." It's right there in your source, yet you didn't refer to it.
"Right, because the American culture is the One True Culture. "
As measured by attempts to immigrate TO the US FROM _failed_ cultures, yes.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Fred Phelps is a strong argument that parent post isn't a Troll.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Wow, what a jerk. Being a republican has nothing to do with it... I haven't voted republican in over 20 years.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Do you want it to get better or worse?
Learn to love Alaska
Doesn't require actual poisoning. Just a trigger (such as a couple of girls with mundane food poisoning.) The rest is mass hysteria.
Not long after 9/11 a local airport was shut down by a bio/chem poison gas scare. Bad smell (bad fart? backed up toilet?) triggered a rash of vague symptoms (headaches, nausea, dizziness, etc) and official panic. And there was the recent "uncontrollable tics" mass hysteria amongst teenage girls that I think Slashdot covered.
(The quickest test would have been to track the spread of symptoms, if you have a bunch of independent cases (water being the only link) you have genuine poisoning (or at least contamination). If you see the symptoms spread just behind the spread of rumours, you're probably seeing mass hysteria.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Frothing? I'm simply saying I no more "actively" disbelieve a God exists than actively disbelieve any other of the infinite variety of other nonexistent things that a human mind could conceive of.
It's an exaggeration if only considering your post, but to me it's just as much "from the Moon" to me to think that someone would have any problem at all with having your thoughts about a common social idea like God called a belief.
Or do you actively define yourself as an aunicornist? Or an asentientmushroomist?
No, but that's an interesting way of putting it. Do you feel like if someone applies a label to you, and you accept it, you are defining yourself as that label? I don't get that. Maybe you mean "defining" in a less encompassing way than what I'm thinking.
Anyway, no, but I don't reject the label when it's offered.
I'm not the atheist; the other guys are the theists.
Don't you think it's kind of sad that you are worse than the other guys? Especially in light of what you think about defining yourself, you are saying that you are the default state and they are other, not that you're both equal and have different beliefs about something. That's a weird way of thinking. It reminds me of all the primitive tribes whose language basically calls members of the tribe "person" and any foreigner "non-person".
Hence why I brought it up. I was referring to both sides.. killed by and killed for. An interesting comparison if someone could find the stats.
I agree with your IRA points. Very insightful.
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
In the long term I want it to get better = people taking back responsibility for themselves.
That doesn't mean we don't help others who need it, it means you should understand why people who pay taxes get upset when people on government assistance have iPhones and $100 sneakers. That doesn't mean we don't recognize that it's not always like that.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"from the Moon" to me to think that someone would have any problem at all with having your thoughts about a common social idea like God called a belief.
Well, if you agree with me that we all have an infinite number of beliefs about an infinite number of non-existent things, then I think that issue is settled.
Do you feel like if someone applies a label to you, and you accept it, you are defining yourself as that label?
Yes, yes I do. I don't walk around all day thinking about my disbelief in God (like I imagine true believers of God do in the opposite way); it's not at all a part of my identity.
It's kind of like that old atheist quote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". Except I replace "religion" with "belief" in that quote in this context.
Especially in light of what you think about defining yourself, you are saying that you are the default state and they are other, not that you're both equal and have different beliefs about something.
Well, I *do* think of myself as the default state. NOT because I think everyone else is somehow stupid or a "non-person"/barbarian, or because I'm smarter than everyone else, but for three specific reasons:
(a) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A "valid" belief in God would require some pretty damn extraordinary evidence to back up said belief (which hasn't been found after thousands of years of searching), therefore I don't think of it as a valid "default" state.
(b) There are thousands of different religions, all of which are mutually exclusive. So any active believer in a given religion is actively *disbelieving* a huge number of other religions. How can one claim that *any* of those beliefs be a valid default state if they claim that all the other (very very similar) beliefs are not a valid default state?
(c) Not every argument has two "equal" sides. For instance, I could claim that the world is actually only 3 weeks old, that all our memories are false, and that none of us existed more than 3 weeks ago. Now, I don't think of that as an equally valid argument compared to modern scientific understanding of the history of our planet (accretion disc, formation, heavy bombardment, etc etc).
Similarly, I don't think saying "there is an invisible, magic guy in the sky whose existence and powers fly in the face of everything we know about and observe in the known universe" and atheism are on equal logical footing.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
What, did some republican beat you as a child?
Yes thats exactly the guy who NDT was refering to, and mentioned by name. Of course, remember, you are getting my recollection of what he said, which is imperfect and since the original was an hour long video...well.... lets just say looking it up wasn't going to happen for a quick comment during the work day ;)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Do you realise that the talk I refered to, in fact, used Newton as one of his examples of religion signaling the end of progress.
In fact he had several examples of the places where several scientists made great breakthroughs, got to the limits of their understanding, then invoked a god hypothesis and that was the end of their meaningful contribution to science, until someone else came along and picked up the problem again.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Well, if you agree with me that we all have an infinite number of beliefs about an infinite number of non-existent things, then I think that issue is settled.
Probably not an important distinction for the sake of this discussion, but I'd say you don't have a belief about something until you've considered it. As soon as you asked me about your unicorn I formed a belief about it, but not before then.
Yes, yes I do. I don't walk around all day thinking about my disbelief in God (like I imagine true believers of God do in the opposite way); it's not at all a part of my identity.
Then you should have said no, no you don't. If it's not part of your identity, why do you feel identified by that label? I'm technically a pisces, for instance, though I don't care about astrology or anything like that. I'm not at all offended if someone calls me a pisces. I certainly wouldn't say "No I'm not, it's YOU who have a sign."
Well, I *do* think of myself as the default state. NOT because I think everyone else is somehow stupid or a "non-person"/barbarian, or because I'm smarter than everyone else, but for three specific reasons:
Your reasons make a lot of sense to me and I agree with them, but they don't address the point that virtually all people have beliefs about God, one way or the other, simply because everybody on Earth has been exposed to an Abrahamic religion.
That's also why the atheist joke you mentioned doesn't make sense. Not-stamp-collecting could indeed be a hobby if nearly everybody in the world agreed that the distinction between stamp collecting and not stamp collecting was important. At that point it would become important to identify yourself as a not-stamp-collector.
It's closely related to the whole unicorn/fingernail thing which may be why we see both issues differently in the same way. Not believing in the unicorn under your fingernail just isn't important. Nobody but you and I and a few people reading this thread even have it in their consciousness. Similarly, whether I collect stamps or not is immaterial to the vast majority of humanity. It's not even interesting to know that someone is a stamp collector or not.
But religious belief is incredibly widespread and there are fierce arguments about it, between all factions, believers and non-believers, and within factions, strong atheists vs weak atheists, Muslims vs Jews, etc. To draw an analogy with stamp collecting or your fingernail is just silly. The reality of religious belief is so powerful that, against common sense, it turns your argument on its head. I have to say, yes, I do have a belief about the unicorn under your fingernail. I have to say, yes, not-stamp-collecting could be a hobby. And it's all true, I'm not just saying it rhetorically.. those arguments simply expand on the underlying nature of religious debate and bring it into the patently ludicrous. But it's all still valid. I can accept that ludicrousness, maybe you can't.
Not-stamp-collecting could indeed be a hobby if nearly everybody in the world agreed that the distinction between stamp collecting and not stamp collecting was important
Ah, now I see what you're getting at. It's not necessarily the distinction itself (belief in X vs a lack of belief in X), but whether that distinction is important to sufficiently large number of people that you essentially have to "pick a side". Fair enough. I didn't see your reasoning in this light, and it does make more sense now.
If it's not part of your identity, why do you feel identified by that label?
Ah, for the very reason you state: Because it's such a critically important distinction to most people, and is commonly discussed in social circles.
virtually all people have beliefs about God, one way or the other, simply because everybody on Earth has been exposed to an Abrahamic religion.
Well yes, because belief important to a lot of people. I grew up in an a-religious family (not atheist, just never ever talked about religion). I didn't even know that religion was a "thing" until I started encountering kids in grade school who talked about it. So for me it's very hard to integrate anything regarding religion into my life, active belief, active disbelief, etc etc. It's just...null, I guess?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
The issue is not whether birth control should be available, but whether insurers should be forced to cover birth control.
But you are right about the religious connection. This blew up because of a woman complaining that a CATHOLIC university didn't want to cover birth control, which is against Catholic beliefs. Instead of doing the reasonable thing, like moving to a non-religious school, she demands to impose her beliefs on the school, forcing them to violate a sacred canon.
I'm not Catholic, and I don't agree with their stance on birth control, but it's pretty fucked up to try to force them to violate their beliefs by actively supporting birth control.
Yes, I agree, I see what you were saying, I could easily fall in love with someone that has cheated before but learned from their evil ways.
I appreciate you pointing me in the better path for a better life, and will hopefully keep this in mind next time I come across a cheater.