So, I think any rational person would agree Iraq probably has not nuclear weapons, however, as for WMDSs, generally that category includes chemical and biological weapons. Saddam launched mustard gas as the Kurds regularly. Chemical weapon if I ever saw one...
I had a hotdog on the 4th. Had some mustard too... Soon after, people didn't wanna stand near me cuz I was rippin farts like it was my job!
Are you afraid yet? I hope your fear of my farts doesn't 'cloud' your decision making, though you may feel 'terrified' by the stankity stank. lol.
We need to remind Iran that its their own F***in problem to fix.
Isn't that our stance on pretty much any similar country that doesn't have oil?
Good thing we have that separation of church/state here, else we'd be facing the same crap! Oh wait! We do! Gays aren't human enough to deserve equal rights!
Don't worry Iran, we'll invade soon and overthrow your government. You'll see how much better life is after that! Just look at Iraq! They can blog all they want now.
/sarcasm on
This gives those long forgotten nerds a reason to hate Iran! Now with more riboflavin, too!/sarcasm off
dude... You know how LoRD had its own built in addons/doors that you could put in? There was this one that allowed you to burn one candle and one incense per day, but it had a glitch! The candles and incense would give you like +2 exp, etc...
Anyway.. The glitch was... Go in, burn your two items, leave the 'addon', go back in, leave, then go back in and you get to do 2 more! This was the way you could go from the bottom to the top in a matter of hours, especially if you happened to write a script that does it for you...
Fun times.
Exitilus was a less popular, but more game just like LoRD.
Lots of laptops disappear when they get their hands on them.
I know what you mean. I kept wondering why they keep calling it "lost" when they are never found. The event is more akin to STOLEN than it is to LOST.
I don't see the airlines having a huge storage or auctions of unclaimed laptops (among loads of other things). If it is lost while in control of the airline, and it is not ever 'found', where is it? If there is no huge bin filling up with the 'we can't find the owner of this' stuff, then IT WAS PROBABLY STOLEN!
I'm just using logic here. I'm sure the airlines have some kind of explanation that breaks certain scientific laws of energy/matter. "The devil took your laptop! It magically left your checked bag, went through the walls of the airplane, and was lost into the center of the earth."
watts/hr A Watt is already energy per time. Maybe be you meant Wh/h?
Since energy is sold to us in KW/Hours (an hour of use of a kilowatt), I was trying to keep the consideration of energy use relative to the common understanding of energy.
In the past, I have conducted background investigations for the DoD as a contractor. I came across some very interesting credit histories on a guy and had to ask him some questions. I cannot go into details but, simply put:
When he was too young to work, someone began working under his name and SSN. He did not discover this until he was in his late teens. When he contacted the IRS, the IRS was concerned, but they MADE TWO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS UNDER THE SAME SSN TO DISTINGUISH THE TWO.
This was quite alarming to me, though it satisfied my goals in the investigation. I could not understand how the IRS would take such a haphazard approach to dealing with identity theft. How can they continue to allow a person to work, obviously illegally, under a stolen identity? Yes, I know the IRS merely collects taxes, but they were collecting from a stolen identity long after they were made aware. -------------------- From this, the flaw is lack of governmental intercooperation regarding identity theft. I cannot attest to present time, but in 2005, the IRS was still allowing the thief to work and pay taxes.
The employer (pretty big company) and location were well known, yet the 'thief' was not stopped over several years......... I can only hope our various branches are now working together to protect our citizens first.
Unless they post the watts/hr it can produce under normal conditions. Its like seeing a car in a car lot without a price on it... You just keep on rollin. Seeing this 'form of energy coolness' seems worthless without some type of qualitative evidence. I want to see the watts/curtain/hr.
Matter is neither created nor destroyed (unless it happens it in a short enough time period).
On another note: Garbage dumps are becoming more and more known to have higher concentrations of trace/rare elements than the mines and resources that they are normally acquired from.
'We never imagined that the same candidate would show up for both parties.'
What? The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are all the same? That unpossible!
Do people not remember Colin Powell on TV telling us about how those metal pipes/tubes were WMD? Oh, right. This is America. If it happened last week, it is long forgotten. *sigh*
Yes. He should be responsible for the information he was put up there to say. He is a liar, whether it be intentional, or his inability to question a source of information.
Powell is garbage. Don't think for a second that he won't lie again.
Old people drive horribly! Most are either too proud or too old to realize they have serious shortcomings in the mental and physical aspects.
Example? My grandfather, at 80, is a serious threat to himself, my grandmother, and anyone else on the road. Take one ride with him and you'll have to change your underwear, no joke. Still driving? Of course! Blinded severely on his left side (oncoming traffic)? Sure! Any plans to stop driving? Nope.
Your bit about older people not looking to the future is very interesting. Since government passes laws in present that have impacts on the future, it is essential that our elected leadership has the future in mind when making decisions.
Old people should be living with their families, not passing the last years in a care home or lonely in their own. Our sense of self-interest has gone so far in this country that divorce is alarmingly high (wife? who? kids? what?), relatives are left to rot, and communities are suing each other instead of working together.
American Culture sucks. To generalize: Fat, selfish, hasty, materialistic... garbage.
If you are diagnosed with cancer today -- any kind of cancer, and remember the word "cancer" covers an enormous range of disease -- your chances of long-term survival are much, much better than they were five years ago. Five years ago, your chances were much better than ten years ago. Etc. The general public loses interest when a promising new treatment turns out not to be The! Cure! For! Cancer!, but yes, research does make its way from the lab to the bedside. Probably no new medicine or treatment technique will ever cure all cancer, but there's a good chance it will take care of a significant portion of a certain type of cancers -- which is, of course, of infinite interest to those diagnosed with that particular disease.
Supporting evidence of how far we've come:
Every single person I have personally known that has had cancer (several people), was able to take care of the issue. This amazed me because in all cases I had the 1990s based feeling that cancer = death. I am slowly coming to realize that unless a person finds out way way late, their chances are pretty good nowadays.
I've heard of others that have died from cancer, but nobody I personally knew, and definitely not as frequent as the successes that must be happening.
I appreciate the explanation you provided, and it makes such throttling a bit more sensible in the context of what we are talking about. Unfortunately, consumers currently are being tricked into thinking they have a certain amount of access, which is not actually upheld by the provider.
I think the answer to most the issues here is honest business on the provider end. Once the honest product is provided, a consumer knows what to expect.
The throttling you described seems like a sensible approach to maintaining overall network function. I would be in complete agreement with it, but only under the condition that these methods, and my expected bandwidth is clearly explained by the provider, not tied into tricky ambiguous phrases in small-print 'agreements'.
Theology classes are already taught in schools and are not seriously scrutinized, so I think the discussion of gods or religions is already plentiful. Maybe you would prefer a more specific focus?
As to your second point: Violations of the constitution, popularly accepted architecture, and support-gaining religious based statements do not serve to negate the articles of the constitution. If presidents more and more serve to ignore the constitution and violate our rights as citizens, would that serve to negate those rights simply because it is happening often enough? No. A new constitution or an amendment needs to be provided.
There is no excuse for violations of the constitution, nor does a popular ideology refute the constitution. The constitution 'constitutes' what we establish as our government here in the U.S. Just because it was wrong to write 'in god we trust' on the dollar doesn't make it ok to violate the constitution. There are ways to change the constitution, I suggest you consider those methods.
On a personal level, within the decisions of a single home or person, your application of priority may be acceptable.
On the much broader platform of the internet, there is no universally determinable MORE IMPORTANT data. Example: How is a phone call from one kid about the smell of farts (VOIP data) more important than a video about Ron Paul's efforts distributed via P2P? There is no qualitative value that can be placed on the data beyond any data that may be important to simply maintain network function.
But if VOIP chokes at 99%, and the network is still functioning, there is no priority; the problem is in the providers court and their false advertisement as to what a consumer is getting when they pay $29.99 a month.
Placing priority on one form of data over another is equitable to discrimination in some aspects. What if your favorite gas station was run by people who put qualitative values on race, and thus denied your race access to buy gas, or at least limited your use? Better yet, what if you bought an all-you-can-eat buffet ticket, and when you show up, only vegetarians are allowed to eat all they want because the owner places vegetarian values over omnivorous values?
The problem in network saturation is a product of false advertising or overselling. The problem is tied to bad business practices, and is, as/. suggests, using more bad business practices to resolve the issue.
$100/month for 6mbit is fine if I can get it that way. A $29.99 shared/throttled network alternative for the thrifty may also be appropriate so long as it is CLEARLY represented in understandable language to the consumer.
If our current private internet entities fail to realize that there can be no universally determined difference between one data or another, we need to either regulate or take that power from them.
There is no 'more important data'. That term is a relativistic concept that bears no actual meaning when read by anyone but the original believer. What is more important to one person is worthless to another.
The internet is a well established virtual representation of public interaction. It has many intricate elements, all of which should be preserved in the aspect of freedom. There is no universally determinable difference of importance between one data or another; the quality is only relative. --------- Anyway, if these companies want to place values on data, we need to exercise our ability consumers and citizens of this country to tell them WE DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY IS IMPORTANT.
I'd hate to see it, as it would probably be worse, but we could probably socialize the whole internet in the U.S. Take all those companies and acquire all their assets through some form of virtual eminent domain, etc.
Our failure to achieve our very popular goals of freedom in the US will most likely fail due to LOBBYING. Our desires as a majority are easily ignored. Hold your congressmen responsible. Write them and tell them what you want.
People of America: Take Control Back. Spread truth, refuse corruption, and get off the goddamn couch.
If there will be no state establishment of religion, what religion then would be appropriate for a state-provided education? scientology? Mormonism, Islam, buddhism?
None. The state will not establish a religion, and thus will not exercise any product of such an establishment (such as a class teaching that religion).
If one is allowed the "Free exercise of religion", how would that person exercise their own religions beliefs in a course that teaches a different religion? Example: A course teaches judaism, but you are christian. The teacher tells you that Jesus was not the son of god, and that you are mistaken. You want to freely exercise your own belief, but you are either forced to believe or fake your belief in Judaism, or score poorly on exams due to your disbelief. ---------------------
The separation is not for the convenience of religions to not pay taxes. The separation is not to prevent 'the church of america'. The separation is to protect free people from being somehow directed by the state at how to exist. A state-driven course teaching Islam would not follow the concept of liberty and freedom.
"I'm continually stunned on how bullshit laws like this keep popping up in a society that spells out a specific separation of church and state. "
But that specification of the separation of church and state is with reference to creation or forced following of a state/govt. religion. It is not there to prohibit the discussion of religion or religious thoughts.
Since there are a LARGE number of people in the US that believe in some form of creationism (complete, or maybe that God started things off, and evolution took over from there), I don't see a problem mentioning it as an aside that many people have these beliefs. It better prepares them for discussing it in the future if they know the many sides of the issue.
I'm not saying teach it as fact, but, I see nothing wrong with it being at least a small part of the discussion to show the many prevalent thoughts on this issue in our current society.
You are mistaken. The separation of church and state is defined simply as those words. The purpose is to SEPARATE religion from government. This means that no government (public) institution will be in any way connected to a religious ideal. Had there been a necessity to be more 'specific', that specificity would have been written in.
This does not mean people cannot discuss religion, but it does mean that they cannot TEACH a religion. Discussion of popular trends, such as currently believed religions is widely accepted as it directly relates to the world around us; but TEACHING religion is specifically restricted due to the SEPARATION between such religions and public/government/state bodies.
An example: I took a greek mythology course in High School (a public school). The course did not teach me to believe old greek gods, it only talked about them in a practical manner for which no 'spiritual' aspect of me as a student would be modified. More simply put, it is obvious that greek mythology is untrue, and the class did not serve to convince otherwise, but rather to extract meaningful discussion about interesting values that relate within the mythology. Nobody left the class believing in Zeus, but many of us left with some valuable thoughts in our heads.
Anyone not involved should mind their own business? I agree with that. Government religion you listening? Hey! Religion, get your ass back here! Don't you walk away!!
So, if a cop sees someone beating the shit out of you, should he mind his own business? Wait, before you answer, that cop is part of the government and is "not involved" in your ass getting kicked. Should he mind his own business. Of course not! Why? Because it's the governments job to protect its innocent citizens, and therefor not only has the right, but the DUTY to step in. That's a given. The unborn are also innocent. That's also a given. Now the question we need to be asking in this situation is not, "should the government do anything" but "when is human life human?"
Now, the GP stated that he couldn't give a shit about a clump a cells. Well, isn't he just a clump of cells? If his mother decided to have an abortion at this stage and started chasing him with a vacuum cleaner, should the police (or CPS) turn a blind eye? After all, he is just a clump of cells.
So, whether or not government should protect you is not a matter of religion. When is human life HUMAN is where religion steps in.
IMHO, if a DNA test says its human, then it's human and religion has nothing to do with it. No one should be allowed to kill or experiment on him/her without his/her permission.
Every time you get bored, you shoot half a human down the toilet or into your shorts.
Once a month, your mother and possibly gf (if not menopausal) drop half a human as well as some fluids.
When you wash your hands, or even just exist, your 'human' cells coming from your body are being forced to die. These are diploid cells, just like your whole clump-body.
If you're going to use science in your argument, you should not omit, for your convenience, other scientific facts that make your argument lose value.
Where you fail is your inability to distinguish between what is genetically human, and what is a PERSON. Personhood is a definition that you need to look up, and since you embraced science (DNA test suggestion), you should make an attempt to understand what empirical data supports a moral/ethical obligation to specific developmental stages of these 'clusters of cells'.
I am satisfied in my education that you will not *validly* argue this point further with science on your side. You're better off sticking to the "god (err, my priest) said no" argument.
And please, for gods sake, stop masturbating or washing your hands. Its wrong, I just don't know why! lol. -------------- Here's an example where your 'protection' of ANY cluster size/stage is a failure.
Example, a woman's body rejects a zygote, and thus miscarriage occurs. Is she an accessory to murder, with 'nature' as the actual murderer?
Hypothetically, medically proven, a woman will die if she carries the baby to birth. Is the baby a murderer if this happens? Is an abortion now ok to save the mother's life? After answering it, now ask yourself at what point (since you did not differentiate prior) is one cluster more important than the other?
If you try, you can probably imagine thousands of situations in which your ultimatum for protections is flawed. This is why personhood prevails over what is human.
Oh, and btw, Eskimo people, in harsh conditions, used to eat their babies, and then whomever of the adults died first. This is probably the most natural outcome of any organism in that situation whose primary goal is long-term survival as a species. Live to the future, make more babies and hope for better conditions.
Write your damn representatives and senators. Let them know their job is on the line. People are pretty pissed about this one, we need to stand up and be heard. Write them, protest, march! Lets do this!
Slashdot Mirror
So, I think any rational person would agree Iraq probably has not nuclear weapons, however, as for WMDSs, generally that category includes chemical and biological weapons. Saddam launched mustard gas as the Kurds regularly. Chemical weapon if I ever saw one...
I had a hotdog on the 4th. Had some mustard too... Soon after, people didn't wanna stand near me cuz I was rippin farts like it was my job!
Are you afraid yet? I hope your fear of my farts doesn't 'cloud' your decision making, though you may feel 'terrified' by the stankity stank. lol.
We need to remind Iran that its their own F***in problem to fix.
Isn't that our stance on pretty much any similar country that doesn't have oil?
Good thing we have that separation of church/state here, else we'd be facing the same crap! Oh wait! We do! Gays aren't human enough to deserve equal rights!
F*** a church.
Don't worry Iran, we'll invade soon and overthrow your government. You'll see how much better life is after that! Just look at Iraq! They can blog all they want now.
/sarcasm on
This gives those long forgotten nerds a reason to hate Iran! Now with more riboflavin, too! /sarcasm off
dude... You know how LoRD had its own built in addons/doors that you could put in? There was this one that allowed you to burn one candle and one incense per day, but it had a glitch! The candles and incense would give you like +2 exp, etc...
Anyway.. The glitch was... Go in, burn your two items, leave the 'addon', go back in, leave, then go back in and you get to do 2 more! This was the way you could go from the bottom to the top in a matter of hours, especially if you happened to write a script that does it for you...
Fun times.
Exitilus was a less popular, but more game just like LoRD.
in time, bartering will become illegal as it somehow subverts the exchange of 'value' and can be seen as a form of evasion.
I'm pretty sure of this, unless people stand the F*** up.
Lots of laptops disappear when they get their hands on them.
I know what you mean. I kept wondering why they keep calling it "lost" when they are never found. The event is more akin to STOLEN than it is to LOST.
I don't see the airlines having a huge storage or auctions of unclaimed laptops (among loads of other things). If it is lost while in control of the airline, and it is not ever 'found', where is it? If there is no huge bin filling up with the 'we can't find the owner of this' stuff, then IT WAS PROBABLY STOLEN!
I'm just using logic here. I'm sure the airlines have some kind of explanation that breaks certain scientific laws of energy/matter. "The devil took your laptop! It magically left your checked bag, went through the walls of the airplane, and was lost into the center of the earth."
wtf, over.
watts/hr
A Watt is already energy per time. Maybe be you meant Wh/h?
Since energy is sold to us in KW/Hours (an hour of use of a kilowatt), I was trying to keep the consideration of energy use relative to the common understanding of energy.
In the past, I have conducted background investigations for the DoD as a contractor. I came across some very interesting credit histories on a guy and had to ask him some questions. I cannot go into details but, simply put:
When he was too young to work, someone began working under his name and SSN. He did not discover this until he was in his late teens. When he contacted the IRS, the IRS was concerned, but they MADE TWO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS UNDER THE SAME SSN TO DISTINGUISH THE TWO.
This was quite alarming to me, though it satisfied my goals in the investigation. I could not understand how the IRS would take such a haphazard approach to dealing with identity theft. How can they continue to allow a person to work, obviously illegally, under a stolen identity? Yes, I know the IRS merely collects taxes, but they were collecting from a stolen identity long after they were made aware.
--------------------
From this, the flaw is lack of governmental intercooperation regarding identity theft. I cannot attest to present time, but in 2005, the IRS was still allowing the thief to work and pay taxes.
The employer (pretty big company) and location were well known, yet the 'thief' was not stopped over several years. ........ I can only hope our various branches are now working together to protect our citizens first.
Unless they post the watts/hr it can produce under normal conditions. Its like seeing a car in a car lot without a price on it... You just keep on rollin. Seeing this 'form of energy coolness' seems worthless without some type of qualitative evidence. I want to see the watts/curtain/hr.
or Exitilus.
Now THOSE were awesome RPGs.
If you weren't around during the time of BBS and door games, disregard. This throwback is for older nerds.
Matter is neither created nor destroyed (unless it happens it in a short enough time period).
On another note: Garbage dumps are becoming more and more known to have higher concentrations of trace/rare elements than the mines and resources that they are normally acquired from.
You mean that thing with the buttons and goofy controller? My GRANDMOTHER gets her media from one of those!
.. same as the old boss.
'We never imagined that the same candidate would show up for both parties.'
What? The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are all the same? That unpossible!
Do people not remember Colin Powell on TV telling us about how those metal pipes/tubes were WMD? Oh, right. This is America. If it happened last week, it is long forgotten. *sigh*
Yes. He should be responsible for the information he was put up there to say. He is a liar, whether it be intentional, or his inability to question a source of information.
Powell is garbage. Don't think for a second that he won't lie again.
HERE HERE!
Old people drive horribly! Most are either too proud or too old to realize they have serious shortcomings in the mental and physical aspects.
Example? My grandfather, at 80, is a serious threat to himself, my grandmother, and anyone else on the road. Take one ride with him and you'll have to change your underwear, no joke. Still driving? Of course! Blinded severely on his left side (oncoming traffic)? Sure! Any plans to stop driving? Nope.
Your bit about older people not looking to the future is very interesting. Since government passes laws in present that have impacts on the future, it is essential that our elected leadership has the future in mind when making decisions.
Old people should be living with their families, not passing the last years in a care home or lonely in their own. Our sense of self-interest has gone so far in this country that divorce is alarmingly high (wife? who? kids? what?), relatives are left to rot, and communities are suing each other instead of working together.
American Culture sucks. To generalize: Fat, selfish, hasty, materialistic... garbage.
Its stupid because japanese people don't age. Virtually no japanese person looks over 18 until they are probably 45-50. They got the good genes.
If you are diagnosed with cancer today -- any kind of cancer, and remember the word "cancer" covers an enormous range of disease -- your chances of long-term survival are much, much better than they were five years ago. Five years ago, your chances were much better than ten years ago. Etc. The general public loses interest when a promising new treatment turns out not to be The! Cure! For! Cancer!, but yes, research does make its way from the lab to the bedside. Probably no new medicine or treatment technique will ever cure all cancer, but there's a good chance it will take care of a significant portion of a certain type of cancers -- which is, of course, of infinite interest to those diagnosed with that particular disease.
Supporting evidence of how far we've come:
Every single person I have personally known that has had cancer (several people), was able to take care of the issue. This amazed me because in all cases I had the 1990s based feeling that cancer = death. I am slowly coming to realize that unless a person finds out way way late, their chances are pretty good nowadays.
I've heard of others that have died from cancer, but nobody I personally knew, and definitely not as frequent as the successes that must be happening.
I appreciate the explanation you provided, and it makes such throttling a bit more sensible in the context of what we are talking about. Unfortunately, consumers currently are being tricked into thinking they have a certain amount of access, which is not actually upheld by the provider.
I think the answer to most the issues here is honest business on the provider end. Once the honest product is provided, a consumer knows what to expect.
The throttling you described seems like a sensible approach to maintaining overall network function. I would be in complete agreement with it, but only under the condition that these methods, and my expected bandwidth is clearly explained by the provider, not tied into tricky ambiguous phrases in small-print 'agreements'.
Thanks for the insight.
Theology classes are already taught in schools and are not seriously scrutinized, so I think the discussion of gods or religions is already plentiful. Maybe you would prefer a more specific focus?
As to your second point: Violations of the constitution, popularly accepted architecture, and support-gaining religious based statements do not serve to negate the articles of the constitution. If presidents more and more serve to ignore the constitution and violate our rights as citizens, would that serve to negate those rights simply because it is happening often enough? No. A new constitution or an amendment needs to be provided.
There is no excuse for violations of the constitution, nor does a popular ideology refute the constitution. The constitution 'constitutes' what we establish as our government here in the U.S. Just because it was wrong to write 'in god we trust' on the dollar doesn't make it ok to violate the constitution. There are ways to change the constitution, I suggest you consider those methods.
On a personal level, within the decisions of a single home or person, your application of priority may be acceptable.
On the much broader platform of the internet, there is no universally determinable MORE IMPORTANT data. Example: How is a phone call from one kid about the smell of farts (VOIP data) more important than a video about Ron Paul's efforts distributed via P2P? There is no qualitative value that can be placed on the data beyond any data that may be important to simply maintain network function.
But if VOIP chokes at 99%, and the network is still functioning, there is no priority; the problem is in the providers court and their false advertisement as to what a consumer is getting when they pay $29.99 a month.
Placing priority on one form of data over another is equitable to discrimination in some aspects. What if your favorite gas station was run by people who put qualitative values on race, and thus denied your race access to buy gas, or at least limited your use? Better yet, what if you bought an all-you-can-eat buffet ticket, and when you show up, only vegetarians are allowed to eat all they want because the owner places vegetarian values over omnivorous values?
The problem in network saturation is a product of false advertising or overselling. The problem is tied to bad business practices, and is, as /. suggests, using more bad business practices to resolve the issue.
$100/month for 6mbit is fine if I can get it that way. A $29.99 shared/throttled network alternative for the thrifty may also be appropriate so long as it is CLEARLY represented in understandable language to the consumer.
If our current private internet entities fail to realize that there can be no universally determined difference between one data or another, we need to either regulate or take that power from them.
There is no 'more important data'. That term is a relativistic concept that bears no actual meaning when read by anyone but the original believer. What is more important to one person is worthless to another.
The internet is a well established virtual representation of public interaction. It has many intricate elements, all of which should be preserved in the aspect of freedom. There is no universally determinable difference of importance between one data or another; the quality is only relative.
---------
Anyway, if these companies want to place values on data, we need to exercise our ability consumers and citizens of this country to tell them WE DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY IS IMPORTANT.
I'd hate to see it, as it would probably be worse, but we could probably socialize the whole internet in the U.S. Take all those companies and acquire all their assets through some form of virtual eminent domain, etc.
Our failure to achieve our very popular goals of freedom in the US will most likely fail due to LOBBYING. Our desires as a majority are easily ignored. Hold your congressmen responsible. Write them and tell them what you want.
People of America: Take Control Back. Spread truth, refuse corruption, and get off the goddamn couch.
Here's a critical approach to your concept.
If there will be no state establishment of religion, what religion then would be appropriate for a state-provided education? scientology? Mormonism, Islam, buddhism?
None. The state will not establish a religion, and thus will not exercise any product of such an establishment (such as a class teaching that religion).
If one is allowed the "Free exercise of religion", how would that person exercise their own religions beliefs in a course that teaches a different religion? Example: A course teaches judaism, but you are christian. The teacher tells you that Jesus was not the son of god, and that you are mistaken. You want to freely exercise your own belief, but you are either forced to believe or fake your belief in Judaism, or score poorly on exams due to your disbelief.
---------------------
The separation is not for the convenience of religions to not pay taxes. The separation is not to prevent 'the church of america'. The separation is to protect free people from being somehow directed by the state at how to exist. A state-driven course teaching Islam would not follow the concept of liberty and freedom.
Food for thought.
"I'm continually stunned on how bullshit laws like this keep popping up in a society that spells out a specific separation of church and state. "
But that specification of the separation of church and state is with reference to creation or forced following of a state/govt. religion. It is not there to prohibit the discussion of religion or religious thoughts.
Since there are a LARGE number of people in the US that believe in some form of creationism (complete, or maybe that God started things off, and evolution took over from there), I don't see a problem mentioning it as an aside that many people have these beliefs. It better prepares them for discussing it in the future if they know the many sides of the issue.
I'm not saying teach it as fact, but, I see nothing wrong with it being at least a small part of the discussion to show the many prevalent thoughts on this issue in our current society.
You are mistaken. The separation of church and state is defined simply as those words. The purpose is to SEPARATE religion from government. This means that no government (public) institution will be in any way connected to a religious ideal. Had there been a necessity to be more 'specific', that specificity would have been written in.
This does not mean people cannot discuss religion, but it does mean that they cannot TEACH a religion. Discussion of popular trends, such as currently believed religions is widely accepted as it directly relates to the world around us; but TEACHING religion is specifically restricted due to the SEPARATION between such religions and public/government/state bodies.
An example: I took a greek mythology course in High School (a public school). The course did not teach me to believe old greek gods, it only talked about them in a practical manner for which no 'spiritual' aspect of me as a student would be modified. More simply put, it is obvious that greek mythology is untrue, and the class did not serve to convince otherwise, but rather to extract meaningful discussion about interesting values that relate within the mythology. Nobody left the class believing in Zeus, but many of us left with some valuable thoughts in our heads.
Anyone not involved should mind their own business? I agree with that. Government religion you listening? Hey! Religion, get your ass back here! Don't you walk away!!
So, if a cop sees someone beating the shit out of you, should he mind his own business? Wait, before you answer, that cop is part of the government and is "not involved" in your ass getting kicked. Should he mind his own business. Of course not! Why? Because it's the governments job to protect its innocent citizens, and therefor not only has the right, but the DUTY to step in. That's a given. The unborn are also innocent. That's also a given. Now the question we need to be asking in this situation is not, "should the government do anything" but "when is human life human?"
Now, the GP stated that he couldn't give a shit about a clump a cells. Well, isn't he just a clump of cells? If his mother decided to have an abortion at this stage and started chasing him with a vacuum cleaner, should the police (or CPS) turn a blind eye? After all, he is just a clump of cells.
So, whether or not government should protect you is not a matter of religion. When is human life HUMAN is where religion steps in.
IMHO, if a DNA test says its human, then it's human and religion has nothing to do with it. No one should be allowed to kill or experiment on him/her without his/her permission.
Every time you get bored, you shoot half a human down the toilet or into your shorts.
Once a month, your mother and possibly gf (if not menopausal) drop half a human as well as some fluids.
When you wash your hands, or even just exist, your 'human' cells coming from your body are being forced to die. These are diploid cells, just like your whole clump-body.
If you're going to use science in your argument, you should not omit, for your convenience, other scientific facts that make your argument lose value.
Where you fail is your inability to distinguish between what is genetically human, and what is a PERSON. Personhood is a definition that you need to look up, and since you embraced science (DNA test suggestion), you should make an attempt to understand what empirical data supports a moral/ethical obligation to specific developmental stages of these 'clusters of cells'.
I am satisfied in my education that you will not *validly* argue this point further with science on your side. You're better off sticking to the "god (err, my priest) said no" argument.
And please, for gods sake, stop masturbating or washing your hands. Its wrong, I just don't know why! lol.
--------------
Here's an example where your 'protection' of ANY cluster size/stage is a failure.
Example, a woman's body rejects a zygote, and thus miscarriage occurs. Is she an accessory to murder, with 'nature' as the actual murderer?
Hypothetically, medically proven, a woman will die if she carries the baby to birth. Is the baby a murderer if this happens? Is an abortion now ok to save the mother's life? After answering it, now ask yourself at what point (since you did not differentiate prior) is one cluster more important than the other?
If you try, you can probably imagine thousands of situations in which your ultimatum for protections is flawed. This is why personhood prevails over what is human.
Oh, and btw, Eskimo people, in harsh conditions, used to eat their babies, and then whomever of the adults died first. This is probably the most natural outcome of any organism in that situation whose primary goal is long-term survival as a species. Live to the future, make more babies and hope for better conditions.
Your ultimatum is seriously flawed.
I am fully cynicised.
Write your damn representatives and senators. Let them know their job is on the line. People are pretty pissed about this one, we need to stand up and be heard. Write them, protest, march! Lets do this!