Oh for Pete's sake... GEORGE LUCAS has had more significance than our founding fathers to the current generation?!?
What kind of history are they (not) teaching in public schools these days? If what you say is true, this is sad. It means we are abandoning our founding principles and putting principles in place from fictional stories, and between Star Wars, The Hunger Games and the like we get our ideas of government? Lord help us.
I dare say that MOST of us are way more impacted by our founders than by Star Wars, what's lacking is understanding of what that impact actually is because we haven't learned our history.
Nobody out there claims capitalism is perfect, surely there are problems with it. However, I dare you to look though history and find any better examples of an economic system that works long term.
All the "solutions" to the above problems (perceived or real) don't work out so well. They kill economies, kill governments, and kill lots of people in the process. Give me capitalism, even with the wide gap between the rich and poor, because in that system the poor are better off and there is at least the chance of working one's way above their current station.
Capitalism is the best system we have, even with it's warts..
On the fall of democracy... I think this has been WAY overstated. Politics is not always just about money, though it may seem so at times. There are ways though to "fix" this and I think term limits at the federal level is the best place to start. Say we put a 12 year limit on congress in both houses combined and you are out after that. It won't fix everything, but it will surely make the money going to incumbents get spread around eventually once the member's time is up.
The difference here is NOT being rich or not. The difference is in managing your investments and your risks. You can make a LOT of money in stocks, but you have to take huge risks if you want to get rich quick. Huge risks mean failure is likely, so if you don't want to be poor you have to manage your risks.
Rich people generally know how to manage their risks, or they don't stay rich very long. The trick to making money is not being lucky, but being smart.
Stop approaching wall street like a giant casino where you place your bets and spin the wheel. LEARN about investing, understand the investments you make and learn about ways to limit your risks. Because until you learn what you are doing, you may win some, but you WILL loose more.
It's like learning card counting and playing blackjack. FIRST you need to learn the rules and play the odds to even the risks, then you can learn to count cards to get better odds. But it takes time to learn each new step. Investing is the same kind of thing...
Don't have time to learn all this? Then stick with letting the pros manage your money for you and stay in those mutual funds, preferably those with low expenses and good rates of return.
Not much, of course chicken little is always talking about the sky falling and that little boy keeps crying wolf. Usually they are both wrong... Usually...
Look, a stopped watch is right twice a day and the stock market will go up, and it WILL go down so the bulls and bears have their share of days they are right. The issue here is if you know how to manage things so you don't loose too much when the markets don't do what you expect. The average casual investor doesn't manage their risks well and are usually the ones who get stuck.
My advice to investors is that you KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING, or only use money you can loose. Of course this applies to ANY investment, not just stocks.
I keep telling everybody the stock market operates in la-la land.
Here's the proof!
No it's not..
Where "book value" is an important component of a company's stock value, so is Price to Earnings. "How much money are they making?" is a more important question. You can have nearly zero book value, but if you are raking in the cash with a low cost of sales your company is worth a lot, even if it has no real assets.
That's not to say P/E ratios are not at pretty high levels too, but some academic's statistics isn't proof of anything.
Okay, so a Republican controlled congress failed to seize the server before it was wiped clean. I wouldn't go around making a big deal about this if I were a Republican. It may come back to bite you when the presidential election rolls around.
When the election rolls around? Uh, I think it's hear now and we have nearly 2 years of campaigning in our future... Heaven help us... Hillary won't be materially harmed by this, by the time she actually starts campaigning it will be old news but thinking the republicans will be harmed by this somehow is nuts... Unless of course they over play the card... But that's a self inflected "unforced error" kind of thing and if the democrats are hoping for that, it's going to go badly for them and they know it.
There are several issues with your stance:
- The virus could mutate because it is allowed to freely roam between hosts. Many millions may die because they are not going to be immune to the mutation.
- I and/or my children could be allergic to certain vaccines and thus would rely on herd immunity to keep us safe.
But, none of these pose an immediate danger to others by unvaccinated kids. You cannot be sure of a mutation and you cannot say with certainty that this religious exception from vaccinations will cause anybody else to get sick in each specific case. The problem with your argument is that not vaccinating poses no immediate danger to anyone else PLUS it eliminates a possible danger from the side effects of vaccinations (not that I would recommend skipping vaccinations, but you have to agree that there is SOME risk with them).
Christian Scientists have been overruled many times and often prosecuted for letting children die without seeking medical attention (yep, often prayers do not work).
The question was "Which religions prohibit vaccinations?" I'm pointing out that there ARE some that do, and with your admission at least ONE does. So the question about if this new law is a encroachment on religious freedom must be "Yes, Yes it is!"
Now shall we proceed to the question about if this encroachment is a valid one or not or do you wish to keep arguing that this has nothing to do with freedom of religion?
As you rightly point out, there are limits to religious freedoms (as there are to other rights), and failing to obtain immediate lifesaving medical treatment for your children is an example of such a limit. However, the question here is about vaccinations, which are NOT immediate medial care, nor is the child going to die if they don't get them. So the question is different from the blood transfusion or cancer treatments.
Two that I am aware of. Christian Science prohibits many common medical procedures and I believe that some Amish eschew all technology beyond horse and buggies. They are long standing established religions. But how long a religion has existed has nothing to do with this question. Remember that this CLEARLY is infringing on religious freedom, the question is about if this infringement is allowed by the constitution or not.
Religious freedom has limits, like freedom of speech has limits, so nobody is claiming that just because your religion says you can, you get to break the law. However, the question is about what can be made into a law, especially a law that clearly infringes on somebody's religious freedoms. Unless the government has a compelling reason it should not (and constitutionally cannot) infringe on any of the freedoms protected by the constitution. I don't believe that they have a compelling reason in this case.
And our founding fathers wrestled with just such questions.
Look, as with all freedoms, there are limits. Religion just cannot be a cart blanch to any behavior we wish. You cannot just say "My religion says I must do this, or not do that" to get around some law you don't like.
However, when writing laws we MUST be mindful of religious options of others and take care to not inadvertently infringe on someone's religious freedoms without a good reason. We cannot curb freedom of the press without good reason, we cannot curb speech without really good reasons. Religious freedom is the same thing, you cannot pass a law that infringes on someone's exercise of their religion without good reason.
So the debate here is if the lawmakers in California have a good reason to not include a religious exception in their law. IMHO they do not have a compelling reason and should have included the religious exception.
When 51% figure out that they can keep voting themselves resources by electing the right people, the end is near. Venezuela is an example of how this works. Once it was a thriving economic power house in south America, resource rich and hard working. Now, though the "reforms" of Chavez and his successor the country's economic engine has been running on sugared gasoline while the politicians poured fine sand in the crankcase and tried to floor the accelerator. Democracy voted itself out of existence as the popular "Let me make sure you get your share!" refrain echoed through the ever swelling ranks of the poor and dependent.
Revolution is at the door, because eventually the government and the politicians that run it won't be able to cash the checks they've written. And the people who voted out of greed, to get something now and a promise of more to come, and those who objected to the perversion of their government, will ALL pay along with their children, grand children and great grand children, many with their lives.
The sad part is that history clearly shows how this will progress, and even so, there are many countries on the same path...
Fun fact: Alarm is a completely rational response to alarming events, regardless of frequency.
Except that in this case the "Alarm" being raised is due to the output of some computer simulations that are trying to predict the future.... Simulations I might add which have been wildly wrong in the past, but they claim to have fixed now. Of course none of this "alarm" has anything to do with political and financial power either....
Riiight...
So in this case, the RATIONAL thing to do is to be a bit skeptical of all the alarmist rhetoric about things where there obviously is a potential for political and financial gains by the people making the claims.
What do you say of the cybersecurity surrounding Hillary Clinton?
It sounds like Penn should hire Hillary Clinton's cybersecurity people. There is absolutely no evidence at all that her basement mail server was ever hacked.
Of course there is no evidence.... She literally erased EVERYTHING on the server. Oh sure, she had some e-mails printed, but the server, and the E-mail supposedly on it where erased before anybody had a chance to look. All we really have is her word that it never was hacked, not that she'd know if it was anyway.
There needs to be a really good reason to step on someone's religious liberty. In the two extremes you cite, the reason (or lack there of) is obvious. In THIS case, it's not so clear cut because we are between the extremes. When faced with a question like this, where you are in the grey, my principles say you error on the side of liberty.
He was complaining that if he sends his kids to "PUBLIC SCHOOL" (which comes at no extra cost to him) he will be forced to violate his religious belief. Therefore, in order to practice his religion as he sees fit, he will be forced to private school his children, which comes at an EXTRA cost. So, the net effect of this law is to cause him to violate his religious practice OR pay money to the private school. It's the exact same effect as taxing his religious practice though force of law.
Nobody is complaining about the system of taxes that provide public schools, only that due to laws like this single out specific religious and force them to violate their religious views or incur extra costs. This situation should not be.
Putting others at risk is NOT a good argument here, especially when you have to revert to "A sickness could mutate and kill" hypothetical to make your point.
I think you are way overstating the risks to others by people who choose not to vaccinate. Where what you say is POSSIBLE, so is the mutation of the common cold or flu into a virulent strain that wipes out a huge percentage of the population. Actually, for those things we have working vaccines for, the risk seems much less.
Without a real demonstrated immediate danger, we must error on the side of freedom and allow religious exceptions to any mandatory vaccination laws. Or shall we just trample on the first amendment based on a hypothetical danger? My principles say that a religious exception should be in this law.
They have no obligation to pay any mind to your religion whatsoever.
But they do have an obligation sir. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
They must not impede the free exercise of religion and to fulfill that requirement they must be VERY mindful of religious exercise or risk violating the terms of the constitution.
"Lacking vaccinations does not generally present an immediate danger to the child". Yes it does. It does to the kid and to the public in general. Having too many people that aren't vaccinated (eg. a community of religious people) presents a clear and present danger to everyone.
No, not being vaccinated only means you have a greater chance of catching something. Large communities in this country don't do any vaccinations, yet most of their children do not die. They are not in immediate danger by not being vaccinated.
Immediate danger means it is dangerous right now (or soon), not that some possible harm may come in the distant future. Refusing lifesaving medical treatment for a child that was in a car accident is causing immediate harm. Not making them wear a helmet when riding their bikes is an immediate danger of harm, these you can rightly regulate. Not vaccinating does not present any immediate danger to the child, and although the state can strongly encourage you to vaccinate if they want, there MUST be exceptions allowed for medical and religious reasons.
Well, if those people would kindly not sneeze where I or my children walk, that would all be fine and dandy. Your freedom ends where mine begins.
You did vaccinate YOUR kids right? Why are you worried? Even if they ran into a room full of sick unvaccinated kids for a day, chances are they will emerge perfectly safe. I don't see the problem.. That someone else doesn't vaccinate doesn't put you and yours at risk, assuming you have them vaccinated..
For principle, we must error on the side of freedom.
You do realize that your hypothetical is only about a very small percentage of the population right? That if YOU are vaccinated, you are most likely safe from those who are not?
There will ALWAYS be unvaccinated people out there. Vaccinate your children and you won't likely have to worry about them being infected by the unvaccinated out there. Oh, you are in the vanishingly small slice of folks with kids who cannot have the vaccines for medical reasons? OR you are in that small percentage for which vaccines don't actually work? In reality it is the people who choose not to vaccinate who are taking the risks, not you.
Polygraphs are NOT scams, they are but a tool you can use to try and determine if somebody is lying or not. But like any tool, they have their limitations.
Polygraphs are like e-meters: they measure something, but that something has nothing to do with their stated purpose, making them scams.
No, they actually DO work in the majority of cases.. The problem is you simply cannot tell if it's accurate in any specific case. Polygraphs are just tools.
However, this doesn't mean polygraphs are not used for other purposes. I've seen cases where they where used in marital counseling, but it wasn't about catching lies (though that's what the counselor said it was) but about assuring one party of the other's truthfulness on an impossible to prove question. I also imagine that they are used to intimidate suspects in investigations from time to time. But neither of the above uses mean that the polygraph is a scam, though they are used as part of some scams.
You can still have the parts of your religious liberty that don't involve harming other people. If taking away your sacred religious liberty to willingly endanger the lives of other leaves very little left, maybe your religion is more than a little fucked up.
Feel free to disagree.... You will just be wrong.
Wow... that doesn't sound like something a zealot would say....
No the Zealot says, if you don't agree with me, I'll kill you... I personally support everyone's rights to be wrong, if you choose to. I'm not too proud to admit that I don't have a corner on the "what's right" market all the time... I was wrong once that I remember, but it turned out I was mistaken about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh for Pete's sake... GEORGE LUCAS has had more significance than our founding fathers to the current generation?!?
What kind of history are they (not) teaching in public schools these days? If what you say is true, this is sad. It means we are abandoning our founding principles and putting principles in place from fictional stories, and between Star Wars, The Hunger Games and the like we get our ideas of government? Lord help us.
I dare say that MOST of us are way more impacted by our founders than by Star Wars, what's lacking is understanding of what that impact actually is because we haven't learned our history.
And the alternative is?
Nobody out there claims capitalism is perfect, surely there are problems with it. However, I dare you to look though history and find any better examples of an economic system that works long term.
All the "solutions" to the above problems (perceived or real) don't work out so well. They kill economies, kill governments, and kill lots of people in the process. Give me capitalism, even with the wide gap between the rich and poor, because in that system the poor are better off and there is at least the chance of working one's way above their current station.
Capitalism is the best system we have, even with it's warts..
On the fall of democracy... I think this has been WAY overstated. Politics is not always just about money, though it may seem so at times. There are ways though to "fix" this and I think term limits at the federal level is the best place to start. Say we put a 12 year limit on congress in both houses combined and you are out after that. It won't fix everything, but it will surely make the money going to incumbents get spread around eventually once the member's time is up.
Oh come on...
The difference here is NOT being rich or not. The difference is in managing your investments and your risks. You can make a LOT of money in stocks, but you have to take huge risks if you want to get rich quick. Huge risks mean failure is likely, so if you don't want to be poor you have to manage your risks.
Rich people generally know how to manage their risks, or they don't stay rich very long. The trick to making money is not being lucky, but being smart.
Stop approaching wall street like a giant casino where you place your bets and spin the wheel. LEARN about investing, understand the investments you make and learn about ways to limit your risks. Because until you learn what you are doing, you may win some, but you WILL loose more.
It's like learning card counting and playing blackjack. FIRST you need to learn the rules and play the odds to even the risks, then you can learn to count cards to get better odds. But it takes time to learn each new step. Investing is the same kind of thing...
Don't have time to learn all this? Then stick with letting the pros manage your money for you and stay in those mutual funds, preferably those with low expenses and good rates of return.
So whats new here? What am I missing?
Not much, of course chicken little is always talking about the sky falling and that little boy keeps crying wolf. Usually they are both wrong... Usually...
Look, a stopped watch is right twice a day and the stock market will go up, and it WILL go down so the bulls and bears have their share of days they are right. The issue here is if you know how to manage things so you don't loose too much when the markets don't do what you expect. The average casual investor doesn't manage their risks well and are usually the ones who get stuck.
My advice to investors is that you KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING, or only use money you can loose. Of course this applies to ANY investment, not just stocks.
I keep telling everybody the stock market operates in la-la land. Here's the proof!
No it's not..
Where "book value" is an important component of a company's stock value, so is Price to Earnings. "How much money are they making?" is a more important question. You can have nearly zero book value, but if you are raking in the cash with a low cost of sales your company is worth a lot, even if it has no real assets.
That's not to say P/E ratios are not at pretty high levels too, but some academic's statistics isn't proof of anything.
Yea, "Profit" and "Earnings" have NOTHING to do with this....
How on earth did this get enough votes to make it into the Slashdot pool... Our founding fathers and George Lucas being compared?
Where it's not very deep, Even Slashdot isn't usually this shallow.... Or is it?
Okay, so a Republican controlled congress failed to seize the server before it was wiped clean. I wouldn't go around making a big deal about this if I were a Republican. It may come back to bite you when the presidential election rolls around.
When the election rolls around? Uh, I think it's hear now and we have nearly 2 years of campaigning in our future... Heaven help us... Hillary won't be materially harmed by this, by the time she actually starts campaigning it will be old news but thinking the republicans will be harmed by this somehow is nuts... Unless of course they over play the card... But that's a self inflected "unforced error" kind of thing and if the democrats are hoping for that, it's going to go badly for them and they know it.
There are several issues with your stance: - The virus could mutate because it is allowed to freely roam between hosts. Many millions may die because they are not going to be immune to the mutation. - I and/or my children could be allergic to certain vaccines and thus would rely on herd immunity to keep us safe.
But, none of these pose an immediate danger to others by unvaccinated kids. You cannot be sure of a mutation and you cannot say with certainty that this religious exception from vaccinations will cause anybody else to get sick in each specific case. The problem with your argument is that not vaccinating poses no immediate danger to anyone else PLUS it eliminates a possible danger from the side effects of vaccinations (not that I would recommend skipping vaccinations, but you have to agree that there is SOME risk with them).
No we need to have the religious exception here.
Christian Scientists have been overruled many times and often prosecuted for letting children die without seeking medical attention (yep, often prayers do not work).
The question was "Which religions prohibit vaccinations?" I'm pointing out that there ARE some that do, and with your admission at least ONE does. So the question about if this new law is a encroachment on religious freedom must be "Yes, Yes it is!"
Now shall we proceed to the question about if this encroachment is a valid one or not or do you wish to keep arguing that this has nothing to do with freedom of religion?
As you rightly point out, there are limits to religious freedoms (as there are to other rights), and failing to obtain immediate lifesaving medical treatment for your children is an example of such a limit. However, the question here is about vaccinations, which are NOT immediate medial care, nor is the child going to die if they don't get them. So the question is different from the blood transfusion or cancer treatments.
Which religions prohibit vaccinations?
Two that I am aware of. Christian Science prohibits many common medical procedures and I believe that some Amish eschew all technology beyond horse and buggies. They are long standing established religions. But how long a religion has existed has nothing to do with this question. Remember that this CLEARLY is infringing on religious freedom, the question is about if this infringement is allowed by the constitution or not.
Religious freedom has limits, like freedom of speech has limits, so nobody is claiming that just because your religion says you can, you get to break the law. However, the question is about what can be made into a law, especially a law that clearly infringes on somebody's religious freedoms. Unless the government has a compelling reason it should not (and constitutionally cannot) infringe on any of the freedoms protected by the constitution. I don't believe that they have a compelling reason in this case.
And our founding fathers wrestled with just such questions.
Look, as with all freedoms, there are limits. Religion just cannot be a cart blanch to any behavior we wish. You cannot just say "My religion says I must do this, or not do that" to get around some law you don't like.
However, when writing laws we MUST be mindful of religious options of others and take care to not inadvertently infringe on someone's religious freedoms without a good reason. We cannot curb freedom of the press without good reason, we cannot curb speech without really good reasons. Religious freedom is the same thing, you cannot pass a law that infringes on someone's exercise of their religion without good reason.
So the debate here is if the lawmakers in California have a good reason to not include a religious exception in their law. IMHO they do not have a compelling reason and should have included the religious exception.
When 51% figure out that they can keep voting themselves resources by electing the right people, the end is near. Venezuela is an example of how this works. Once it was a thriving economic power house in south America, resource rich and hard working. Now, though the "reforms" of Chavez and his successor the country's economic engine has been running on sugared gasoline while the politicians poured fine sand in the crankcase and tried to floor the accelerator. Democracy voted itself out of existence as the popular "Let me make sure you get your share!" refrain echoed through the ever swelling ranks of the poor and dependent.
Revolution is at the door, because eventually the government and the politicians that run it won't be able to cash the checks they've written. And the people who voted out of greed, to get something now and a promise of more to come, and those who objected to the perversion of their government, will ALL pay along with their children, grand children and great grand children, many with their lives.
The sad part is that history clearly shows how this will progress, and even so, there are many countries on the same path...
Fun fact: Alarm is a completely rational response to alarming events, regardless of frequency.
Except that in this case the "Alarm" being raised is due to the output of some computer simulations that are trying to predict the future.... Simulations I might add which have been wildly wrong in the past, but they claim to have fixed now. Of course none of this "alarm" has anything to do with political and financial power either....
Riiight...
So in this case, the RATIONAL thing to do is to be a bit skeptical of all the alarmist rhetoric about things where there obviously is a potential for political and financial gains by the people making the claims.
Wow... Three parties of one... Hope they at least have video links between them...
What do you say of the cybersecurity surrounding Hillary Clinton?
It sounds like Penn should hire Hillary Clinton's cybersecurity people. There is absolutely no evidence at all that her basement mail server was ever hacked.
Of course there is no evidence.... She literally erased EVERYTHING on the server. Oh sure, she had some e-mails printed, but the server, and the E-mail supposedly on it where erased before anybody had a chance to look. All we really have is her word that it never was hacked, not that she'd know if it was anyway.
I'm not confused...
There needs to be a really good reason to step on someone's religious liberty. In the two extremes you cite, the reason (or lack there of) is obvious. In THIS case, it's not so clear cut because we are between the extremes. When faced with a question like this, where you are in the grey, my principles say you error on the side of liberty.
Gee, miss the point much...
He was complaining that if he sends his kids to "PUBLIC SCHOOL" (which comes at no extra cost to him) he will be forced to violate his religious belief. Therefore, in order to practice his religion as he sees fit, he will be forced to private school his children, which comes at an EXTRA cost. So, the net effect of this law is to cause him to violate his religious practice OR pay money to the private school. It's the exact same effect as taxing his religious practice though force of law.
Nobody is complaining about the system of taxes that provide public schools, only that due to laws like this single out specific religious and force them to violate their religious views or incur extra costs. This situation should not be.
Putting others at risk is NOT a good argument here, especially when you have to revert to "A sickness could mutate and kill" hypothetical to make your point.
I think you are way overstating the risks to others by people who choose not to vaccinate. Where what you say is POSSIBLE, so is the mutation of the common cold or flu into a virulent strain that wipes out a huge percentage of the population. Actually, for those things we have working vaccines for, the risk seems much less.
Without a real demonstrated immediate danger, we must error on the side of freedom and allow religious exceptions to any mandatory vaccination laws. Or shall we just trample on the first amendment based on a hypothetical danger? My principles say that a religious exception should be in this law.
They have no obligation to pay any mind to your religion whatsoever.
But they do have an obligation sir. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
They must not impede the free exercise of religion and to fulfill that requirement they must be VERY mindful of religious exercise or risk violating the terms of the constitution.
"Lacking vaccinations does not generally present an immediate danger to the child". Yes it does. It does to the kid and to the public in general. Having too many people that aren't vaccinated (eg. a community of religious people) presents a clear and present danger to everyone.
No, not being vaccinated only means you have a greater chance of catching something. Large communities in this country don't do any vaccinations, yet most of their children do not die. They are not in immediate danger by not being vaccinated.
Immediate danger means it is dangerous right now (or soon), not that some possible harm may come in the distant future. Refusing lifesaving medical treatment for a child that was in a car accident is causing immediate harm. Not making them wear a helmet when riding their bikes is an immediate danger of harm, these you can rightly regulate. Not vaccinating does not present any immediate danger to the child, and although the state can strongly encourage you to vaccinate if they want, there MUST be exceptions allowed for medical and religious reasons.
Well, if those people would kindly not sneeze where I or my children walk, that would all be fine and dandy. Your freedom ends where mine begins.
You did vaccinate YOUR kids right? Why are you worried? Even if they ran into a room full of sick unvaccinated kids for a day, chances are they will emerge perfectly safe. I don't see the problem.. That someone else doesn't vaccinate doesn't put you and yours at risk, assuming you have them vaccinated..
For principle, we must error on the side of freedom.
You do realize that your hypothetical is only about a very small percentage of the population right? That if YOU are vaccinated, you are most likely safe from those who are not?
There will ALWAYS be unvaccinated people out there. Vaccinate your children and you won't likely have to worry about them being infected by the unvaccinated out there. Oh, you are in the vanishingly small slice of folks with kids who cannot have the vaccines for medical reasons? OR you are in that small percentage for which vaccines don't actually work? In reality it is the people who choose not to vaccinate who are taking the risks, not you.
Polygraphs are like e-meters: they measure something, but that something has nothing to do with their stated purpose, making them scams.
No, they actually DO work in the majority of cases.. The problem is you simply cannot tell if it's accurate in any specific case. Polygraphs are just tools.
However, this doesn't mean polygraphs are not used for other purposes. I've seen cases where they where used in marital counseling, but it wasn't about catching lies (though that's what the counselor said it was) but about assuring one party of the other's truthfulness on an impossible to prove question. I also imagine that they are used to intimidate suspects in investigations from time to time. But neither of the above uses mean that the polygraph is a scam, though they are used as part of some scams.
You can still have the parts of your religious liberty that don't involve harming other people. If taking away your sacred religious liberty to willingly endanger the lives of other leaves very little left, maybe your religion is more than a little fucked up.
Feel free to disagree.... You will just be wrong.
Wow... that doesn't sound like something a zealot would say....
No the Zealot says, if you don't agree with me, I'll kill you... I personally support everyone's rights to be wrong, if you choose to. I'm not too proud to admit that I don't have a corner on the "what's right" market all the time... I was wrong once that I remember, but it turned out I was mistaken about it.