You're being sarcastic, but the *point* of the US is (was) that you should have the choice to do that if you want, even if it's silly.
But then shouldn't that apply to everyone, rather than just people part of specific religions? The problem with exceptions like this is that they give religious people special privileges. If we want real freedom, no one should be more equal than anyone else. Separation of church and state is fundamental, and we can't have it if the government is deciding which religions are real, or making exceptions to rules for people of certain religions.
Whether you know it or not (And frankly, if you don't know that Microsoft's products are buggy and full of security holes, you're profoundly ignorant.), the same is true of proprietary software. In fact, it's probably worse, since it's much more difficult to see the code and fix it. At any rate, using a single example and holding it against open source in general is extremely idiotic.
You have insinuated I believe something that I do not.
Nope. I'm talking about the people arguing in favor of these ridiculous policies.
Your belief about the unexceptional nature of conscience is taken under advisement, and I'm sure you're well aware that your view is a minority position. Feel free to change the culture, then change the Constitution (it won't work any other way). Until then, you are "wrong" in practice: religious beliefs are—and have been—treated as special by our culture and laws; barring fundamental changes in the culture, the system will continue to operate that way, as it always has.
Yep. Just like we had slavery in the past. Unjust policies need to be purged no matter how long they've been around. I'm in a minority on many issues, but mainly because most people are unprincipled and don't actually care about freedom, justice, or fairness (despise living in "the land of the free").
My perspective on the matter isn't shared by the Supremes, and neither is yours.
Obviously. And?
It's fair in the sense that they are opting out entirely rather than trying to receive benefits without paying in.
Again, anyone else should be able to do the same under similar conditions without being a part of any similar religion.
Well, given that we have used drafts repeatedly in our history whenever we face a major threat, your position doesn't work.
My position *does* work. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' not the 'land of the worthless cowards who sacrifice fundamental liberties for safety.' Guess what? If people don't want to fight for you, worthless government thugs shouldn't have the power to force you to go and die for them; that's completely anti-freedom. If people don't care enough about the country to defend it, and it falls, then too bad. That's a better result than allowing the draft.
You'll need to pass a constitutional amendment to change that.
What gets me is that fools believe that the only serious belief is a religious one. That is garbage. You don't need to be part of a religion to believe something, and nor is your belief any less true. These exceptions are unfair, anti-freedom, and mean we don't have a true separation of church and state.
And why bother? Again, just pass an amendment forbidding the draft. This is a no-brainer for anyone who cares about freedom. Then these conscientious objectors won't have to worry about a damn thing. Multiple problems solved at once.
But in case you haven't noticed yet... you don't need to try to inform me about the current state of things, as that's exactly what I'm criticizing. Telling me about how things work right now is useless.
You do not get to avoid paying for your share of being defended
We're not exactly doing much defending when we're attacking random countries and starting wars every five seconds. Give the army a chance to defend against something, will you? I also don't consider greatly exaggerated threats to be all that intimidating, so stop holding me at gunpoint, stealing my money, and then claiming that it's for my own good. Screw off.
They are putting the constitution *before* government attempts to eradicate religious behavior which the government disapproves of.
While giving religious people special exceptions. If what you do doesn't harm anyone, you shouldn't need to be part of a specific religion in order to not be harassed by the government.
Otherwise, expect others to think you are a loon for comparing an adult's religious beliefs to a two-year-old's security blanket
Why? Both are completely and utterly irrational, if we're talking about the belief in some deity. I know not all religions necessarily say you have to believe in a god.
Okay, cf. Amish being exempt from Social Security tax (and being ineligible for any benefits, of course), which is well-established [amishnews.com] at this point. This is not available to you unless you are a member of one of these orders.
Then my position is that anyone should be able to do the same thing no matter their religion.
They honestly believe it is a sin, so First Amendment applies. This is fair, of course, because it's not just an attempt to weasel out of obligations while partaking of benefits.
That is not "fair," and government thugs shouldn't be in the business of deciding what religions are real.
Also, consider the case of conscientious objectors/pacifists during 20th century US wars. Exemption due to religious beliefs.
Which is also bullshit, by the way. Either everyone should be able to get the exception, or no one should.
Better idea: Make drafts unconstitutional, since they're an egregious violation of people's fundamental liberties, religion or no religion.
The debate is over when life begins, and its a question that cannot and will not be answered by politicians or scientists.
I wasn't aware that that was the debate. Here I thought what I was talking about was people of certain religions being given exceptions that the rest of us cannot get unless we're part of certain religions.
For people (like myself) who believe that life begins at conception, saying that they need to fund abortion or abortifacient drugs is literally telling them to be complicit in the murder of infants. It is literally one of the worst things you could order someone to do.
Okay, that's your belief. I'm not debating that. What about, say, atheists who believe as you do? Should their organizations be able to get the exceptions too? Why should religion come into it? That's what I'm saying. Everyone should have the freedom.
Trying to compare this to spurious, hypothetical aversions to paying taxes is displaying an astonishing lack of perspective and common sense.
I did not say that the situations are the same. Only the logic being used. The logic is the same. "I'm part of religion X, which forbids mandatory thing Y. Give me an exception because of my religion!" It doesn't matter what X or Y are. Instead, what I'm saying is, everyone should be able to do the same thing, regardless of their religion, or lack thereof.
Then, once again, our government is anti-freedom and violating the separation of church and state. Indeed, there are many rules I don't agree with, and this is one such absurdity.
It's not up to me, but it is up to the government. Try to smoke peyote and claim your religion demands it. Unless you are Native American, you will be in trouble. Because the government decides which is an established religion, and which is just people inventing things.
Then that just means our system of government is flawed beyond all belief.
1. There is no such church 2. If you invented such a church, it would not be a legitimate church
Why should the government be able to decide that some magical sky daddies or religions are more legitimate than others? Why is one bullshit belief better than any other? Sounds like a terrible power to grant the government.
It's the same damn type of logic, and it can't be ignored just because it isn't the exact same situation. I don't really see why some idiots think they can get special exceptions applied to them in certain situations simply because they're part of some worthless religion, but they can't do it in other areas. If they can do it, I expect everyone to be able to get that exception, regardless of any (or no) religion beliefs.
While I am not religious, I do respect the rights of religious people. It is unconscionable for them to be forced to provide benefits that are in opposition to their morals.
And if taxes in general were in opposition to someone's morals and religion? Oh, I guess that doesn't apply anymore because... well, who cares about consistency!
It makes perfect sense to me that should not be allowed.
It doesn't make sense to me, since all they're doing is transmitting data from their own equipment, and people voluntarily deal with them. That it's illegal just means our laws are terrible.
At this rate, no one is going to be well-rounded because colleges are all going to become poor imitations of trade schools, thanks in part to a society that encourages people to view college in such a way. It's also part of the reason that colleges are so expensive to begin with.
Who, other than the uber-rich, views spending 100K or more on "becoming a more well rounded human being"?
People who care about education. And at any rate, part of the reason colleges and universities are becoming more expensive is because they're letting in all the losers who want job training to get their money.
Slashdot Mirror
You're being sarcastic, but the *point* of the US is (was) that you should have the choice to do that if you want, even if it's silly.
But then shouldn't that apply to everyone, rather than just people part of specific religions? The problem with exceptions like this is that they give religious people special privileges. If we want real freedom, no one should be more equal than anyone else. Separation of church and state is fundamental, and we can't have it if the government is deciding which religions are real, or making exceptions to rules for people of certain religions.
Whether you know it or not (And frankly, if you don't know that Microsoft's products are buggy and full of security holes, you're profoundly ignorant.), the same is true of proprietary software. In fact, it's probably worse, since it's much more difficult to see the code and fix it. At any rate, using a single example and holding it against open source in general is extremely idiotic.
You have insinuated I believe something that I do not.
Nope. I'm talking about the people arguing in favor of these ridiculous policies.
Your belief about the unexceptional nature of conscience is taken under advisement, and I'm sure you're well aware that your view is a minority position. Feel free to change the culture, then change the Constitution (it won't work any other way). Until then, you are "wrong" in practice: religious beliefs are—and have been—treated as special by our culture and laws; barring fundamental changes in the culture, the system will continue to operate that way, as it always has.
Yep. Just like we had slavery in the past. Unjust policies need to be purged no matter how long they've been around. I'm in a minority on many issues, but mainly because most people are unprincipled and don't actually care about freedom, justice, or fairness (despise living in "the land of the free").
Um...WHAT?
Yeah, I know. That sentence blew my mind! How can something you do for your job not be okay!? It's impossible!
My perspective on the matter isn't shared by the Supremes, and neither is yours.
Obviously. And?
It's fair in the sense that they are opting out entirely rather than trying to receive benefits without paying in.
Again, anyone else should be able to do the same under similar conditions without being a part of any similar religion.
Well, given that we have used drafts repeatedly in our history whenever we face a major threat, your position doesn't work.
My position *does* work. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' not the 'land of the worthless cowards who sacrifice fundamental liberties for safety.' Guess what? If people don't want to fight for you, worthless government thugs shouldn't have the power to force you to go and die for them; that's completely anti-freedom. If people don't care enough about the country to defend it, and it falls, then too bad. That's a better result than allowing the draft.
You'll need to pass a constitutional amendment to change that.
What gets me is that fools believe that the only serious belief is a religious one. That is garbage. You don't need to be part of a religion to believe something, and nor is your belief any less true. These exceptions are unfair, anti-freedom, and mean we don't have a true separation of church and state.
And why bother? Again, just pass an amendment forbidding the draft. This is a no-brainer for anyone who cares about freedom. Then these conscientious objectors won't have to worry about a damn thing. Multiple problems solved at once.
But in case you haven't noticed yet... you don't need to try to inform me about the current state of things, as that's exactly what I'm criticizing. Telling me about how things work right now is useless.
You do not get to avoid paying for your share of being defended
We're not exactly doing much defending when we're attacking random countries and starting wars every five seconds. Give the army a chance to defend against something, will you? I also don't consider greatly exaggerated threats to be all that intimidating, so stop holding me at gunpoint, stealing my money, and then claiming that it's for my own good. Screw off.
They are putting the constitution *before* government attempts to eradicate religious behavior which the government disapproves of.
While giving religious people special exceptions. If what you do doesn't harm anyone, you shouldn't need to be part of a specific religion in order to not be harassed by the government.
Otherwise, expect others to think you are a loon for comparing an adult's religious beliefs to a two-year-old's security blanket
Why? Both are completely and utterly irrational, if we're talking about the belief in some deity. I know not all religions necessarily say you have to believe in a god.
Okay, cf. Amish being exempt from Social Security tax (and being ineligible for any benefits, of course), which is well-established [amishnews.com] at this point. This is not available to you unless you are a member of one of these orders.
Then my position is that anyone should be able to do the same thing no matter their religion.
They honestly believe it is a sin, so First Amendment applies. This is fair, of course, because it's not just an attempt to weasel out of obligations while partaking of benefits.
That is not "fair," and government thugs shouldn't be in the business of deciding what religions are real.
Also, consider the case of conscientious objectors/pacifists during 20th century US wars. Exemption due to religious beliefs.
Which is also bullshit, by the way. Either everyone should be able to get the exception, or no one should.
Better idea: Make drafts unconstitutional, since they're an egregious violation of people's fundamental liberties, religion or no religion.
It's the same logic in the sense that they expect exceptions because of their religion.
The debate is over when life begins, and its a question that cannot and will not be answered by politicians or scientists.
I wasn't aware that that was the debate. Here I thought what I was talking about was people of certain religions being given exceptions that the rest of us cannot get unless we're part of certain religions.
For people (like myself) who believe that life begins at conception, saying that they need to fund abortion or abortifacient drugs is literally telling them to be complicit in the murder of infants. It is literally one of the worst things you could order someone to do.
Okay, that's your belief. I'm not debating that. What about, say, atheists who believe as you do? Should their organizations be able to get the exceptions too? Why should religion come into it? That's what I'm saying. Everyone should have the freedom.
Trying to compare this to spurious, hypothetical aversions to paying taxes is displaying an astonishing lack of perspective and common sense.
I did not say that the situations are the same. Only the logic being used. The logic is the same. "I'm part of religion X, which forbids mandatory thing Y. Give me an exception because of my religion!" It doesn't matter what X or Y are. Instead, what I'm saying is, everyone should be able to do the same thing, regardless of their religion, or lack thereof.
Then, once again, our government is anti-freedom and violating the separation of church and state. Indeed, there are many rules I don't agree with, and this is one such absurdity.
It's not up to me, but it is up to the government. Try to smoke peyote and claim your religion demands it. Unless you are Native American, you will be in trouble. Because the government decides which is an established religion, and which is just people inventing things.
Then that just means our system of government is flawed beyond all belief.
1. There is no such church
2. If you invented such a church, it would not be a legitimate church
Why should the government be able to decide that some magical sky daddies or religions are more legitimate than others? Why is one bullshit belief better than any other? Sounds like a terrible power to grant the government.
It's the same damn type of logic, and it can't be ignored just because it isn't the exact same situation. I don't really see why some idiots think they can get special exceptions applied to them in certain situations simply because they're part of some worthless religion, but they can't do it in other areas. If they can do it, I expect everyone to be able to get that exception, regardless of any (or no) religion beliefs.
That's all well and good, but I don't think you should be given an exception simply because you happen to be part of a specific religion.
While I am not religious, I do respect the rights of religious people. It is unconscionable for them to be forced to provide benefits that are in opposition to their morals.
And if taxes in general were in opposition to someone's morals and religion? Oh, I guess that doesn't apply anymore because... well, who cares about consistency!
"sins"? What are you, some sort of religious moron?
It makes perfect sense to me that should not be allowed.
It doesn't make sense to me, since all they're doing is transmitting data from their own equipment, and people voluntarily deal with them. That it's illegal just means our laws are terrible.
In other words, 1 + 1 = 3.
What, that isn't what you said? Well, now you know what it feels like.
What Aereo was doing diminishes the ability of the copyright holder to control how the copyrighted material is marketed/copied.
Wow, how terrible. Can't have copyright thugs not being able to control what everyone else does with the data on their own equipment, now can we?
The main problem is that you'll likely never be able to find out what the car is doing, so you can't trust it.
At this rate, no one is going to be well-rounded because colleges are all going to become poor imitations of trade schools, thanks in part to a society that encourages people to view college in such a way. It's also part of the reason that colleges are so expensive to begin with.
Who, other than the uber-rich, views spending 100K or more on "becoming a more well rounded human being"?
People who care about education. And at any rate, part of the reason colleges and universities are becoming more expensive is because they're letting in all the losers who want job training to get their money.
That's why letting in a bunch of losers who don't actually care about education is so dangerous for college/university education.