Malaria use to be a huge problem in norther climates before the widespread use of DDT. No reason it could not come back. Also, Malaria is not the only mosquito-borne disease. West Nile is a problem in temperate zones.
Um, no you can't. The entirety of human existence is insignificant in terms of geologic time. Much less the time since the invention of the calibrated thermometer or the deployment of the same throughout the biosphere. Then there is the problem of establishing causal relationships, since we all learned, or at least should have, in our first high school science class that correlation has zero probative value. There is nothing "simple" about the real physical world.
Congress, you know, the body that passes laws, has explicitly voted to prohibit the EPA from considering CO2 as a pollutant. What we have is an out of control power mad lawless bureaucracy.
Tree rings from the coast mean nothing for Bakersfield. Relatively few microclimates have trees hundreds of years old. Tree ring size is a function of several variables, including sunlight, forest fires, temperature, crowding, disease, insect activity, and rainfall. Tree rings are a poor substitute for calibrated thermometers.
Mosquitoes are not limited to warm climates, as anyone who has been to Alaska in the summer can confirm. If the government really wanted to do something about the illnesses these critters spread, they should re-authorize DDT. The "science" that led to the ban was junk, and tens of millions of humans have died needlessly because of malaria infestations which could have been prevented.
I hope you would agree that murder should be against the law. Given that, on what basis could you say it should be against the law sans religious morality? There is certainly nothing inherent in nature to proscribe such. Pure nature is survival of the fittest, the strong preying on the weak, murder a strictly amoral natural consequence. Is that your fantasy of an ideal society?
All this law does is give standing to people of faith to present their beliefs as an affirmative defense in a court of law. It does not shield them from criminal actions such as you describe. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
I don't disagree with anything you say. My problem is when people try to extend the argument to try to banish people of faith from the arena of public policy, which is happening more and more.
Your arguments are fine straw men. That is, unless you are aware of a sudden plague of homicidal maniacs hiding behind personal beliefs that I must have missed.
OK, then tell me the content in the Indiana law that Clinton et al would have found odious. Specifically how it differs materially from the bill he signed into law.
There is nothing supreme about the supreme court other than being over other courts. It is but one of three co-equal branches, and by design the weakest since it is the least answerable to the people. They are not divinely appointed philosopher kings, and are as subject to human foibles as anyone else, as a few moments reflection on the career of RBG will confirm. They make mistakes all the time, and the tragedy is that more of them aren't impeached and thrown out of office.
Those who opine that Jefferson's musings are a lawful reason to banish religion from the public square are delusional.
Comparing a computer program to a law is disingenuous. I can easily overcome a misplaced semicolon in a law, A compiler, not so much. So tell us all the things in the Indiana law that Clinton et al would have found abhorrent.
No matter how many times it is repeated, there is no separation of church and state codified in the US Constitution or any state constitution. This verbiage is lifted from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church to assuage the church's fears that congress would prohibit their free exercise of conscience. Anyone who believes that the founders intended an atheistic system of government simply has no idea what they are talking about. Every single president in our history has invoked the blessings of heaven on our country in their inaugural address.
More right to free exercise of conscience is a good thing. Nobody should be compelled to do something that conflicts with their conscience, period, regardless of whether they are working for a living or not. Ever.
Yes, free exercise of conscience is a founding principle of this country and the bar to make people act against such should be quite high, even if they happen to be earning a living.
In 1993 Bill Clinton signed the federal RFRA into law. The bills were introduced by Ted Kennedy in the senate, and Chuck Schumer in the house. Every single house member voted for it. All but three in the senate voted for it. What has changed since 1993? Were all the politicians who voted for it back then being discriminatory? If not, how is the Indiana legislature any different?
Slashdot Mirror
Malaria use to be a huge problem in norther climates before the widespread use of DDT. No reason it could not come back. Also, Malaria is not the only mosquito-borne disease. West Nile is a problem in temperate zones.
Um, no you can't. The entirety of human existence is insignificant in terms of geologic time. Much less the time since the invention of the calibrated thermometer or the deployment of the same throughout the biosphere. Then there is the problem of establishing causal relationships, since we all learned, or at least should have, in our first high school science class that correlation has zero probative value. There is nothing "simple" about the real physical world.
Congress, you know, the body that passes laws, has explicitly voted to prohibit the EPA from considering CO2 as a pollutant. What we have is an out of control power mad lawless bureaucracy.
Tree rings from the coast mean nothing for Bakersfield. Relatively few microclimates have trees hundreds of years old. Tree ring size is a function of several variables, including sunlight, forest fires, temperature, crowding, disease, insect activity, and rainfall. Tree rings are a poor substitute for calibrated thermometers.
Mosquitoes are not limited to warm climates, as anyone who has been to Alaska in the summer can confirm. If the government really wanted to do something about the illnesses these critters spread, they should re-authorize DDT. The "science" that led to the ban was junk, and tens of millions of humans have died needlessly because of malaria infestations which could have been prevented.
Maybe you could cite a single atheistic founder? No, you cannot.
I hope you would agree that murder should be against the law. Given that, on what basis could you say it should be against the law sans religious morality? There is certainly nothing inherent in nature to proscribe such. Pure nature is survival of the fittest, the strong preying on the weak, murder a strictly amoral natural consequence. Is that your fantasy of an ideal society?
All this law does is give standing to people of faith to present their beliefs as an affirmative defense in a court of law. It does not shield them from criminal actions such as you describe. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
I don't disagree with anything you say. My problem is when people try to extend the argument to try to banish people of faith from the arena of public policy, which is happening more and more.
Your arguments are fine straw men. That is, unless you are aware of a sudden plague of homicidal maniacs hiding behind personal beliefs that I must have missed.
OK, then tell me the content in the Indiana law that Clinton et al would have found odious. Specifically how it differs materially from the bill he signed into law.
There is nothing supreme about the supreme court other than being over other courts. It is but one of three co-equal branches, and by design the weakest since it is the least answerable to the people. They are not divinely appointed philosopher kings, and are as subject to human foibles as anyone else, as a few moments reflection on the career of RBG will confirm. They make mistakes all the time, and the tragedy is that more of them aren't impeached and thrown out of office. Those who opine that Jefferson's musings are a lawful reason to banish religion from the public square are delusional.
All fine examples, none of which would be impacted by the Indiana statute, or the one Clinton signed into law in 1993 for that matter.
Yes. Obviously
Comparing a computer program to a law is disingenuous. I can easily overcome a misplaced semicolon in a law, A compiler, not so much. So tell us all the things in the Indiana law that Clinton et al would have found abhorrent.
Why do lefties always demand Soviet-style uniformity?
No matter how many times it is repeated, there is no separation of church and state codified in the US Constitution or any state constitution. This verbiage is lifted from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church to assuage the church's fears that congress would prohibit their free exercise of conscience. Anyone who believes that the founders intended an atheistic system of government simply has no idea what they are talking about. Every single president in our history has invoked the blessings of heaven on our country in their inaugural address.
Laws proscribing murder are based on religious prejudices.
More right to free exercise of conscience is a good thing. Nobody should be compelled to do something that conflicts with their conscience, period, regardless of whether they are working for a living or not. Ever.
Yes, free exercise of conscience is a founding principle of this country and the bar to make people act against such should be quite high, even if they happen to be earning a living.
In 1993 Bill Clinton signed the federal RFRA into law. The bills were introduced by Ted Kennedy in the senate, and Chuck Schumer in the house. Every single house member voted for it. All but three in the senate voted for it. What has changed since 1993? Were all the politicians who voted for it back then being discriminatory? If not, how is the Indiana legislature any different?
Nonsense. The law passed in Indiana is pretty much identical to the RFRA signed by Clinton, introduced by Schumer and Ted Kennedy, in 1993.
So the least qualified man in pretty much any room he enters is negotiating with the mad mullahs. What could go wrong?
Who knew there were Rs in Mongolia?
I think this is what is meant by being bound with chains of our own forging.