Bingo - our developement boxen at work are all running mysql/php and apache in the same basic configuration as our production servers - but they're all behind a firewall&NAT.
If we can to work home we SSH redirect the ports we need access to [typically only 80 forwarded to local 8080 and 5901 forwarded to local 5901 (vnc)]
Info From the DoD: The ACLU also points out the Pentagon donates approximately $2 million to the Boy Scouts for their quadrennial national Jamboree, which will be held this year July 25 through Aug. 3 at Fort A.P. Hill..... Aside from this week's agreement, the full lawsuit is still pending and is in the hands of U.S. District Court Judge Blanche Manning. In the lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union claims the Pentagon and the Housing and Urban Development Department violated the First Amendment's establishment clause by spending appropriated funds to support the Boy Scouts.
[other source says the same thing]
The case is not settled - AND it clearly states the BSA receives funding from the government.
Care you think what the constitutional demands the final decision to be? [Hint: The BigotScouts of America will get defunded if the constitution is respected]
the BSA even ADMITS to being descriminatory bigots religiously [against me] - but i'm more refering to them as bigots for their bigotry to homosexuals.
They're self admitted bigots - please feel free to defend them as not being bigots even though they've already admitted to being bigots.
The 14th Ammendment's EPC sides with the schools - that descrimination is banned: and therefore descriminatory groups are banned.
So in a round-about way the schools may end up winning by invalidating the law that gives the military equal access since the military is in violating of the constitution.
Gesundheit is not a superstitious comment - I propose you consult a german-english dictionary to see what that word means (Since it's borrowed from german).
Hint: i speak german Hint: it means "good health" - and is merely wishing something such.
Doesn't matter; the term doesn't exist in our constitution, and therefore is not law. Further, from your own quote: "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Wrong - the term is THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS - I established that pretty clearly with the source citations.
You are contradicting yourself. It is very obvious even by your own quotes that the relevant section of the first amendment - the "separation of church and state" - was specifically intended to prevent our government from passing a law that establishes a state religion.
Then you go on to say that placing religious reference in a court room or asking someone to swear on a religious text is in violation. How is this akin to a law being passed?
There is no contradiction if you understand legalese.
Agents of the government that are not politicians, and are not part of the judiciary, are members of the executive branch. If congress is banned from doing it the executive branch is banned from doing it - because only congress can authorize the executive branch to do anything [with few exceptions].
That makes their activities defacto laws.
Compensating for the Context of Jefferson it is quite clear that he meant I that it was a wall that blocked both directions.
Yes it does violate it in many ways shapes or forms - the GOVERNMENT teaching people religion (as fact) is the government having defacto state religion - now comparative religions classes look at the sociology of religion and examine the mythos without presumming it's true and therefore are constitutional.
There is right and wrong outside of religion. One can believe abortion is murder without having a religious basis behind it. The argument about when a fetus becomes human is not strictly a religious argument. Plenty of non-religious people disagree with abortion, as well as the other issues you mentioned.
Their argument is still religious - even if they're not what you would personally define as a religious person. It is religious because it is not based off demonstrable medical fact.
Neither does it allow students to lead other students in prayer, such as during graduation ceremonies, which I feel unconstitutionally limits the students' freedom of expression.
You would be incorrect - a student can spontaneously lead other students in the stands in a prayer - the school cannot provide that student a podium because then they are endorsing that religion.
When the school provides that student a podium that student temporarily becomes an agents of the school, therefore an agent of the government, and is bound by all the rules they are bound by.
Since they can choose not to become temporarily an agent of the government and merely remain in the stands and lead their follow students in a spontaneous prayer instead of a school-arranged one there is absolutely no violation of the freedom of expression
CNSnews is not a reliable source. Neither is the couches statement neccesarily. If he was walking down the lockerroom hall and his students are praying WITHOUT any instigation (or anything that appeared to be) from him then he did nothing wrong and is aloud to be there. He quite clearly wanted to actively engage in them WITH HIS STUDENTS - WHILE ACTING AS AN AGENT OF THE US GOVERNMEMT. That is banned - he CANNOT engage in prayers with his students while acting as an agent of the US Government.
There is no proof that the developing foetus has an independant consciousness - and there is also evidence that it cannot: it's brain is not developed.
Any form of independant consciousness that you define that can be present prior to the brain becoming developed enough is RELIGIOUS.
You don't have to let ethics rule your life, but you cannot let your religion rule your legal decisions otherwise you are violating the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the US Constitution.
Parent:(can we at least agree that that brand of porno is wrong?).
Absolutely - because children cannot legally consent to being involved in a sexual act.
[Now, when a "child" becomes an "adult" in relation to sexual consent is debateable... I'd say a 16 year old is just about as competant as an 18 year old]
You mind actually attempting to establish a lack of credibility for the over 900 peer-reviewed scholary works the book cited rather than poorly attempt to argumentum ad hominem them authors and make dark suggestions about them because ONE of the studies was missing two states that you think would somehow affect their results.
A foetus is not a living entity and thereby cannot be considered as an individual (And subject to having rights) by a court of law. So long as the developing foetus is dependant on it's mothers body to live it is part of her body to do with as she pleases.
A foetus becomes capable of surviving outside of it's mother's body without the aid of advanced medical technology sometime late within the third trimester ("date of viability")- THEN AND ONLY THEN does it become a legally recognizable entity. 99.999% of preganancies that reach this stage result in birth, the few that don't either end up in medical complications which naturally kill the foetus or require an emergency late-term abortion as to not kill/maim the mother. (So called "partial birth abortions" - no doctor will perform a non-medically required one)
Prior to the "date of viability" it is not an individual, it is part of the mothers body. "Any other definition is religious." - A British MP [can't remember their name]
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like our reliance on oil?
In a word: DUH
Bingo - our developement boxen at work are all running mysql/php and apache in the same basic configuration as our production servers - but they're all behind a firewall&NAT.
If we can to work home we SSH redirect the ports we need access to [typically only 80 forwarded to local 8080 and 5901 forwarded to local 5901 (vnc)]
Info From the DoD:
....
The ACLU also points out the Pentagon donates approximately $2 million to the Boy Scouts for their quadrennial national Jamboree, which will be held this year July 25 through Aug. 3 at Fort A.P. Hill.
Aside from this week's agreement, the full lawsuit is still pending and is in the hands of U.S. District Court Judge Blanche Manning. In the lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union claims the Pentagon and the Housing and Urban Development Department violated the First Amendment's establishment clause by spending appropriated funds to support the Boy Scouts.
[other source says the same thing]
The case is not settled - AND it clearly states the BSA receives funding from the government.
Care you think what the constitutional demands the final decision to be? [Hint: The BigotScouts of America will get defunded if the constitution is respected]
the BSA even ADMITS to being descriminatory bigots religiously [against me] - but i'm more refering to them as bigots for their bigotry to homosexuals.
They're self admitted bigots - please feel free to defend them as not being bigots even though they've already admitted to being bigots.
You're dead wrong- it was a DD official saying that they may have to withdraw their fudning to the BSA because of the BSA's position on homosexuals
No - they receive money directly from the Defense Department that funds their yearly jamboree
This was on the news last year.
*grumble Don't mod something informative that is factually inaccurate.*
Because it is very clearly in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Ammendment of the US constitution by all related legal precident
Given no other options than a YEC, i would bite the bullet - i was more refering to a GP for regular checkups
Your poor understanding of the legalese involved in a constitution is not the problem of GP
If they receive federal money they have to follow the 1st ammendment - this is the pre-existing decision of SCOTUS
I wouldn't allow a doctor that is a YEC do anything to any of my family.
Those students can go off campus to the local recruiting center - there is one in every college town.
The fact is the "Don't Ask, Dont Tell" policy is in violation of the constitution so the university is in the right
The 14th Ammendment's EPC sides with the schools - that descrimination is banned: and therefore descriminatory groups are banned.
So in a round-about way the schools may end up winning by invalidating the law that gives the military equal access since the military is in violating of the constitution.
That's not just your opinion - it's the law.
Don't know if i'm reading you correctly - are you saying that the anti-descrimination laws don't apply to the BigotScouts of America?
They do - because the BSA receives federal funding.
France scowls at you, ready to attack -- Looks like this fight would be rather easy.
The french government isn't liberal. The party in power is right wing.
Gesundheit is not a superstitious comment - I propose you consult a german-english dictionary to see what that word means (Since it's borrowed from german).
Hint: i speak german
Hint: it means "good health" - and is merely wishing something such.
I was 16 and 18 not to many years ago - most of my friends were mature enough to make an informed decision about sex at age 16
German's age of consent is 16 and they don't have any problems
Doesn't matter; the term doesn't exist in our constitution, and therefore is not law. Further, from your own quote: "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Wrong - the term is THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS - I established that pretty clearly with the source citations. You are contradicting yourself. It is very obvious even by your own quotes that the relevant section of the first amendment - the "separation of church and state" - was specifically intended to prevent our government from passing a law that establishes a state religion. Then you go on to say that placing religious reference in a court room or asking someone to swear on a religious text is in violation. How is this akin to a law being passed? There is no contradiction if you understand legalese. Agents of the government that are not politicians, and are not part of the judiciary, are members of the executive branch. If congress is banned from doing it the executive branch is banned from doing it - because only congress can authorize the executive branch to do anything [with few exceptions]. That makes their activities defacto laws. Compensating for the Context of Jefferson it is quite clear that he meant I that it was a wall that blocked both directions. Yes it does violate it in many ways shapes or forms - the GOVERNMENT teaching people religion (as fact) is the government having defacto state religion - now comparative religions classes look at the sociology of religion and examine the mythos without presumming it's true and therefore are constitutional. There is right and wrong outside of religion. One can believe abortion is murder without having a religious basis behind it. The argument about when a fetus becomes human is not strictly a religious argument. Plenty of non-religious people disagree with abortion, as well as the other issues you mentioned. Their argument is still religious - even if they're not what you would personally define as a religious person. It is religious because it is not based off demonstrable medical fact. Neither does it allow students to lead other students in prayer, such as during graduation ceremonies, which I feel unconstitutionally limits the students' freedom of expression. You would be incorrect - a student can spontaneously lead other students in the stands in a prayer - the school cannot provide that student a podium because then they are endorsing that religion. When the school provides that student a podium that student temporarily becomes an agents of the school, therefore an agent of the government, and is bound by all the rules they are bound by. Since they can choose not to become temporarily an agent of the government and merely remain in the stands and lead their follow students in a spontaneous prayer instead of a school-arranged one there is absolutely no violation of the freedom of expression CNSnews is not a reliable source. Neither is the couches statement neccesarily. If he was walking down the lockerroom hall and his students are praying WITHOUT any instigation (or anything that appeared to be) from him then he did nothing wrong and is aloud to be there. He quite clearly wanted to actively engage in them WITH HIS STUDENTS - WHILE ACTING AS AN AGENT OF THE US GOVERNMEMT. That is banned - he CANNOT engage in prayers with his students while acting as an agent of the US Government.
There is no proof that the developing foetus has an independant consciousness - and there is also evidence that it cannot: it's brain is not developed.
Any form of independant consciousness that you define that can be present prior to the brain becoming developed enough is RELIGIOUS.
You don't have to let ethics rule your life, but you cannot let your religion rule your legal decisions otherwise you are violating the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the US Constitution.
Ethics > absolute morals
Parent: (can we at least agree that that brand of porno is wrong?).
Absolutely - because children cannot legally consent to being involved in a sexual act.
[Now, when a "child" becomes an "adult" in relation to sexual consent is debateable... I'd say a 16 year old is just about as competant as an 18 year old]
It is very easy to get quotes from peer reviewed work on the internet. You failed to do so.
You mind actually attempting to establish a lack of credibility for the over 900 peer-reviewed scholary works the book cited rather than poorly attempt to argumentum ad hominem them authors and make dark suggestions about them because ONE of the studies was missing two states that you think would somehow affect their results.
Book: The Fundamentals of Extremism
it cites the origional source study.. don't have my copy handy
A foetus is not a living entity and thereby cannot be considered as an individual (And subject to having rights) by a court of law. So long as the developing foetus is dependant on it's mothers body to live it is part of her body to do with as she pleases.
A foetus becomes capable of surviving outside of it's mother's body without the aid of advanced medical technology sometime late within the third trimester ("date of viability")- THEN AND ONLY THEN does it become a legally recognizable entity. 99.999% of preganancies that reach this stage result in birth, the few that don't either end up in medical complications which naturally kill the foetus or require an emergency late-term abortion as to not kill/maim the mother. (So called "partial birth abortions" - no doctor will perform a non-medically required one)
Prior to the "date of viability" it is not an individual, it is part of the mothers body. "Any other definition is religious." - A British MP [can't remember their name]