houstonderek wrote: Liz Courts wrote: Removed a post. Let's not be hostile towards each other and remember the topic includes "civil." I love how this thread continues (it hasn't been "civil" since page two), yet others are locked for much less.
Oh, well. Paizo must love their pet Christian bashing thread. Speaking as a member of the Church of Christ (soon to be member, anyway - I'm just a regular attendee right now), I don't feel like Paizo is bashing me. Do you think that will change once I become a member? I don't.
By the way, here's some cases the ACLU has taken to defend the rights of Christians. But don't let actual facts get in your way.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas (2010) filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Texas state prisoner seeking damages after prison officials denied him the opportunity to participate in Christian worship services.
http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights-religion-belief/christian-prisoner-ent itled-seek-monetary-damages-violation-his-rel
The ACLU of Alaska (2010) advised the Alaska Department of Education to respect the religious freedom of Russian Old Believer families by arranging alternate testing dates for the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam, which conflicts with Holy Week for Russian Old Believer students. Students may now take the test on different testing dates.
http://www.akclu.org/NewsEvents/High-School-Qualifying-Exam-Testing-10-02-1 7.pdf
The ACLU, its national chapter in Puerto Rico, and its affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (2010) filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing restrictive laws that effectively ban Jehovah's Witnesses from freely expressing their faith on the streets of Puerto Rico. The brief supports a challenge by the Witnesses to Puerto Rico statutes authorizing local neighborhoods to deny citizens access to public residential streets.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-brief-affirms-right-jehovahs-witne sses-carry-out-public-ministry
The ACLU of Maryland (2009) successfully settled a lawsuit on behalf of a Christian ministry for the homeless in the town of Elkton, Maryland, which had purchased a site for a religious day center to help the local community through job training, food, showers, and religious services. Though the site is legally zoned for the use of churches and centers that provide those services, the zoning board had refused to recognize the religious nature of the center, placing unreasonable limitations on the ministry. The ACLU of Maryland reached a favorable settlement with the town, affirming the church's right to operate its day center for the homeless.
http://aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2009/themeetinggroundsettlement.html
http://www.aclu-md.org/legal/Legal.html#Anchor-RELIGION-48213
The ACLU and the ACLU of the National Capital Area (2009) filed suit on behalf of a young Quaker whose religious beliefs prevent him from registering for the draft without some official way to record his claim of conscientious objection in the registration process. He is a birthright Quaker and does not believe that he can offer himself as a candidate for the military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR200907290 2625.html
The ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey (2009) filed a successful lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner – an ordained Pentecostal minister – to restore his fundamental right to preach to other inmates. The minister had preached at weekly Christian worship services at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey for more than a decade when prison officials suddenly banned that activity without any justification. As a result of the ACLU lawsuit, state officials agreed to allow the minister to resume preaching and teaching Bible study classes under the supervision of prison staff.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/ordained-pentecostal-minister-can-preac h-prison-after-aclu-lawsuit
The ACLU of Florida (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two families from the Dove World Outreach Center, defending their constitutional right to express themselves in public school with t-shirts stating, “Islam is of the devil.” The suit claims that the school has been inconsistent in enforcing restrictions on free speech.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20091124/ARTICLES/911241001/1118?Title=A CLU-files-suit-over-Devil-shirts&tc=autorefresh
The ACLU of Michigan (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the First Baptist Church of Ferndale after local residents cited a zoning ordinance to prevent the church from providing social services to the poor and homeless on church property. The ACLU argued that zoning boards may not burden the free exercise of religion simply because neighbors object. The Oakland County Circuit Court denied the request of the residents, allowing the church to continue providing services.
http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2009/09/25/news/srv0000006478506.txt
The ACLU of Tennessee (2009) came to the defense of a group of student teachers who conduct church services with the homeless in a public park. The ACLU successfully negotiated with the Metro Board of Parks and Recreation to revise a policy that had unfairly blocked religious groups' regular use of park space.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-tn-successfully-advocates-behalf-s tudent-preachers
The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia (2009) argued against the censorship of religious materials being sent to detainees in the Rappahannock Regional Jail. The ACLU wrote a letter to the superintendent of the jail, asking that the jail stop removing Christian-themed materials and biblical passages from letters written to detainees. As a result of ACLU involvement, the prison agreed to change its policies and allow religious mail. http://www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/40258prs20090709.html
The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) argued for the right of Christian preachers to distribute pamphlets at the Breaux Bridge Crawfish Festival. The ACLU wrote a letter to the mayor in support of the preachers, who had been ordered to stop handing out religious material. http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=thetowntalk &sParam=30796437.story
The ACLU of Louisiana (2009 ) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Donald Leger, a devout Catholic and prisoner on death row at Angola State Prison. The lawsuit challenged a prison policy mandating that all televisions on death row be tuned to predominately Baptist programming on Sunday mornings. Under the terms of a settlement in the case, Mr. Leger was able to view Catholic Mass regularly and was permitted private confessional visits with a priest. http://www.laaclu.org/newsArchive.php?id=342#n342
The ACLU of Texas (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU urged the court to reverse a decision that had prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also had sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In June 2009, the Texas Supreme Court agreed and ruled in favor of the pastor. http://aclutx.org/article.php?aid=726
The ACLU of Delaware (2009) represented the Episcopal Diocese of Delaware in a threatened eviction action against a congregation that was meeting in an elementary school on Sunday mornings. Because the school district permitted a wide variety of other groups to use its facilities, the ACLU wrote to the school district explaining that, as a general rule, public buildings must be made available to religious groups on the same terms that they are made available to the general public. In January 2009, the parties reached an amicable resolution permitting the church to continue using the facilities.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Shenkel United Church of Christ, objecting to North Coventry Township's refusal to allow the church to house homeless people for one month out of the year. The case is similar to several earlier actions brought by the ACLU on behalf of churches in the Pennsylvania towns of Brookville and Munhall.
http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/acludefendschurchprevented.htm
http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/courtshowdownavertedastown.htm
The ACLU of Kentucky (2009) represented several members of the Swartzentruber Amish, an Old Order Amish sect, in an attempt to overturn their criminal convictions for failing to display slow-moving vehicle emblems on their horse-drawn buggies. The Swartzentruber Amish object to displaying the emblems because they perceive them as worldly symbols that are to be avoided.
The ACLU of the National Capital Area (2009) brought suit on behalf of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish firefighters and paramedics who wear beards as a matter of religious observance. The district court agreed with the ACLU that the District of Columbia's policy prohibiting these individuals from wearing beards violated their religious freedom rights, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in 2009.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200903/07-7163-
The ACLU of Michigan (2008) filed a successful lawsuit on behalf of a Benton Harbor minister who was sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison for writing an article both criticizing the judge and predicting what God might do to the judge who presided over his case – actions protected by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and religious expression.
http://aclumich.org/issues/free-speech/2009-07/1383
The ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/102880
The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual's right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana.
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2008/NetherlandAmicus060408.html
The ACLU of North Carolina (2008) assisted an individual who had been banned from riding the bus in Raleigh for reading his Bible aloud. As a result of the ACLU's intervention, he was permitted back on the bus system.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas (2008) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas Supreme Court in support of mothers who had been separated from their children by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The DFPS seized more than 450 children from their homes in Eldorado, Texas, following vague allegations about child abuse by some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While fully supporting the state's commitment to protecting children from abuse, the ACLU argued that Texas law and the U.S. Constitution required that the children be returned unless the state could provide the requisite evidence of abuse. In May 2008, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled, consistent with the ACLU position, that the state must return the children to their homes pending further investigation of allegations of abuse.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/35468prs20080529.html
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/35500prs20080602.html
The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (2008) sued the City of Poplar Bluff after the City's public library disciplined a part-time employee who objected to participating in the promotion of a Harry Potter book. The employee, a devout Southern Baptist, had religious objections to the promotion, which she believed encouraged children to worship the occult. The lawsuit argued that the city violated federal law by refusing to accommodate her sincerely held religious beliefs.
http://www.aclu-em.org/legal/legaldocket/currentcases/smithvthomasetal.htm
The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The city had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted “free speech zones.” After receiving the ACLU's letter, the city revised its proposed ordinance.
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter.pdf
The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school's team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.
http://www.aclu-or.org/content/nakashima-v-board-education
The ACLU of Michigan (2007) filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court against Old Redford Academy, a public charter school in Detroit, for violating a ninth grade student's right to wear his hair long in accordance with a verse in Leviticus. Despite the religious basis for his long hair, the school suspended him and referred him for expulsion for violating its “closely cropped” hair policy. The judge issued an injunction ordering the Academy to let the student return to school.
http://www.aclumich.org/issues/religious-liberty/2007-10/1232
The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) sued on behalf of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) university student who won a prestigious scholarship to West Virginia University. Although the state scholarship board provided leaves of absence for military, medical, and family reasons, it denied the ACLU's client a leave of absence to serve on a two-year mission for his church. http://www.acluwv.org/Newsroom/PressReleases/07_19_07.html
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) challenged a North Carolina Department of Corrections policy making all religious services in prison English-only, thereby denying access to many inmates. The North Carolina Division of Prisons agreed to review the policy and the need for religious services in languages other than English in the state correctional system.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) came to the defense of a second-grade student who, in response to a class assignment to write a story, submitted a story about Easter and redemption. After the teacher rejected the submission because of its religious content, the ACLU wrote a letter to the school on the student's behalf. The principal and teacher subsequently apologized, and the principal agreed to instruct his teachers on the law.
The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing “Awesome God” in a voluntary after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html
The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) prevailed in their case on behalf of an Egyptian Coptic Christian who had been detained and who claimed he had been tortured by the Egyptian government because he refused to convert to Islam. After permitting Sameh Khouzam to stay in the United States for nine years based on evidence that he would probably be tortured if he returned to Egypt, the U.S. government changed its position in 2007 and sought to deport Mr. Khouzam based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured upon return. As a result of the ACLU's advocacy, a federal court granted Mr. Khouzam an indefinite stay of deportation to Egypt. http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/egyptiantorture/courtrejectsdeporta tionofe.htm
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) wrote a letter to the Dismas Charities Community Correction Center on behalf of a former resident who was told he could not drink wine during communion services while confined at the Center. After the ACLU advised the Center of its obligations under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, the Center revised its communion policy to comply with federal law.
The ACLU of Colorado (2007) came to the defense of a Seventh-Day Adventist who was being refused a religious diet in prison. After the ACLU communicated with prison authorities on the prisoner's behalf, the diet was provided.
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/Advocacy/2006/06.1021.wise.htm
The ACLU of Georgia (2007) filed a federal lawsuit to help obtain a zoning permit for a house of worship on behalf of the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church after the city of East Point denied the request. The city has since repealed the ordinance and churches are now allowed to occupy buildings that were previously used for commercial purposes.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/25518prs20060419.html
http://www.acluga.org/press.releases/0707/church.east.point.html
The ACLU of Delaware (2007) prevailed in a lawsuit brought on behalf of Christians, pagans, and Wiccans, alleging that a department store violated a Delaware public accommodations law by canceling community courses after individuals complained about the religious beliefs that were being taught in the centers.
The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (2007) represented Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose religious beliefs led her to condemn homosexuality as a sin and insist that God is punishing the United States. The protests in which she has been involved have been confrontational and have involved funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. While the ACLU does not endorse her message, it does believe that she has both religious and free-speech rights to express her viewpoint criticizing homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently refused to overturn a court of appeals decision in Phelps-Roper's favor.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) assisted with the naturalization of a Jehovah's Witness who was originally denied citizenship based on his conscientious refusal to swear an oath that he would be willing to bear arms on behalf of the country.
The ACLU of Rhode Island (2007) prevailed in its arguments on behalf of a Christian inmate, Wesley Spratt, who had been preaching in prison for over seven years before administrators told him to stop based on vague and unsubstantiated security concerns. After the ACLU prevailed in the Court of Appeals, the parties reached a settlement under which Mr. Spratt is free to preach again.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/Preacher_07-31-07_T76IHBQ.34294dd.html
The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) brought suit challenging a company's refusal to permit one of its employees to wear a skirt to work. The employee's religious beliefs prohibited her from wearing trousers. The employer refused to accommodate these beliefs despite the employee's offer to pay for a uniform skirt with her own funds.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) reached a favorable settlement after filing a federal lawsuit against the Department of Corrections on behalf of an inmate who was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). The inmate, Norman Sanders, was denied access to religious services and religious texts, including The Book of Mormon .
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2005/Aug26SandersvCain.htm
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) prevailed in its lawsuit defending the right of a Christian man to exercise his religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: “Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don't Shop There.”
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2006/Crayton_111306.htm
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/27266prs20061027.html
The ACLU of Florida (2006) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brian Nichols, a Christian minister, and First Vagabonds Church of God, his Orlando-based church for the homeless. The suit challenges the City of Orlando's ordinance that makes it unlawful to provide food to groups in the same public park more than twice per year. The minister and his church prevailed in federal district court, but the decision was reversed on appeal. http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3668
The ACLU of Nevada (2006) defended the free-exercise and free-speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of Las Vegas. When the county government refused to change its unconstitutional policy, the ACLU filed suit in federal court. http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T
The New York Civil Liberties Union (2006) filed a federal lawsuit in Manhattan defending the right of people wearing religious head coverings not to have them removed for identity photos. The case was brought against a Coast Guard regulation denying merchant marine licenses to those who would not remove the coverings for photographs.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/24780prs20060328.html
The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2005) defended the rights of two teenage girls who were threatened with punishment by school officials after seeking to wear, for religious reasons, anti-abortion t-shirts to school.
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html
The ACLU of New Mexico (2005) helped release a street preacher who had been incarcerated in Roosevelt County jail for 109 days. The case was brought to the ACLU by the preacher's wife and was supported by the American Family Association.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html
The ACLU of Michigan (2005) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Joseph Hanas, a Roman Catholic who was punished for not completing a drug rehabilitation program run by a Pentecostal group whose religious beliefs he did not share. Part of the program required reading the Bible for seven hours a day, proclaiming one's salvation at the altar, and being tested on Pentecostal principles. The staff confiscated Mr. Hanas's rosary beads and told him Catholicism was witchcraft.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html
The ACLU of Southern California (2005) defended an evangelical scholar who monitored the fundraising practices of several ministries and their leaders after a defamation suit was brought against him in order to silence him.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2004-2005) won two cases on behalf of predominantly African-American churches that were denied permits to worship in churches previously occupied by white congregations. In 2005, the ACLU of Pennsylvania settled a case against Turtle Creek Borough brought on behalf of the Ekklesia Church. After the ACLU's advocacy, the Borough of West Mifflin granted Second Baptist Church of Homestead an occupancy permit in 2002 and, in 2004, agreed to pay it damages and compensate it for its losses.
http://www.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=11083&c=28
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04111/303298.stm
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Y'know, thank you, LT. That looked like it took at least a little work to compile.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Y'know, thank you, LT. That looked like it took at least a little work to compile. I got the list off the web, but it had cases where the ACLU defended religious practice - not exclusively Christian. So, I had to read through it and remove all the cases not having to do with Christianity. After getting about a third of the way through, I just deleted what was left and posted what I had. The point I'm making is that the actual list would have been about three times as long as what I posted.
LilithsThrall wrote:
Speaking as a member of the Church of Christ (soon to be member, anyway - I'm just a regular attendee right now), I don't feel like Paizo is bashing me. Do you think that will change once I become a member? I don't.
On behalf of the Atheistic Socialist Syndicate Headquarters, Orthodox Liberation Exarchy, I hereby bash you.
*bash* *bash* *bash*
Sorry, but it had to be done. Also if I bash five more people I get a free toaster.
Samnell wrote: LilithsThrall wrote:
Speaking as a member of the Church of Christ (soon to be member, anyway - I'm just a regular attendee right now), I don't feel like Paizo is bashing me. Do you think that will change once I become a member? I don't.
On behalf of the Atheistic Socialist Syndicate Headquarters, Orthodox Liberation Exarchy, I hereby bash you.
*bash* *bash* *bash*
Sorry, but it had to be done. Also if I bash five more people I get a free toaster. Thanks, I was feeling left out.
It just really bothers me on a personal level that, in a country where the highest rate of teenage suicide is among gay youth, where 40% - 50% of the homeless are mentally ill, where over 16 million kids in this country went hungry at some point last year because their food supply was unreliable, where over 400,000 kids are in foster care (and over 28% of kids in foster care have been abused), that somebody is focused on alleged persecution of Christians in the United States ("alleged" in the sense that they are making up stories to support their claim).
I know I shouldn't get too hung up on the kind of people we're going to find on the Internet, but still..
It makes me wonder about the missing sense of perspective.
LilithsThrall wrote: I know I shouldn't get too hung up on the kind of people we're going to find on the Internet, but still.. My experience has been that one gets about the same kind of people we find on the internet as we find in real life every day. On the internet they just wear fewer masks. I went to a branch program from a fundamentalist university (painful story, but I had no idea how utterly insane they were when I signed up) and urban legends of persecution flew constantly. And that's when they were out in public. When you got them alone, in what they assumed was an all-Christian audience, they really went nuts.
I thought it might be a perspective issue, but these were more or less educated people. They knew what the word actually entailed. They had to know they hadn't suffered it in their lives, unless they were deep cover refugees from Saudi Arabia and if they were they were the best actors I've ever seen.
I eventually came to realize it was more like this. (And also here's part two.)
Samnell wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: I know I shouldn't get too hung up on the kind of people we're going to find on the Internet, but still.. My experience has been that one gets about the same kind of people we find on the internet as we find in real life every day. On the internet they just wear fewer masks. I went to a branch program from a fundamentalist university (painful story, but I had no idea how utterly insane they were when I signed up) and urban legends of persecution flew constantly. And that's when they were out in public. When you got them alone, in what they assumed was an all-Christian audience, they really went nuts.
I thought it might be a perspective issue, but these were more or less educated people. They knew what the word actually entailed. They had to know they hadn't suffered it in their lives, unless they were deep cover refugees from Saudi Arabia and if they were they were the best actors I've ever seen.
I eventually came to realize it was more like this. I grew up in a holy roller church where this kind of stupidity was wide reaching. In fact, they spread this very story about P & G (among many others - such as DnD and Martial Arts both being of the Devil). That and the way this particular church treated blacks, homeless people, the mentally ill (my dad was schizophrenic), the physically handicapped (my mom is blind and deaf), gays, and other groups of people who had been pushed aside by mainstream culture (particularly when such treatment was juxtaposed against the way Christ was always portrayed treating the outsiders) and the degree of control over the congregation the church leadership exercised (the tithe went exclusively to pay the Preacher - do I need to point out that if 100 families paid tithes, the Preacher was getting a larger pay check than anyone else in the congregration?) finally caused me to leave the church. I stayed away for 20 years.
What brought me back was when I discovered that not all churches are like that. As I mentioned, for example, I live in Colorado Springs - the headquarters of Focus on the Family (a more poisonous Christian organization is harder to imagine) - and right in the middle of this mess is a church which founded the Colorado gay men's choir, is a significant partner of PFLAG, has many different fundraisers going to charitable causes (I counted six actively working on fundraisers - for non-church charities, the last time I was there), on and on and on. It belongs to a denomination which was the first denomination in the United States to appoint a black minister, a female minister, and a gay minister.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm more aware than most people of the bullshit which is in some churches. As a gay man who grew up in a holy roller church, you can take my word on that. Just don't forget that all churches are not made the same.
LilithsThrall wrote:
I grew up in a holy roller church where this kind of stupidity was wide reaching. In fact, they spread this very story about P & G (among many others - such as DnD and Martial Arts both being of the Devil). That and the way this particular church treated blacks, homeless people, the mentally ill (my dad was schizophrenic), the physically handicapped (my mom is blind and deaf), gays, and other groups of people who had been pushed aside by mainstream culture (particularly when such treatment was juxtaposed against the way Christ was always portrayed treating the outsiders) and the degree of control over the congregation the church leadership exercised (the tithe went exclusively to pay the Preacher - do I need to point out that if 100 families paid tithes, the Preacher was getting a larger pay check than anyone else in the congregration?) finally caused me to leave the church. I stayed away for 20 years.
I can believe it. I and a Catholic lady who sat next to me were told more than a few times in the religion classes that the teacher wasn't interested in hearing about corruption in the church. Or any church. He clearly considered it a major distraction from the important stuff that somehow he never managed to name. I think that was because the important thing was to pay his salary, buy him a new house, a nice car, hookers and blow, whatever he wanted.
Ever watch Marjoe? These guys have it down to a science, and were so unashamed that they let the cameras record them gloating as they counted the money and discussed investing in plantations in South America with the missionary funds. They even got revival preachers getting people to shell out for cars and commercial property down by the freeway that the Lord said they had to buy. ...and this was before the slick multimedia megachurch days.
I would wonder how these people live with themselves, but cash is awesomely therapeutic.
Quote:
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm more aware than most people of the b*#**#&! which is in some churches. As a gay man who grew up in a holy roller church, you can take my word on that. Just don't forget that all churches are not made the same.
Sure. I didn't quite get the thrilling experience of being condemned every Sunday morning in my formative years, but I got to hear plenty of the crazy in college where I didn't have the option of answering back. I wish being gay was as wild and fun as those guys think it is. I mean that's the subtext when they really get going: If society doesn't force men to stay straight, they'll be friends of Dorothy in like twenty minutes because, wow, penis is just amazing for everybody. It's mind altering.
Samnell wrote: I mean that's the subtext when they really get going: If society doesn't force men to stay straight, they'll be friends of Dorothy in like twenty minutes because, wow, penis is just amazing for everybody. It's mind altering. Considering how many of these people have been discovered to be closeted, it kinda makes sense that they think penis is just amazing for everybody.
LilithsThrall wrote: Samnell wrote: I mean that's the subtext when they really get going: If society doesn't force men to stay straight, they'll be friends of Dorothy in like twenty minutes because, wow, penis is just amazing for everybody. It's mind altering. Considering how many of these people have been discovered to be closeted, it kinda makes sense that they think penis is just amazing for everybody. I realize I have not been participating in this thread, and I'm probably jumping in at a bad point, but...
God. That is the funniest line I have heard in some time. I have got to use that at work.
I removed a post. Since this is the civil religious discussion thread, it's really poor form to mock or taunt anyone.
LilithsThrall wrote: Samnell wrote: I mean that's the subtext when they really get going: If society doesn't force men to stay straight, they'll be friends of Dorothy in like twenty minutes because, wow, penis is just amazing for everybody. It's mind altering. Considering how many of these people have been discovered to be closeted, it kinda makes sense that they think penis is just amazing for everybody. A friend sent me a profile of Ted Haggard from before we found out about his meth and rentboy habit. It lingered on the bronze statues of hot guys he had around his church and his obsession with masculinity. Hilarious reading, but sad in a way too. It's intensely satisfying to see these jerks outed, and they've caused enough harm that I don't feel any twinges of guilt about them personally taking a few on the nose. But then I think about the repressive society that created them.
What must it be like to lie to yourself and others constantly, all the while inveighing against the truth about yourself? I have read that there's an entire genre of pre-Stonewall gay literature obsessed with self-loathing and usually ending in suicide, but it's obscure because after about 1970 nobody was interested in reading it anymore and it all went out of print. But that's the world that these people are living in still, and want for the rest of us.
This one should make the "poor, oppressed Christians" feel a lot better.
Christian Billboards.
Scroll down a bit and check 'em out. And keep in mind that "Millions of Americans are Good without God" is offensive, Christian-bashing hate speech, whereas these pious examples of advertising are wholesome and all-American.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Why would you do that to me, Kirth? I could have been so happy not knowing those things exist. :P
TriOmegaZero wrote: Why would you do that to me, Kirth? I could have been so happy not knowing those things exist. :P Just trying to cheer up poor Derek, so he doesn't feel quite so oppressed. Granted, I don't see much in the New Testament that would encourage billboards like these, either.
Could it maybe be that there are just some people who are total morons, and that some of those morons are Christian, and some are atheists, and still others are Muslim and Hundu and whatever else? And that the existence of any of these morons does not constitute a sinister conspiracy "Christian-bashing" or what have you?
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The websites those billboards represent suggest that too.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Just trying to cheer up poor Derek, so he doesn't feel quite so oppressed. Granted, I don't see much in the New Testament that would encourage billboards like these, either.
Could it maybe be that there are just some people who are total morons, and that some of those morons are Christian, and some are atheists, and still others are Muslim and Hundu and whatever else? And that the existence of any of these morons does not constitute a sinister conspiracy "Christian-bashing" or what have you?
Kirth since the argument is often made that atheism is actually a religion, I demand it henceforth be referred to as Atheism.
Naturally, since I'm the Senior Skeptic, all checks should be made out to me. :-)
bugleyman wrote: Kirth since the argument is often made that atheism is actually a religion, I demand it henceforth be referred to as Atheism. Does that mean that, as a person who does consulting work that does not invoke any religion, said consulting work is therefore Atheistic, and I'm therefore now tax-exempt? Sweet!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/elizabeth-edwards-funeral-westboro -baptist-church_n_794333.html
Not much I can say about this.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I wish they would stop getting the attention they seek.
Kirth Gersen wrote: This one should make the "poor, oppressed Christians" feel a lot better.
Christian Billboards.
Scroll down a bit and check 'em out. And keep in mind that "Millions of Americans are Good without God" is offensive, Christian-bashing hate speech, whereas these pious examples of advertising are wholesome and all-American.
Why do atheists hate america had me laughing for quite some time.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
No, I'm going to have to call B.S. on that one.
There is no possible statute under which you could legally fire someone for simply saying "Merry Christmas" -- unless you did the thing I referenced in the last post, and actively antagonized someone you knew wasn't Christian, just to be a dick.
<snip>
Put simply, you are mistaken.
There are no statutes that are needed to give permission for such a thing. Although there are prohibitions against employment discrimination based upon sex and race and a slew of other things, including religion.
Here is a link to a summary of some federal laws restricting what can be done by employers and restricting actions within the work space:
Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers
from the link...
Quote:
Religious Accommodation
An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.
What employers can do is put restraints upon one's actions while being paid since they are paying the worker to do things for them.
They can set dress codes and put limitations on what people say and how they act while on the clock/being paid. There are even many instances where behavior while not being paid/on the clock can be severely restricted.
In the case above, how an emplyee interacts with a customer is explicitly within the realm of control of an employer. Some people are offended/annoyed by hearing "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and vice versa. It is perfectly within the right of an employer to limit employee exchanges to one or the other or neither (restrict use of both or restrict use of none) based upon his business interests. Any employer can determine that an employee should say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" or vice versa and firing could be a result for failure to comply. Such a decision may or may not be good business sense and does not need to be.
I just had to step in here for a second because I have a few years of managerial experience under my belt and now return you to your regularly scheduled Christian bashing.
Couldn't pass up the parting cheap shot. :P
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: and actively antagonized someone you knew wasn't Christian, just to be a dick. In the case above, how an emplyee interacts with a customer is explicitly within the realm of control of an employer. Some people are offended/annoyed by hearing "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and vice versa. It is perfectly within the right of an employer to limit employee exchanges to one or the other or neither (restrict use of both or restrict use of none) based upon his business interests. Any employer can determine that an employee should say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" or vice versa and firing could be a result for failure to comply. Now you're talking employee on customer, not between employees, and raise an interesting case. Say my business caters to Israelis. Any employee who insists on making a big point to yell "Merry Christmas!!!!" at them is doing it just to be a dick. And I stated above that you can fire them for that... because you're actually firing them for antaginizing your customers, not for innocently saying "Merry Christmas," no matter what kind of BS framing you try and put on it. Asking employees not to intentionally sabotage your business =/= "Christian bashing."
Kirth Gersen wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: and actively antagonized someone you knew wasn't Christian, just to be a dick. In the case above, how an emplyee interacts with a customer is explicitly within the realm of control of an employer. Some people are offended/annoyed by hearing "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and vice versa. It is perfectly within the right of an employer to limit employee exchanges to one or the other or neither (restrict use of both or restrict use of none) based upon his business interests. Any employer can determine that an employee should say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" or vice versa and firing could be a result for failure to comply. Now you're talking employee on customer, not between employees, and raise an interesting case. Say my business caters to Israelis. Any employee who insists on making a big point to yell "Merry Christmas!!!!" at them is doing it just to be a dick. And I stated above that you can fire them for that... because you're actually firing them for antaginizing your customers, not for innocently saying "Merry Christmas," no matter what kind of BS framing you try and put on it. Asking employees not to intentionally sabotage your business =/= "Christian bashing." But again, you are creating restrictions on firings that do not exist.
You don't have to cater to a particular group to get this abilty to fire someone for saying something you do not want them to say to your (general) customers. Any business owner can place the restriction I stated("Merry Christmas" in place of "Happy Holidays" or vice versa) and fire for an employee's failure to comply.
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: You don't have to cater to a particular group to get this abilty to fire someone for saying something you do not want them to say to your (general) customers. Any business owner can place the restriction I stated ("Merry Christmas" in place of "Happy Holidays" or vice versa) and fire for an employee's failure to comply. Any business in Texas can fire for no stated reason whatsoever, as this is a "right-to-work" state, but that hardly advances the discussion -- I certainly wouldn't make the claim that this specifically makes all Texas businesses "christian-bashing," because it cuts all ways.
If the business owner in your example has some business-related reason to insist on one or the other, then I'd say he's firing based on a business-related stance, not an anti-christian/anti-atheist/anti-Jewish one. If he has no legitimate business reason for the decision, then one can expect lawsuits regarding any firings made for the explicit reason you outline -- and I'm sure a quick Google search will turn up any number of them.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Asking employees not to intentionally sabotage your business =/= "Christian bashing." But we learned in this thread that to the crazies and their enablers simply being polite, friendly, and non-Christian was bashing. I suppose the only way to stop bashing Christians is to become one, which is the point of all the fake persecution stories anyway: "Lord help us! There are DIFFERENT people out there!"
Kirth Gersen wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: You don't have to cater to a particular group to get this abilty to fire someone for saying something you do not want them to say to your (general) customers. Any business owner can place the restriction I stated ("Merry Christmas" in place of "Happy Holidays" or vice versa) and fire for an employee's failure to comply. Any business in Texas can fire for no stated reason whatsoever, as this is a "right-to-work" state, but that hardly advances the discussion. If the business owner in your example has some business-related reason to insist on one or the other, then I'd say he's firing based on a business-related stance, not an anti-christian/anti-atheist/anti-Jewish one. If he has no legitimate business reason for the decision, then one can expect lawsuits regarding any firings made for the explicit reason you outline. Lawsuits that will be lost by the plaintiffs. Again, for a third time, you are making up restrictions that do not exist.
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Again, for a third time, you are making up restrictions that do not exist. In some cases, businesses are allowed wide latitude in firing. In theory, this might allow A###+&% Atheist Exec 1 to fire someone for saying "Merry Christmas," on a technicality. Equally, it would allow Bumbling Buddhist Exec 2 to fire someone for poor interbeing, on a technicality.
Equally, it allows Clueless Christian Exec 2 to fire someone for saying "Happy Holidays." As I said it cuts all ways. Yet you're still trying to make it out to be specifically some sort of Christian-bashing conspiracy.
Which is why I brought up right to work states -- with NO restrictions on firing. I'm not making any up, because there aren't any. Are all right to work states Christian-bashing liberal shills?
Kirth Gersen wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Again, for a third time, you are making up restrictions that do not exist. So, right to work states are all Christian-bashing liberal shills. Gotcha. Stop being ridiculous.
I said no such thing.
I implied no such thing.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I have stated.
If you paid a lick of attention to what I was saying you would know that.
Reread what I posted and what it was written in response to.
It has something to do with "vice versa".
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Stop being ridiculous.
I said no such thing.
I implied no such thing.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I have stated.
If you paid a lick of attention to what I was saying you would know that.
Reread what I posted and what it was written in response to.
It has something to do with "vice versa".
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: I just had to step in here for a second because I have a few years of managerial experience under my belt and now return you to your regularly scheduled Christian bashing. Looks to me like you made your position abundantly clear there in that first post, Thing.
Kirth Gersen wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Stop being ridiculous.
I said no such thing.
I implied no such thing.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I have stated.
If you paid a lick of attention to what I was saying you would know that.
Reread what I posted and what it was written in response to.
It has something to do with "vice versa".
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: I just had to step in here for a second because I have a few years of managerial experience under my belt and now return you to your regularly scheduled Christian bashing. Looks to me like you made your position abundantly clear there in that first post, Thing. Did you just completely miss the part where I said that I could not pass up on the opportunity to make the remark? I even called it a cheap shot, thus admitting it had no value to the conversation and I added an emoticon to show my jesting. I was not accusing anyone of Christian bashing. It was a f*cking joke because so much has been discussed in this thread both calling people Chrisitan bashers and with those being so-called contesting it.
I explained that you were wrong in saying that it would be illegal to fire people for failing to comply with an employer's restrictions on what salutations an employee could use during the Christmas shopping season.
@ Kirth
And I take it you just completely ignored the vice versa part of my argument?
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Did you just completely miss the part where I said that I could not pass up on the opportunity to make the remark? I even called it a cheap shot, thus admitting it had no value to the conversation and I added an emoticon to show my jesting. I was not accusing anyone of Christian bashing. It was a f*cking joke because so much has been discussed in this thread both calling people Chrisitan bashers and with those being so-called contesting it. Your initial post reads one way to you, and quite another way to me, which is sadly more often than not the case when communicating in this fashion. Face to face, I can watch your expression and know if you were really kidding, when you're telling the truth, and so on. Over the net, all I have is the timing in the thread, the tenor of your previous comments, and what your post is in response to. If you were actually being serious about it being a two-way deal -- which incidentally would support my side of the debate far more than Derek's -- then I apologize for misinterpreting.
EDIT: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
And I take it you just completely ignored the vice versa part of my argument?
I didn't ignore it; given the timing and perceived tone of the initial post, I (mis?)construed it as a transparent attempt to pretend to be looking at two sides, while actually supporting a single position -- which people do disturbingly often. Again, if that wasn't what you were doing, I'll happily apologize.
Kirth Gersen wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Did you just completely miss the part where I said that I could not pass up on the opportunity to make the remark? I even called it a cheap shot, thus admitting it had no value to the conversation and I added an emoticon to show my jesting. I was not accusing anyone of Christian bashing. It was a f*cking joke because so much has been discussed in this thread both calling people Chrisitan bashers and with those being so-called contesting it. Your initial post reads one way to you, and quite another way to me, which is sadly more of then than not the case when communicating in this fashion. Face to face, I can watch your expression and know if you were really kidding, when you're telling the truth, and so on. Over the net, all I have is the timing in the thread, and what your post is in response to. If you were actually being serious about it being a two-way deal -- which incidentally would support my side of the debate far more than Derek's -- then I apologize for misinterpreting.
Edit: I didn't ignore it; given the timing and perceived tone of the initial post, I (mis?)construed it as a transparent attempt to pretend to be looking at two sides, while actually supporting a single position -- which people do disturbingly often. Again, if that wasn't what you were doing, I'll happily apologize. My vice versa bit explicitly stated that, according to the law, a single business could choose to restrict employees to saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and that the same business could choose to restrict employees to saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays". I don't see how you could not be ignoring that when saying that I was arguing right to work states are Christian-bashers.
In your post to which I responded you stated that there are laws that would prevent employees from being fired for saying "Merry Christmas". (Or, more correctly, you stated there are no statutes allowing that to happen...)
That is explicitly wrong. I stated it was explicitly wrong. I explained that.
Except for one line that explicitly called itself a cheap shot, every single argument I made was in regards to what the law is concerning restricting an employees actions while working.
...I just have considerable experience managing in a customer service oriented job field and that is how I am familiar with what is allowed and what is not.
Edit: Stupid me. I stopped reading short of the happily apologize bit. I'm a moron, my apologies on the last.
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Did you just completely miss the part where I said that I could not pass up on the opportunity to make the remark? I even called it a cheap shot, thus admitting it had no value to the conversation and I added an emoticon to show my jesting. I was not accusing anyone of Christian bashing. It was a f*cking joke because so much has been discussed in this thread both calling people Chrisitan bashers and with those being so-called contesting it. Your initial post reads one way to you, and quite another way to me, which is sadly more of then than not the case when communicating in this fashion. Face to face, I can watch your expression and know if you were really kidding, when you're telling the truth, and so on. Over the net, all I have is the timing in the thread, and what your post is in response to. If you were actually being serious about it being a two-way deal -- which incidentally would support my side of the debate far more than Derek's -- then I apologize for misinterpreting.
Edit: I didn't ignore it; given the timing and perceived tone of the initial post, I (mis?)construed it as a transparent attempt to pretend to be looking at two sides, while actually supporting a single position -- which people do disturbingly often. Again, if that wasn't what you were doing, I'll happily apologize. My vice versa bit explicitly stated that, according to the law, a single business could choose to restrict employees to saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and that the same business could choose to restrict employees to saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays". I don't see how you could not be ignoring that when saying that I was arguing right to work states are Christian-bashers.
In your post to which I responded you stated that there are laws that would prevent employees from being fired for saying "Merry Christmas". (Or, more correctly, you stated there are no statutes allowing that to happen...)... The fact is that the way you expressed yourself conveyed a message you have since made clear you didn't mean to express. Accept that. Acknowledge that. We can focus on what you did mean to say - that a Christian minister can fire an employee for saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and vice versa (though that's only true in some states - right to work states, not all states).
LilithsThrall wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: Did you just completely miss the part where I said that I could not pass up on the opportunity to make the remark? I even called it a cheap shot, thus admitting it had no value to the conversation and I added an emoticon to show my jesting. I was not accusing anyone of Christian bashing. It was a f*cking joke because so much has been discussed in this thread both calling people Chrisitan bashers and with those being so-called contesting it. Your initial post reads one way to you, and quite another way to me, which is sadly more of then than not the case when communicating in this fashion. Face to face, I can watch your expression and know if you were really kidding, when you're telling the truth, and so on. Over the net, all I have is the timing in the thread, and what your post is in response to. If you were actually being serious about it being a two-way deal -- which incidentally would support my side of the debate far more than Derek's -- then I apologize for misinterpreting.
Edit: I didn't ignore it; given the timing and perceived tone of the initial post, I (mis?)construed it as a transparent attempt to pretend to be looking at two sides, while actually supporting a single position -- which people do disturbingly often. Again, if that wasn't what you were doing, I'll happily apologize. My vice versa bit explicitly stated that, according to the law, a single business could choose to restrict employees to saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and that the same business could choose to restrict employees to saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays". I don't see how you could not be ignoring that when saying that I was arguing right to work states are Christian-bashers.
In your post to which I responded you stated that there are laws that would prevent employees from being fired for saying "Merry Christmas". (Or, more correctly, you stated there are no The fact is that the way you expressed yourself conveyed a message you have since made clear you didn't mean to express. Accept that. Acknowledge that. We can focus on what you did mean to say - that a Christian minister can fire an employee for saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and vice versa (though that's only true in some states - right to work states, not all states). I'm not talking about Christian ministers. I'm talking about anyone who runs a business. And, I haven't seen anything to show me that this can't be done in any state. It is not just right to work states.
The point is that any business such as a wal-mart or whatever could say that they want their employees to only say "Merry Christmas" or to only say "Happy Holdiays" and there is nothing in the law to stop them from doing so.
A local manager may decide that "he doesn't want to offend anybody" or that he "wants to be more inclusive" or that he "wants to be traditional" or any number of things. Any or all could be used at the exact same placed for the same or different reason. That reason could be to benefit the commun ity, to fit the community, to make more money, or whatever. It doesn't matter. It involves how employees interact with the public and that is the province of employer control. They can set whatever standard for public interaction they want and you can abide by it or go somewhere else to work.
Note: There is a "reasonable accomodation" clause. Considering that Christmas is considered a secular holiday, requiring it to be said is not unreasonable according to the law. Considering "happy holidays" is a generally benign phrase, there is nothing unreasonable about expecting it to be used instead of something else, according to the law. Law in this case refers to federal law regarding discrimination. Differing religions also have various festivals, requiring employees to say proper phrases during those times is not unreasonable because they are simple greetings and are being used to sell product.
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
My vice versa bit explicitly stated that, according to the law, a single business could choose to restrict employees to saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and that the same business could choose to restrict employees to saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays". I don't see how you could not be ignoring that when saying that I was arguing right to work states are Christian-bashers.
In your post to which I responded you stated that there are laws that would prevent employees from being fired for saying "Merry Christmas". (Or, more correctly,
... I thought you were a management professional, HR person, or legal expert. I don't really see any merit in having a discussion with someone on the what the law says (or has been upheld in various states) when neither of us is an expert on it. I'm sure there is a management professional, HR person, or legal expert on these boards somewhere who might want to tell us what the law is.
LilithsThrall wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
My vice versa bit explicitly stated that, according to the law, a single business could choose to restrict employees to saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and that the same business could choose to restrict employees to saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays". I don't see how you could not be ignoring that when saying that I was arguing right to work states are Christian-bashers.
In your post to which I responded you stated that there are laws that would prevent employees from being fired for saying "Merry Christmas". (Or, more correctly,
... I thought you were a management professional, HR person, or legal expert. I don't really see any merit in having a discussion with someone on the what the law says (or has been upheld in various states) when neither of us is an expert on it. I'm sure there is a management professional, HR person, or legal expert on these boards somewhere who might want to tell us what the law is. I mentioned earlier that I did spend several years managing in a heavy customer service industry (restaurant work) and received varied training on what I was legally allowed to require of employees. So, please explain why we are supposed to wait on a management professional to continue?
I don't have to post links to laws and judgements disallowing these restrictions to be placed because they don't exist.
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: I mentioned earlier that I did spend several years managing in a heavy customer service industry (restaurant work) and received varied training on what I was legally allowed to require of employees. So, please explain why we are supposed to wait on a management professional to continue?
I don't have to post links to laws and judgements disallowing these restrictions to be placed because they don't exist.
A fast food manager and an MBA (or even a PMP) aren't the same thing.
As for waitiing for a professional to chip in, you don't have to wait. I'm just saying that *I* don't like to have a discussion about a fairly complex subject without someone in the discussion having done some deep study on the topic.
LilithsThrall wrote: The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote: I mentioned earlier that I did spend several years managing in a heavy customer service industry (restaurant work) and received varied training on what I was legally allowed to require of employees. So, please explain why we are supposed to wait on a management professional to continue?
I don't have to post links to laws and judgements disallowing these restrictions to be placed because they don't exist.
A fast food manager and an MBA (or even a PMP) aren't the same thing.
As for waitiing for a professional to chip in, you don't have to wait. I'm just saying that *I* don't like to have a discussion about a fairly complex subject without someone in the discussion having done some deep study on the topic. You don't need an MBA to be a professional in a career and unless someone has a four year degree (work experience apparently doesn't matter) they don't measure up to your standards and your whole point in entering a conversation that was directed at comments made by someone other than you (Kirth) was to say that you are not going to enter the conversation because those in the conversation are not worthy of your time and this is stated after the conversation has ended. Wow. Good to know, and I will not waste my time here further.
Edit note: It isn't a complex subject. Employers have enormous leeway in restricting your actions while getting paid when the actions are directly related to the business, i.e cusomer interaction.
Carry on.
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
You don't need an MBA to be a professional in a career and unless someone has a four year degree (work experience apparently doesn't matter) they don't measure up to your standards and your whole point in entering a conversation that was directed at comments made by someone other than you (Kirth) was to say that you are not going to enter the conversation because those in the conversation are not worthy of your time and this is stated after the conversation has ended. Wow. Good to know, and I will not waste my time here further.
I wouldn't get my legal advice from a paralegal, but from a lawyer. I wouldn't get my medical advice from a swim coach, but from a medical doctor. I wouldn't get my accounting advice from a store clerk, but from an accountant. When it comes to getting managment advice, I prefer to get it from a MBA rather than someone who manages the fry machine at a fast food restaurant.
I've acknowledged that those are personal opinions and are not expected of everyone else in this discussion. You and I were having some back and forth for a couple of posts and I posted to let you know that I was dropping out of the conversation and why.
LilithsThrall wrote: ...I live in Colorado Springs -... We should do lunch...
There is no religion. There is no society. There is no learning. There is no culture. There is only ZUUL.
FNORD!
erian_7 wrote: Afraid I've got to head to bed early tonight for a long day tomorrow. I'll get back to this tomorrow night hopefully!
For the evolution discussion, that common cold is, technically, a disease rather than an organism. The particular organism causing the disease (let's say rhinovirus) will indeed mutate into more adaptive, resilient rhinovirus (microevolution). However, nothing's yet convinced me 100% on that rhinovirus becoming, say Penicillium candida (because I love me some Brie!), or later still a tsetse fly (macroevolution, at least as much as I have studied thus far). I'd welcome some specific direction to further research, however, as I always like to speak from a position of knowledge rather than supposition.
I'm hard pressed to figure out what part of the above was meant to be a joke and what was meant to be taken seriously (such is the peril of the Internet). I can only say that the issue is whether or not some strain of an organism can mutate to the point where it can no longer breed (creating fertile offspring) with other members of the same species. If it can do that, then everything else is inevitable.
And, frankly, I see no reason why it can't do that.
I "bash Christians" 24 hours a day. In fact, even as we speak, I am not-believing in god.
Man, Derek, is your keyboard okay? I wouldn't be surprised if you wore out the Fallacious Anti-Atheist Cliches button with your recent posts.
But in all seriousness, you can't help but feel sorry for the poor repressed Christians. Constantly being massively privileged must be such hell. The only bright spot for them must be that they don't have it quite as bad as men, heterosexuals, or whites.
A brief questionnaire about Christian oppression (with jazzy Christmas music!).
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote: I "bash Christians" 24 hours a day. In fact, even as we speak, I am not-believing in god.
Man, Derek, is your keyboard okay? I wouldn't be surprised if you wore out the Fallacious Anti-Atheist Cliches button with your recent posts.
But in all seriousness, you can't help but feel sorry for the poor repressed Christians. Constantly being massively privileged must be such hell. The only bright spot for them must be that they don't have it quite as bad as men, heterosexuals, or whites.
A brief questionnaire about Christian oppression (with jazzy Christmas music!).
That video didn't make a bit of sense, nor did the comments about "men, heterosexuals, or whites".
Oppression isn't about whether you can go into any store and find your favorite music there. That's not oppression, that's economics. Oppression is, for example, when my cousin (who is gay) was followed by a bunch of guys in a truck who shouted crap at him - a few weeks after another guy he knew, who was gay, had been jumped and put in the Intensive Care Unit at the hospital.
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Man, Derek, is your keyboard okay? I wouldn't be surprised if you wore out the Fallacious Anti-Atheist Cliches button with your recent posts.
He's trolling. It's not the first time.
Samnell wrote:
I thought it might be a perspective issue, but these were more or less educated people. They knew what the word actually entailed. They had to know they hadn't suffered it in their lives, unless they were deep cover refugees from Saudi Arabia and if they were they were the best actors I've ever seen.
I eventually came to realize it was more like this. (And also here's part two.)
The material in part two on the ant-kitten burning league is particularly thought provoking. I've encountered that sort of reasoning myself on more then one occasion. Usually as part and parcel of some 'slippery slope' argument along the lines of - If we let 'the other' do this thing that is not really, at its core, morally problematic then 'the other' will come back tomorrow and demand that they be allowed to do the equivalent of burning kittens alive. The fact that none of 'the other' has ever advocated kitten burning and, in fact, are universally opposed to kitten burning does not seem to enter into this world view.
|
