never a jw

Joined

• started 57 topics
• posted 2,278 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by never a jw

• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  JD

  Who said every libertarian worships Ms. Rand or even gives a rip about libertarian politicians. I don't follow humans. I embrace principle. You implies lot of stuff that is completely unsupported by anything that I have written.
• 
  39

  Petition to Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

  by ABibleStudent in

  1. social
  2. current

  fyi, if you feel that scientology's tax-exempt status should be revoked, you can sign a white house petition to revoke its tax-exempt status at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/revoke-scientologys-tax-exempt-status.. i signed the petition even though i have mixed feelings about this petition.

  i would prefer that dangerous cults like scientology be reformed by suspending its tax-exempt status until it makes needed changes and i do not like targeting a specific organization when the whole system should be changed.

  on the other hand this type of action may help to promote debate about revising the tax codes in the us.. i do prefer revising the tax code like i wrote about in revise tax code to protect children from sexual abuse .. peace be with you and everyone, who you love,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  I would sign it if it applies to any religion that is unable to demonstrate that they employ a significant portion of their funds for the relief of the physical pain and basic needs of the needy.
• 
  67

  How do you feel about religion as a whole?

  by FatherFirst in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it just seems to me religion in general primarily makes truly bad people worse, not genuinly good people better; and in many cases has even made good people do bad things in the name of their religion.

  just curious, a personal poll if you will.

  what are you guys' current views on religion as a whole?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  How do you feel about religion as a whole?

  It's full of it, but makes fairy tale believers happy. Why not
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  JD,

  You made quite a great deal of assumptions about me, just because I believe in the greatest amount freedom possible for organized society. You confirmed it, the Christian in you still alive and well.

  By the way, I realized that libertarianism is only possible when most people believe in it. I am not trying to persuade anyone to become one. Just expressing my ideals. Ultimately, for the real world, where you have more than 7 billion minds pursuing their own personal interest, the Socratic doctrine of moderation is a lot more practical than the utopic ideals of libertarians. I hope this makes you less of a hater of anyone who disagrees with you in public policy.

  You hate lawyers. I don't.

  Your Avatar is quite deceptive, does not reflect how you write.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  They are free to not open a business to the public is they want to deny service to gay people, women Catholics, etc.

  Similarly, you and anyone is free not to patronize or support any business whose practices you don't like. I find this choice a lot easier to follow and much better than yours. And is true freedom at every end. Your view restricts freedom from the get-go. Your view, however, is more popular. Be happy, that you still follow what is popular.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  X-tian, R Wing, Libertarians and Egoist haters are trying in vain to support your hatred of gays

  Really, so you disagree with me in public policy and therefore I am a hater. You sound quite the Christian. As a libertarian, I support gays and black people and just about anyone that breathes, but I don't run to big brother to fix anything I don't like, as you seemingly want to do. We libertarian hold as the most precious, and essentially the only real right, the right to freedom to choose whatever you want as long as you don't bring physical harm to others.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  Vivianne,

  Would you say the same thing if they were discriminating against people because they were African American?

  Yes, as a matter of principle and practicality the answer is yes for any private organization; definitely not for any public organization funded by taxpayers money. The principle is freedom. The practical factor in the case of a business is profit. Discrimination in almost every aspect of our life is absolutely necessary in order to reduce cost. Random choices in choosing almost anything are very inefficient. In the hiring practices in the workplace, discrimination, among many other things, happens more because of perceived cultural differences than color of skin. My view is that business managers, to use an example that I am familiar with, fear that hiring a member of a certain ethnic group may not be in the best interest of the company, namely the pursuit of profit. If 90% of the times that I hire members of a certain group I lose (I actually had a similar problem), then quite likely I will discriminate against that group in my future hiring practices --balancing that with the risk of a discrimination lawsuit of course. The color of the skin and other traits are not the main factor, they just happen to correlate sometimes with the main factor, the ability, on average, of members of that group to help me get the objective for which my company was formed, profit. Similarly, religion can discriminate for any reason they deem appropriate. You can create laws and enforce them, but you can't impose morality or open mindedness on others. Why would any black person want to force a "white" church to accept them. What good does it do for anyone? Let the bigots isolate themselves and drive themselves gradually into extinction if their discrimination is unfounded.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  My solution to the problem is to have (I hope my Spanish to English translation is right) civil marriages conducted by the state. They should be the only legal and valid marriages before the law. If someone wants to have a symbolic religious marriage before his/her God go to whatever church wants to take you and don't try to impose your personal interpretation of morality and religion on a religious group that doesn't agree with your morality.

  By the way, I side with Nietzsche regarding Christianity. I don't like it at all. And yes I support vehemently gay rights to marry as much as I support religions to keep their backwards antigay morality. It's a matter of the most fundamental right: FREEDOM, even to be an idiot.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  Marvin wrote:

  I'm not so sure that discrimination of gays (such as refusing service to a gay marriage event) should be a protected act just because a person has a religious bias against the event. As another poster pointed out (I think Viviane) there is a State interest in commerce that deserves protection too. So we have competing interests at stake. We have, for example, 1) gays who want to marry, 2) christian extremists who do not want to provide services to a gay marriage event and we have 3) the State's interest in preserving and growing commerce. There may be other interests at stake too. But these come to mind first. Balancing these under the law is what society is grappling with right now.

  Sounds reasonable, but it complicates things a bit. Keep it simple. Gays can form their own religion an marry there. Why do you want to force moral issues on religions. Some churches feel adamant about literal interpretations of certain books, let them be. It is not as if there's only one way of Christianity, Last time I checked the number was upwards of 30,000. I am sure there's plenty that cater to any taste of religiosity.

  Religious people can be, and indeed often are a---holes. Let them be the only a---holes in the room. Why do we want gays or other "disenfranchised" people to be a---holes or play the victims too. We don't want to create a society of weakling who need to run to big brother every time someone sticks his tongue at you.

  By the way, inserting the word commerce makes the argument too specious. That alone sounds like big brother's poorly supported excuse to tear down the fundamental right of freedom of religion. I don't buy it (pun intended)
• 
  43

  Atheism

  by Jonathan Drake in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  recent events and book reads (one suggested by cofty i believe- thank you) have lead me to the only logical and acceptable conclusion:.

  there is no god.. simple logical reasoning: matter can neither me created or destroyed.

  so the amount of mass in the universe is constant.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  I don't think any book out there can prove the existence or non existence of some sort of force that has given birth to the universe as we know it. Especially if this force is indifferent, as it seems to be, to humans desires, and remains reluctant to make a demonstration of his existence and his will. It's a lot easier however, to debunk the existence of the God of the Jewish people or of the Christian, or for that matter the existence of any personal God who gives a rip about little humans. Debunking him is a piece of cake, that is, for the open and curious mind. Not so for the people with the "faith" gene.