When a person wins $311 million dollars, rather than God or the angels helping needy ones win at each drawing, tells me that God is not looking for the interests of the poor. He could help make 208 - millionaires each year by helping the needy win at each Powerball and Megamillions win the minimum pots. He can part the Red sea and bring down the walls of Jericho but can't control 6 ping pong balls??? If God does not help people, what is the point of being God?
Rattigan350
JoinedPosts by Rattigan350
-
447
Does Anyone Still Believe in God?
by LaurenM indo any of you ex-jw's still believe in god?
even with the new rebranding/softening of this religion, i still don't see how people can believe in him.
the god of the old testimate is an angry murderer who approved rapes and slavery and killed thousands of men, women and children.
-
-
-
37
Jehovah's Witnesses can donate blood
by Marvin Shilmer injehovah’s witnesses can donate blood.
today i added a new article to my blog that answers the question of whether watchtower doctrine forbids jehovah’s witnesses from going to their community blood bank and donating some of their blood to help replace all the products from blood accepted on a daily basis by the community of jehovah’s witnesses.. .
my article is titled jehovah’s witnesses can donate blood and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/03/jehovahs-witnesses-can-donate-blood.html.
-
-
Rattigan350
What about donating plasma (for money) where the red blood cells are separated and given back to the person? Since they pay for that, I'll do that. -
31
How to evade questions from elders when you stop going out door to door
by Olivia Wilde indue to circumstances right now i cannot leave permanently the watchtower, however i need honest advice of what to say when elders question me how come im not meeting the group out for door to door & going out in " field service"... what would be proper responses not to draw suspicions since i'm aware of ttatt.. .any serious advice please...
-
-
Rattigan350
Just tell them that the pay Is not good enough and the return on investment does is not there so you are investing your time in other more worthwhile actives that have a positive ROI. -
175
Implications of gay marriage ruling
by Rattigan350 inwhile many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
-
-
Rattigan350
You all are hypocrites. You believe that the constitution provides marriage as a human right, because the Court, a small group interpreted that, though marriage is not mentioned in the constitution.
However, the Bible says to abstain from blood, and another small group interpret that to mean blood transfusions also, but you don't accept that.
-
46
Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"
by Simon inwhat is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.
we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.
they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.
-
-
Rattigan350
Things that make you go hmmm.
Anthony Kennedy looks alot like Anthony Morris III.
But back to the subject of gay pride.
The best gay people are the ones that you have to be told that they are and can't tell without being told.
But to the ones who say I don't understand the law and constitution. I currently have a case pending in my state's court of appeals, that I did myself. They can do what they want and it can go either way but I'm pretty certain that I have an 87.3% chance of winning because I feel that my citations to the law and case law and use of them in argument is that good.
-
46
Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"
by Simon inwhat is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.
we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.
they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.
-
-
Rattigan350
Lisarose said "Possibly women could have been given the right to vote the same way, but the fact is they didn't, for whatever reason. My guess would be that either the constitution was written in a way that did not allow them to interpret it to allow women to vote, or there wasn't the will on the part of the court to do so at that time."
The Supreme Court in Minor in 1875 ruled 9-0 against women voting because that is the result they wanted, not because the constitution stated that.
The Supreme Court in Obergefell in 2015 ruled 5-4 for SS marriage because that is the result they wanted, not because the constitution stated that. It just prevented them from seeking a constitutional amendment.
"Since you do not like the way the court interpreted the law". That is exactly my point. I don't like the way they interpreted, not the result. I don't care about the result. I don't like gay pride anymore than I like religious fundamentalism, both are nuts.
Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has been the swing vote on many of the Court's 5–4 decisions. He has authored the majority ruling in many of these cases, including Lawrence v. Texas, Boumediene v. Bush, Citizens United v. FEC, and Obergefell v. Hodges.
Kennedy has reliably issued conservative rulings during most of his tenure, having voted with William Rehnquist as often as any other justice from 1992 to the end of the Rehnquist Court in 2005. In his first term on the court, Kennedy voted with Rehnquist 92 percent of the time—more than any other justice.
After 2005, when Sandra Day O'Connor, who had previously been known as the court's "swing vote", retired, Kennedy began to receive the title for himself. Kennedy is more conservative than former Justice O'Connor was on issues of race, religion, and abortion, and intensely dislikes being labeled a "swing vote".
On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008–2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5.
In the 2010–2011 term, 16 cases were decided by a 5–4 vote, and Kennedy joined the majority in 14 of the decisions.
-
46
Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"
by Simon inwhat is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.
we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.
they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.
-
-
Rattigan350
Village idiot "Rattigan just for argument's sake, would you support a separate amendment dealing exclusively with gay rights? How about an amendment that specifies marriage as a right for all sexual orientations?"
Whether I would support it or not is not relevant, however, I believe that is the proper way to handle the matter for the whole country, rather than pull a rabbit out of the Constitution's butt. There were states that made it legal and states that made it illegal. If my state made it legal by law or constitution, I would be fine with that.
The Supreme Court gets things wrong such as upholding Obamacare.
Mostly the cases we hear of from the Supreme Court are criminal issues such a Roe V Wade. I support appellate courts declaring laws unconstitutional when someone is sitting in jail unjustly.
-
46
Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"
by Simon inwhat is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.
we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.
they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.
-
-
Rattigan350
Grreat Teacher, what prevents the courts from making bad decisions and over reaching as they did here? They defined state law. The checks and balances would be for the legislature to rewrite the law or a constitutional amendment to be made.
You mean it with down in a predictable way. Split down party lines. With Kennedy being the swing vote or rather the most powerful person in the country.
Even Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision.
The point is that the cases that the Court hears will always consist, in large part, of issues that are difficult not in the abstract but in light of the Court's particular composition. In the modern era, a significant number of 5-4 decisions is likely -- at least if the justices are not working hard to suppress internal dissent (as they did before the 1940s), and if lower courts are not systematically ignoring the Court's thinking.
It follows that any Supreme Court will probably seem "evenly divided" in a significant number of important cases. In a hierarchical legal system, the Court will end up hearing disputes that are likely to split its current members -- even if their ideology changes radically over time.
-
46
Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"
by Simon inwhat is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.
we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.
they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.
-
-
Rattigan350
Really village idiot?
The more I read, the more I learn. My argument has been that if the 14th amendment gives rights to SS marriage, then why didn't it give women the right to vote. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. They said the 14th amendment does not give them that right. The Nineteenth Amendment, which became a part of the Constitution in 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett by prohibiting discrimination in voting rights based on sex. That is female pride, they worked long and hard for that. The states were divided, they lost a unanimous supreme court case but in the end got the constitutional amendment. Thus case closed. In the current case, they went to a known liberal majority and got the predicted result and the dissent is more than the majority opinion. If I were gay, I would not be proud of that. A hollow victory.
-
175
Implications of gay marriage ruling
by Rattigan350 inwhile many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
-
-
Rattigan350
Viviane said "So far, the dissent is based on either an utterly faulty understanding and willful ignorance of the history of marriage or upon a book that condones murder, slavery, misogyny, rape, genocide and racism that endorsed and commanded many different types of mWhy should I have anything BUT disdain for those opinions?"
No, the dissent is on the fact that "The substance of the decree is not of immense personal importance to me [or me either]. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."
Exactly what I stated. And Alito said "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends." Wow!!!!