DJS

Joined

• started 9 topics
• posted 2,933 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DJS

• 
  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. 
• 

  DJS

  JD,

  Welcome to the club!! We've been expecting you. (Darn, we really need a secret atheist handshake or something)
• 
  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. 
• 

  DJS

  When I look back at human history I can understand why religion evolved. When I look at the current human condition I am amazed that religion continues to have such a strong hold, but a hold that is diminishing fairly quickly in many places. When I look in the future I see a time where religion will find a nice little niche for those inclined. The planet must evolve toward secularism and an evidence based society or else we will remain stuck in the year 2015 (BCE) forever.

  Religion is the problem; it will never be the solution. John Lennon was a visionary.
• 
  11

  What's with the hijab?

  by jws in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the hijab is one of a few headdresses worn by muslim women.

  from what i can tell, it is supposed to hide the femininity of the woman.

  because i'm sure as a muslim, it's going to all be the woman's fault if a man acts improperly due to attraction.. i don't agree with it, but hey, it's their religion and it doesn't hurt others, so have at it if you want to wear it.. let's face it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Different strokes, but one of the premises of the OP, that Muslim men are weak and pathetic and simply cannot control their urges, is true. Women are blamed for a host of assaults and objectionable behavior based on this premise. Also, having spent some time in the Middle East, one thing I can tell you about the women who wear burkas, Well, two things actually.

  You can tell the social status of the woman even before she gets into her black Mercedes based on the quality and fit of the burka. The burkas of the rich ones and those attached to oil $ are made of exquisite high quality cloth. And the fully clad burka females - where the ONLY female presence is a thin visor - have the most freaking awesome amazing incredible beautiful and sensual EYES. You might try to hide the woman under the burka, but you can never really hide the woman under the burka.
• 
  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. 
• 

  DJS

  From the Prof (now I will remove myself from my soapbox until this topic comes up again)

  One of the most common and misleading economic myths in the US, most often espoused by Libertarians, Far R. politicians, Separatists and some religious fundies, which comprise some of the more vocal responses to this OP), is the idea that government rules and regulations only “interfere” with the natural beneficial workings of the market. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our “free” market system would simply not exist as we know it without the presence of an active government that creates and maintains the rules and conditions that allow it to operate efficiently. To summarize:

  By the end of the 19th century, the government concluded that major corporations such as Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel and Union Pacific Railroad had grown too powerful. As a result, laws were created to offset this power. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlawed monopolies. The Food and Drug Administration was created in 1904 and vested with litigation of companies that broke new purity laws. The Federal Trade Commission was created in 1914 to regulate competition among American companies.

  The Security and Exchange Act of 1934, The Wagner Act of 1935 (labor relations and unions) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (national minimum wage) all were implemented to level playing fields and bring about more fairness to the economy. Without these and other Acts, the rich would have become richer, the poor, poorer, and the US wouldn’t have a thriving middle class. As I’ve stated before, a Darwinian survival of the fittest economy may be ruthlessly efficient, but it is also ruthlessly indifferent to inequality and suffering.

  There are many other rules and regulations passed by the government that make business possible. Under a purely capitalist system, none of these laws or entities should exist. Essentially, each act limited markets by granting the federal government the power to regulate business. The US and most W nations have a managed economy -- by definition, a non-market economy since it doesn't exist solely on supply and demand. Strong government control of the economy is a Keynsian model, whereas Milton Friedman, darling of the supply siders and Libertarians, believed that government should stay out of everything. Both of these models of course should be employed for a diverse strong economy.

  Some believe the Keynsian model is too present today; I agree in principle, but I have zero trust in business leaders to do the right thing for everyone. Most would greedily extract the last drop of oil from the planet for profit regardless of the impact it had on the environment, the economy or global warfare and strife, for example, without strong controls.
• 
  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. 
• 

  DJS

  August 23, 2013

  A Georgia court has ruled in favor of Marshall Saxby, the Grand Wizard of a local KKK chapter, in a lawsuit stemming from two years ago when a local bakery denied him service. The three judge panel concluded unanimously that the bakery had violated civil rights laws by discriminating against Saxby when they refused to sell him a cake for his organization’s annual birthday party. Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a cake for the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.

  Saxby filed the lawsuit claiming that Bailey’s refusal of service was discriminatory against his religious beliefs.

  The KKK has re- branded itself, in many places, as a ‘loving’ X-tian org. trying to ensure white people are treated fairly – a white version of the NAACP if you will. Like it or not they operate legally. A business refusing to serve the KKK will likely lose similar lawsuits. What a business can do is to refuse to include hate speech on a cake, such as use of the “N” word or depictions of racist actions, for examples. Businesses have a legal and constitutional right to have the type of business they desire (a family oriented business can’t be forced to sell porn, for example, or a restaurant can require clothing or ban certain types of clothing). We have discussed these things before. Case law supporting businesses in these areas is firmly established. What a business cannot do is to refuse to serve someone based on purely discriminatory reasons when there is no compelling business interest served.

  Contrary to what some of you feel, this isn’t a complicated area. Your prejudices and biases keep some of you from understanding that we live in a constitutional democracy based on utilitarian principles (for the common good), and your religious or individual rights you think you have end at this demarcation point. The courts have had to establish this over the decades, based on the Constitution. Although not perfect, over time they have typically gotten things spot on. If some of you paid attention during HS Civics class or the world around you for the past 100 plus years you would already know these things. Or learn to google. But the very first thing you will need to do to accomplish any of that is to lose your prejudices and your biases and actually think about and read about things that do not confirm those biases.
• 
  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. 
• 

  DJS

  Onward X-Tian Haters (to extinction ASAP):

  1. Indiana-based tech company Angie's List halts $40 million HQ expansion in Indianapolis.

  2. GA house cancels religious freedom law meeting: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/29/ga-house-cancels-religious-freedom-bill-meeting/70652168/

  3. Montana religious "freedom" bill dies in a 50-50 vote. March 27, 2015, 12:18pm EDT

  4. Blowback to anti-gay law hits Indiana as tech leaders, politicians, entertainers heap condemnation on state

  6. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff relocates the company's conference.

  7. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to “clarify” that Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians...

  Asked if that legislation might include making gay and lesbian Hoosiers a protected legal class, Pence said, “That’s not on my agenda.”
• 
  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. 
• 

  DJS

  One thing I am certain of, and it is a day I will see if I live another 20 or 30 years. When the Millennials and the following generation take over, these types of hateful issues will be a thing of the past. I am ashamed of my generation.Hide behind your hateful wall and call it Libertarian, Religious Freedom, Conservative, Fundamentalist, God-Fearing, Jesus-Loving. Matters not. The wall is comprised of hate, and those of you who continue to support hate are haters.

  But one day in the not too distant future you will be gone and those coming after you don't give a rat's ass about sexual persuasion. And the world will be a better place for it.

  Your hate, as I have pointed out before, isn't confined in a sterile vacuum. It lives and breathes and has contributed to the death of Matthew Shepard and others and in the suicide of Jamie Hubley and others. But by all means, continue to cloak it in sweet words. Call it Religious Freedom. Name it Libertarian. Feel good about it.

  VIola, do some research. We have addressed your points many times.
• 
  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. 
• 

  DJS

  Marvin,

  "What is so different about Indiana's recent legislation compared with other state laws (plus federal)?"

  I do not know.

  As for the woman whose business is suffering, I'm sorry, I have no sympathy or empathy for her. Using your analogy blacks should have kept their place in the back of the bus and never filed any types of lawsuits. The disabled should have known their place and never sued for access. Women should have stayed in the kitchen where they belong and not sued for the right to vote. I don't mean to be mean but that is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

  As i see it, hate has a price. She is paying it, and that is most excellent.
• 
  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. 
• 

  DJS

  Viv,

  Here we go again. Each time this topic comes up we get the same comments from the Libertarians and those who haven't realized that for decades the SCOTUS has interpreted laws based on the US Constitution, which is predicated on the common good for all, not special interest groups and with a clear delineation between church and state. And we say the same things. It may be grand in the Libertarian or Laissez faire utopian world some want to live in, but it isn't the reality of a constitutional democracy.

  It's like wishing that Santa and the Easter Bunny were real instead of make believe. Wouldn't it be nice? Laws protecting minorities, women, the disabled, religious people and the LGBT community from discrimination make us better humans, give us better communities, a better country and a better planet. But the right wing, the X-tian fundies and the Libertarians will cloak their beliefs behind a fence made of hate.
• 
  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. 
• 

  DJS

  Arguing the intelligence of anyone supporting either the original 1993 law or the present state laws is an exercise in futility, because it assumes there was any intelligence involved. Politics, votes, and placating constituents is what those laws were and are about. Politics is rarely about ethics and doing the right thing.

  Lawsuits will determine the manner in which these laws are applied, as they already have. The free market is free to the degree it does not violate the Constitution. When it appears to do so, people sue. And to this point, the SCOTUS and the regional courts have almost universally determined that commercial for profit businesses do not have a right to discriminate. The protected groups have evolved over the decades, and it includes blacks and other minorities, women, religion, the disabled and now sexual persuasion. These laws were not necessary; they are political in nature and will ultimately accomplish nothing but allowing narrow minded people to attempt to impose their own specific religious beliefs on others, which to this point in time has thankfully failed.

  The free market will eventually rule out because large national and multi-national corporations will ultimately avoid the states supporting such hatred. To this end the Indiana governor is already feeling the heat. Good for him. But that is a result of people driven by secular humanistic objectives who think discriminating against the LGBT community is hate, which it is. That is not what Adam Smith had in mind when he originally talked about free markets, but it is a 21st Century version of how those markets can be controlled.