As most of you are probably aware, the United States is under constant attack by people who would like nothing more than take away your rights, make you live under constant fear and/or revoke your property ownership rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union is one of the multiple organizations that look out for constitutional violations, poltitcal power grabs and laws (or rulings) that diminish your freedom.
They fight for freedom of speech, women's rights, and abuses of Executive power, among other things.
However, the ACLU cannot effectively tackle all these issues without your help.
The ACLU runs almost entirely on donations.
To raise a little money for a good cause (freedom is always nice), I will match all donations to the ACLU you guys make, for as long as this thread is opened, up to a total of 500 USD.
Simply donate to the ACLU, then either post or PM me in private your donation amount. I will collect the total and then contribute an equal amount. It's an easy way to give twice as much with little effort.
It's a nice idea, but I hate the ACLU. They do a lot of stupid thing's I don't agree with, like trying to steal Christmas.
I'm with BAF, the aclu is a bunch of pinko commie simps. My charity of choice is the DAV (disabled american veterans).
I went to look for how the ACLU "stole Christmas" on Google, but had trouble finding more than FUD and strawmen attacks. Where's the beef?
If you're talking about the legitimate issue of Separation of Church and State, then why are some religious groups allowed to recieve government funding to celebrate some particular religious holidays, and not others? What happened to equality? Or better yet, why is the government involved at all?
The ACLU sued a nearby city for displaying the Ten Commandments monument on city owned land, despite nobody in the city ever caring (ie, no one locally ever complained). The city knew it would lose the case, so they sold the land the monument was on back to the group who initially donated it.
That ended the issue, right? Nope, they still fought (and lost) to have it removed from the privately owned land! They showed that they really weren't against the city displaying the Ten Commandments - they were against the very idea of religious symbols in public. Fighting for our rights, yeah right. They are fighting to abolish religion and do whatever else fits their beliefs.
I'm not saying everything they do is bad, but donating to them is not much different than donating to a political party. If you align with them, then it's money well spent. And as BAF said, it's a nice idea. I just don't agree in principle with everything they do, so I'm not in a position to donate.
Why is it that it's politically incorrect (because of the ACLU) to say Merry Christmas (a holiday celebrated by many, with Christian roots), yet it's okay to celebrate halloween (again, a holiday celebrated by many, except with setanic roots). Setanism is a religion. I don't see the ACLU attacking halloween.
The separation of church and state stuff is being taken totally out of context. The original reason for it was so a church didn't CONTROL the government, like happened with the Roman Catholic church. Religous groups receiving government funding (or not receiving it because of their religous classification), saying merry christmas, etc do not fall under the intended reasoning for separation of church and state.
[edit]
Now, if it were, for example, the Red Cross, an orginization for a 9/11 memorial, New Orleans rebuilding fund, a group which sends care packages to soldiers overseas, etc. people (well, at least I) would be more willing to donate.
I wouldn't donate a penny to the ACLU. This country would be better off without them.
a holiday celebrated by many, with Christian roots
And Pagan, don't forget pagan!
The ACLU sued a nearby city for displaying the Ten Commandments monument on city owned land, despite nobody in the city ever caring (ie, no one locally ever complained). The city knew it would lose the case, so they sold the land the monument was on back to the group who initially donated it.
That ended the issue, right? Nope, they still fought (and lost) to have it removed from the privately owned land!
I guess the ACLU must have hacked all of the Internet, because I can't seem to find a reference to them losing the lawsuit against Harrisburg. 
Why is it that it's politically incorrect (because of the ACLU) to say Merry Christmas (a holiday celebrated by many, with Christian roots)
Link? Source? Anything?
The separation of church and state stuff is being taken totally out of context.
Is it really?
[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Read more about your country here. Supreme Court cases are also discussed.
La Crosse, Wisconsin:
The federal appeals court found the sale was not made to advance religion and the sale to the Eagles made practical sense. The monument now sits across the street from the group’s office, and Eagles members will continue to maintain the site. ... The appeals court used a prior decision in a Marshfield case in reaching its conclusion. In that case, the city sold a 15-foot-tall statute of Jesus Christ and the land around it in a public park to a group of residents. The city also placed a disclaimer near the statute state the location of the monument was not an endorsement of religion.
Still, the appeals court pointed out simply selling the land around a religious monument on public property does not make it constitutional. It noted the land around the monument in La Crosse was sold for market value and complied with state law regarding the sale of municipal land.
The judges also noted the location of the monument was significant. It is not near a governmental building and residents do not have to pass by it to conduct public business. “La Crosse is not selling property inextricably linked with the seat of government. Obviously, a city could not sell space under the dome of its City Hall or the sidewalk in front of the courthouse steps,” the court found. “Such sale would be, on its face, a sham.”
Despite the monument not being near any buildings, they still wanted it completely removed. The organization is very much against the establishment of religion (in a public nature).
[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Saying "One Nation under God" in the Pledge, saying "Merry Christmas" in public places, and not restricting funds based on religous orientation in no way break that. All that says is that no religous test will ever be required for holding public office, and that the government cannot regulate or restrict religions.
Mercier v. City of La Crosse, Wisconsin (7th Circuit Court of Appeals)
In an unprecedented remedy, a court ordered the Fraternal Order of Eagles to turn over to the city of La Crosse, Wisconsin, a Ten Commandments monument and parcel of land which the organization purchased from the city last year. Oral arguments took place in the 7th Circuit September 8.
The parcel sold by La Crosse was substantially smaller and could not reasonably be viewed as an actual park and separate space. The court believed that La Crosse's actions evinced a religious purpose more strongly than did those of Marshfield because La Crosse expended little effort in determining whether the land was no longer needed for park purposes or whether the sale price represented fair market value, rejected offers to move the monument, and only undertook to sell it when it became apparent that maintaining the status quo would result in the loss of the lawsuit, demonstrating that the City's purpose was to endorse religion by retaining the monument in its present location. Finally, the court noted that Marshfield was decided before Books in which the Seventh Circuit concluded that a similar Ten Commandments monument placed outside an Indiana city's municipal building violated the Establishment Clause and also Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). The court stated that the situation in La Crosse was very similar to Books.
The district court stated that by selling a small portion of the park, the city provided the Eagles with a permanent venue within the park for one religious viewpoint. In fact, the district court viewed the city's actions as demonstrating its willingness to "carve up" the public park to insure that the monument did not have to be moved or to share space with other viewpoints. The court concluded that the City's erection of the fence and disclaimer sign around the parcel of land and monument after the sale did not effectively eliminate the City's endorsement of the religious message, for purposes of the Establishment Clause. Thus, the city's sale of the parcel and monument had the primary purpose of inviting and encouraging the monument's religious message. The court held that the required remedy was to remove the monument from park. The Seventh Circuit disagreed and reversed.
There's more to this case than what you seem to make it.
. Saying "One Nation under God" in the Pledge, saying "Merry Christmas" in public places, and not restricting funds based on religous orientation in no way break that. All that says is that no religous test will ever be required for holding public office, and that the government cannot regulate or restrict religions.
The Supreme Court diasgrees with your assessment.
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
And
In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."
Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
If you want, we can debate the specifics in another thread.
All that says is that no religous test will ever be required for holding public office, and that the government cannot regulate or restrict religions.
You do have to go a bit farther than what the Constitution says explicitly, but you don't need to go farther than the writers' intentions. That is, they didn't want the government to regulate religion or show favoritism toward any specific one.
But I really don't think they were about banning religion. They were about not banning it. For example, I find these two things the same:
A teacher wears a shirt that says "Bush sucks."
A teacher wears a shirt that says "Jesus loves you."
but one is somehow protected under free speech, while the other is not. In principle, if the government cannot "endorse" religion, then it ought not be able to endorse any opinions at all. (And yes, I am speculating outside of the Constitution.)
And the ACLU does a lot to help promote that type of double standard.
And the ACLU does a lot to help promote that type of double standard.
Cite some examples.
but one is somehow protected under free speech, while the other is not.
Link? Source? Please keep in mind that public servents play by a slightly different set of rules than others.
You, as a non-government employee, can wear whatever tshirt you like(*). You can display whatever religious monumement you want on your own property. The State (and by extension, state employees) cannot while they are in the employ of the State. If the teacher wears a "Jesus loves you" tshirt or a "I love/hate Bush" tshirt when not teaching/on or around school premisses, then more power to them. Otherwise, they need to respect the law.
And the ACLU does a lot to help promote that type of double standard.
Link? Something concrete? C'mon, you can do better than that!
(*) Except if the government doesn't like you, then you go to jail.
-- EDIT:
For those who think the ACLU is anti-religion, or anti-Christian, here's something to think about:
August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.
February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.
December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.
November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.
November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.
August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.
July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.
June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.
June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.
May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.
March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.
October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.
urlhttp://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.htmlJuly 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school. [/url]
April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.
January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.
I can find links for all of those (instead of just a random selection), if you give me some time.
Link? Source? Please keep in mind that public servents play by a slightly different set of rules than others.
I was just speculating on how most in the "Separation of Church and State" crowd think. I find it interesting that you could (theoretically) teach an optional class that promoted beliefs called "Republican Party 101" or "Platonism 101," but not "Christianity 101." And yes, I understand that some sort of case could be built using the Constitution to eliminate the last class - but I'm just saying the entire idea is a double standard.
To me, if the tax paying citizens have demand for a certain class, then it ought not be banned, as they are the ones paying for it. And to me, that's how I view most of the whole church/state thing. (The class example is extreme, but there are more realistic situations.) And no, I'm not saying that it is my interpretation of the Constitution. It's just my opinion on how things should be.
Cite some examples.
I was "replying" to ML.
I find it interesting that you could (theoretically) teach an optional class that promoted beliefs called "Republican Party 101" or "Platonism 101," but not "Christianity 101."
That's incorrect. You can teach Christianity 101 in public schools, as long as you:
1. Offer alternative courses on other religions or religous texts.
2. Teach Christianity in terms of historical or literature reference, not religious.
To me, if the tax paying citizens have demand for a certain class, then it ought not be banned, as they are the ones paying for it.
Indeed. The US Constitution can be (and has been) changed. It's got a built-in update mechanism! You just need to find enough people who agree with you, and you'd be all set. You can repeal all of (or a portion of) the First Amendment. If Taxpayers really wanted to allow religious teaching in public schools, you can propose a constitutional amendment that would allow it.
I realize you can teach a religion in the context of history. That's why I made it a point to say "promoted beliefs." You can promote beliefs (as opposed to facts) of other types of things, but not religious.
Is it Constitutional to teach religion in public schools?
No. Because the government runs the public schools, they must obey the First Amendment. That means that they may teach about the influences of religion in history, literature, and philosophy but they may not promote specific religious beliefs or practices as part of the curriculum.
And I'm not even saying I would actually want the public school system to teach religious classes, because there is no point to it. I'm just saying that it's not really a fair restriction.
You can promote beliefs (as opposed to facts) of other types of things, but not religious. [...] I'm just saying that it's not really a fair restriction.
Indeed. This is an issue with the US Constitution. Perhaps you (or others) can push for a change?
It will never make it... especially with organizations like the ACLU fighting it.
I am all for the ACLU somebody has to stand up for unpopular causes and they have not done anything that adversly affect ME.
What I see in the US today is a bunch of politicans who make decisions based on what the polls and focus groups tell them. These polls, focus groups, and general public oppinion are in turn affected by the media (liberal and conservative). We call it democracy and have been trying to inflict upon other nations for history knows how long. Now public oppinion is easily swayed, heck the movie Brave Heart gave enough attention to a popular movement which lead to Scottish Independence. The ACLU is a totally undemocratic organization that protects people and ideals that are in the minority from the whims of the majority.
The ACLU has done some good works back in the era of women's and civil rights. Perhaps they are useless now, but their opponents probably said the same thing back in those days. Only history will tell who is right. In the mean time I think the ACLU should exist so they can be there when popular oppinion swings toward the immoral. When I use terms like "moral" and "immoral" I mean what I, Wilson Saunders, thinks is right and wrong. So that statement really reads "The ACLU should exist so they can step up when public oppinion disagrees with me."
Bob, you might be better off donating to the EFF from the sounds of it.
The eff is more aligned with the "geek" in you.
Who said I didn't already do so? 
Bob, you might be better off getting European people to donate!
We would all much prefer to see the Christian Church be less powerful in politics and the government of America to keep to the constituion. 
Bob, I invite you to move up to Canada
Our privacy laws go so far as to limit companies from storing information in the US just because you guys can get at it when you feel like it 
Bob, I invite you to move up to Canada
Hes a Canadian. 
Perhaps the ACLU is 95% funded by Canadians and other non-american people!
Defending people's rights is an ungrateful job. People just don't want to be free...
The ACLU is the final guardian of your rights. Don't confuse "defending your opponents rights" with "being your opponent". When the ACLU defends the first amendment rights of, say, a nazi, that does not make them nazis - it's EVERYONE's right to free speech they are defending.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I wish we had an organization like it around here...
I wish we had an organization like it around here...
Seems like Sweden is pretty liberal when what I've read about it.
Seems like Sweden is pretty liberal when what I've read about it.
The days of the '60s pornos are long gone.
It's not as police statey as Britain yet, but the Antichrist is sure working on it.
Why do you only aim your country... That is egocentric.
The real question: What have you done for the world lately ?
The real question: What have you done for the world lately ?
I donated to Greenpeace 
The real question: What have you done for the world lately ?
I don't spend that much fossil fuels because I use my bike for travelling any distance < 50km
if you want to make a difference just change your own habits and lifestyle. Unless you donate insane amounts of money it will cause a much bigger impact.
[edit]
As for greenpeace, they have some questionnable ideas. E.g GMO and nuclear power.
I agree with HoHo.
The problem is that people mean that only huge things can bring huge changes. WRONG!
If everyone do a little at his home, as HoHo travelling in bike, as people who select what they throw in which bin, ... We will see the real change.
" Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do"
What's wrong with nuclear power?
Where do you see us talking about nuclear power ?
What's wrong with nuclear power?
There's nothing wrong with nuclear power, there's a LOT wrong with nuclear fission
[edit]
As for greenpeace, they have some questionnable ideas. E.g GMO and nuclear power.
Perhaps I misread, but Greenpeace has some problem with it. HoHo do not say he has some, he says he disagree with Greenpeace.
You understood correctly
I don't know a lot about greenpeace but I think they say that nuclear power is bad because of all the waste it produces.
Some time ago I saw some reseach that said that coal powerplants produce way more radioactive waste than nuclear plants. Only difference is that waste is not concentrated but thrown into atmosphere.
They also said that you would get more energy from coal if you would produce nuclear fuel from it and use that in nuclear plants than burning the coal in regular powerplants.
If I get the time I could try looking up the links but it would be quie hard. They are posted somewhere in a thread with about 2000 posts
if anyone is interested then the topic is here but as it is in Estonian it is probably of little use.
Some time ago I saw some reseach that said that coal powerplants produce way more radioactive waste than nuclear plants. Only difference is that waste is not concentrated but thrown into atmosphere.
They also said that you would get more energy from coal if you would produce nuclear fuel from it and use that in nuclear plants than burning the coal in regular powerplants.
Do you really believe that ?
it's insane
By the way: coal isn't verry environment friendly that's true.
While the ACLU is great for defending the "rights of the downtrodden," the "underprivlidged," and so forth, it is hard to ignore that most of the time, they come across as possibly the most idiotic, self-serving, irrelivant, thorn-in-everyones-side organization.
For example, the ACLU's stance on Corporate Personhood is a perfect example of how they are not serving as constitution police. A company is not, never will be, and cannot be treated as a person (even though currently in the US it is, much to the attest of common sense). You can put a person in jail to stop them from doing something (or arrest them); you cannot do the same to an entire company. And since a company cannot be a person, it cannot vote, or lobby congress... oh, wait, that's right, they already do. 
Their support for affirmative action (the great unequalizer, or as I like to call it, the reverse discrimination doctrine) is also rather disconcerting. Setting particular "quotas" on underrepresented groups undermines their dignity as human beings. Personally, I would find it to be a slap on the face. So, a particular group HAS to have affirmative action to get a job? That is a pretty sad commentary on said group. Not only that, but it unfairly discriminates against those who could otherwise have gotten jobs, only to be denied because their "quota" on other groups has yet to be filled.
And last, but not least, their stance on abortion. Call me stupid, but if someone gets pregnant, they ought to have to live with the consequences of their actions, rather than murder another person. The only times abortion should be legal, IMHO, is either in cases of Rape/Incest or life-threatening physical harm to the mother. Do people have reproductive rights? Yes, but it doesn't give them the right to terminate another beings life. Choices have consequences, and people need to realize that it isn't their right to remove the consequences of their actions when they have to destroy another "life" (quoted, because "life" is a very touchy term when talking about abortion) to achieve it.
Yes, but it doesn't give them the right to terminate another beings life.
Say that next time you eat BigMac
Big Mac ..::)
I'll go for a Whopper
HoHo: Actually, since we are omnivores, it is kinda required (at least, in a sane sense), that we consume some sort of meat (or absolute craploads of certain vegetables) in order to gain some of the proper nutrition we need. Of course, this doesn't necessarily give us the right to terminate the other "beings" life; it does, however, generate a necessecity to do so (either that, or just "trade" one beings life for a whole ton more of other "beings" (second beings == vegetables... I mean, if we are going to argue we are robbing certain "beings" right to existance, than we would cease to exist; basically all of our fuel is derived directly from other "beings."))
Don't overreact about it. I just saw a bit too absolute claim and responded. Had it been "another person" I wouldn't have made that joke.
As for abortion, I'm not totally against it but it should be strictly regulated. I think in Estonia you have to have at least one child and (or?) >30y old to make an abortion. Of course those other reasons listed before should also apply.
Abortion raises all sorts of questions. I'm against it in the manner that Carrus85 described, but for fun I like to play along with people who are in favor of it.
For example, a question that is typically raised by the supporters: "Isn't it better to kill the baby if there is a good chance he will have physical problems?" It's a valid question, and really one of the few things that they can use as reasoning behind it. But if that's their concern, wouldn't it be even better to let the baby be born and figure out if he really does have that disability? Why not kill him six months after birth when you are really sure? Just the thought of that makes most people (but probably not us here ) get very angry.
A chance of a disability is just that: a chance. I know someone who was told to have an abortion because her child would most likely have Down Syndrome. Ten years later, the child is perfectly fine. Of course it's just one example that proves nothing (and obviously children are born with it after being "diagnosed"), but if the goal is to eliminate the world of handicapped people, why not just make it legal to kill them? Surely that's more fair then blindly killing all unborn children who might be diseased.
Legalizing euthanasia and death penalty would make abortion questions so much easier
I know someone who was told to have an abortion because her child would most likely have Down Syndrome.
I know one couple who had been told several times by doctors that they would get a boy. At birth it was clear that it was a girl, afterall.
Legalising eutanasia and death penalty would make abortion questions so much easier
I am more in favor of euthanasia and assisted suicide than abortion. (And of course, the ACLU promotes euthanasia as well.) To me, abortion is really about killing someone unable to fend for himself because it makes your life easier. That's a lot different then ending someone's life because they are physically non-functional (for life) or have expressed the desire to die.
I suppose the danger in promoting euthanasia and assisted suicide is that some morbid people would get jobs in areas that would allow them to suggest and pressure people into killing themselves when they really just need counseling for depression. 
rather than murder another person.
Step back: why was murder wrong in the first place? Clearly it's wrongness applies to born humans, at least by the cultural standards I know, but not to non-humans (squashing fleas is okay by me), and not to 'potential' humans -- I don't see an "every sperm is sacred"-style promotion of reproduction-whenever-possible as a common ideology. So the reasoning of 'murder is bad' does have some logical cut-off, somewhere between the egg/sperm stage and the 'there is actually a baby in the mother's arms' stage. Can you justify on non-religious grounds where that cutoff should be? Can we inform this kind of morality (or any kind or morality?) on non-religious grounds at all?
Just asking because I feel like people oversimplify these issues by extending sentiments so ingrained as unquestionable truth (ie, "murder is wrong") to areas where they don't clearly apply.
when they really just need counseling for depression.
How do you define the difference between 'okay for suicide' and 'just needs help'? I suppose that difference would need to built in to the law.
... what a morbid topic.
Can you justify on non-religious grounds where that cutoff should be? Can we inform this kind of morality (or any kind or morality?) on non-religious grounds at all?
That's a hard question...
I think I would rather be on the safe side of that
How do you define the difference between 'okay for suicide' and 'just needs help'? I suppose that difference would need to built in to the law.
... what a morbid topic.
Would it be safe to say: If you don't enjoy life there IS something wrong ? , I'm talking about suiside here NOT euthanasia.
So it would probably be wise to assume someone needs help
To me, abortion is really about killing someone unable to fend for himself because it makes your life easier
To me, abortion is getting rid of something that would severely negatively impact your life before it becomes its own living being, and spare society from having another unwanted child.
And just because someone gets pregnant doesn't mean it was due to negligence, either.
My view: if abortion is criminalized, the coat-hanger industry would see a nice boom in sales.
I just wanted to post something on the topic abortion, but Zaphos hit it right on the spot for me. Thanks!
Apologies for the late entry, and probably days off target, but trying to remove christmas is silly, it has nothing to do with religion anymore. It is just about making children and adults happy by giving and receiving presents, and in the case of children the continuation of thinking something special still exists in the world until they reach maturity and realise what a shitty world we live in.
Ask any child and they will say it is just a coincidence that jesus was born on the same day as Santa comes.
Can you justify on non-religious grounds where that cutoff should be? Can we inform this kind of morality (or any kind or morality?) on non-religious grounds at all?
When the baby is capable of living outside of the womb without having to be in ICU to finish "developing". Before that, the unborn "child" literally leaches life from the mother, so I think she should be able to have say. And given that it also takes a male (for now), the father should have say also (obviously, taking into consideration the circumstances behind the pregnancy).
IMO.
I bought 56 litres of V-Power. That sums up to about 56 euros of tax money to the government.
Wasn't Christmas "rescheduled" to match the Mithra New Year? And aren't blogs, letters to the editor and suchlike effective weapons against senatorial votes or whatever? Much more effective than mere voting, and dosen't waste your money on infrastructure and/or outright fraud.
The real question: What have you done for the world lately ?
I (used to) bike to do my groceries. Does that count?
Abortion raises all sorts of questions. I'm against it in the manner that Carrus85 described, but for fun I like to play along with people who are in favor of it.
I don't want to side-track this thread any more, but one issue with abortion bans / considering it as murder is that it ignores the reality of things. People will have abortions whether it's legal or not. If it's not legal, it'll just happen in shadey dark alleys with little/no medical care, no clean environment, etc. That usually means the mother will most likely get infections or other deseases, which itself does put a burden on society as a whole.
One of the reasons for abortions being legal in the US (and most other countries) is that at least it allows for "half" (or "all", depending on your point of view) of the people involved to survive, as opposed to none.
Wasn't Christmas "rescheduled" to match the Mithra New Year? And aren't blogs, letters to the editor and suchlike effective weapons against senatorial votes or whatever? Much more effective than mere voting, and dosen't waste your money on infrastructure and/or outright fraud.
Christmas was "rescheduled" to overshadow Yule (same goes for Easer (Ostara) and Halloween (Samhain))
The story of Mithras was often told during Yule
The Pagan newyear is oct 31 (Samhain) so the year starts when the darkness sets in (A new day starts when the sun is under the horizon, So Samhain is actually the first hours of november 1st )
Does that count?
You should not have asked the question, as the answer(and you already know it) is yes. Isn't it an evevidencehat using your bike is better than burning something ? :-p
From a sentence we say here I am:
That is the little things who make the big one.
Ask an ant, she got the answer.
if( people->destination && people->number <= 5) number_of_car = take_the_same_car; /* == 1 */ else number_of_car = (int)(people->number/5);
Every little thing a guy can do is something less hurting us.
Every little thing added make a big thing.
The problem is that people do not have this in mind when throwing papers by the car window (in example).
Money is not really the answer. Each one living on earth should help just by adjusting his/her way of life.
I said.
:-p
One of the reasons for abortions being legal in the US (and most other countries) is that at least it allows for "half" (or "all", depending on your point of view) of the people involved to survive, as opposed to none.
So, we should make it safe for criminals to commit crimes?
So, we should make it safe for criminals to commit crimes?
Why the strawman?
So, we should make it safe for criminals to commit crimes?
There can be many good reasons for having an abortion. Health risks or pregnancies that are the result of rape are two obvious examples. Abortion is no substitute for contraceptives, but sometimes you need to have that option.
I find it ditinctly distateful and disgusting to blindly and generally equate people who have an abortion with criminals.
There can be many good reasons for having an abortion. Health risks or pregnancies that are the result of rape are two obvious examples. Abortion is no substitute for contraceptives, but sometimes you need to have that option.
I find it ditinctly distateful and disgusting to blindly and generally equate people who have an abortion with criminals.
Well formulated and I agree to 100%.
I think that the idea that abortion always is something bad stems from religion. Just as a lot of Arab countries are too much influenced by Islam, USA is too much influenced by Christianity.
... Both being quite agressive religions, I'd rather not see any government based on any of them.
Put 500 taoists, 500 Buddhists and 500 pagans of any kind together and they will go along quite nicely
put 100 Christians ans 100 Muslims together and you'll have war
And that while Christianity and Islam sprang from the same root
My opinion in short:
- Abortion yes, if in very early stages; and definitely yes in special cases (rape, serious disorders in the child, danger for the mother).
- Please do not use circular argumentation (abortion is illegal -> who does it is a criminal -> criminals must not commit crimes -> abortion as a crime must be illegal -> q.e.d). Abortion is a crime only where and when it's against the law.
- Christmas: Not a Christian holiday in the first place. Early church did not celebrate birth of Christ this exuberantly, and not at this date. Rather lots of old Germanic, Nordic and Celtic roots, plus lots of 19th- and 20th-century neo-romantic and capitalist ideas attached.
- Halloween: Not satanic. Celtic roots mainly, and nothing to do with Satanism. Read this.
- V-Power: Don't buy it. Effects are marginal at best, you are being ripped off.
- Separation of State and Church: Very important for Democracy, still very under-rated. Religion in general is based on belief rather than facts, and should never be used as a base for any law. To anyone their beliefs, as long as I have the same choice, and nobody violates my rights in the name of religion.
- A "Bush sucks" T-Shirt is offensive, at least to Mr. Bush himself. "Jesus loves you" is not, not even to Jesus. That is why the former can be discussed about (I personally agree with the statement, but that aside), but the latter can't. As long as "Allah loves you", "Vishnu loves you", "Obatalá loves you" and "Satan loves you" are equally legal and accepted, I don't have a problem with "Jesus loves you" (although I disagree with this particular statement).
And that while Christianity and Islam sprang from the same root
Nobody fights like family.
500 pagans
What exactly is a "pagan"?
I always thought it was a non christian, jew or muslim, and not really a religion of itself.
Back in the days when we had wars everywhere between kingdoms shifting alliances all the time. The royals were all family.
Now when we elect our leaders and none is related to eachother, wars are quite rare.
Pagans are just ordinary people that hasn't converted to an invading religion.
But this thread has drifted quite a bit from the topic.
If you have one, vote for the Pirate Party! If not, start it.
If you have one, vote for the Pirate Party! If not, start it.
... YO HO HO, and a bottle of rum
Bah. the pirate party is the most useless party ever created. They only thing they strive for is "nicer" (for file-sharers) copy-right laws. Nothing else. It is unclear where they stand on IMPORTANT issues.
Bah. the pirate party is the most useless party ever created. They only thing they strive for is "nicer" (for file-sharers) copy-right laws. Nothing else. It is unclear where they stand on IMPORTANT issues.
Say what?
Go read their principles and come back in shame. Keeping 1984 at bay is the most important situation you'll ever face.
I agree that we have to keep 1984 at bay, but the situation is not quite as bad as some people would like us to believe.
I half-agre with some of their views, but not with their radical solutions which will thankfully never go through.
"Jesus loves you" is not [offensive]
You can't speak for other people. It is offensive to many. And before you say "too bad, they can suck on it", realize that its exactly like saying that to a Christian about their beliefs.
To explain my previous post so I don't look like a total jerk:
I was trying to reduce to absurdity the notion that we should allow abortions so as not to kill the mother. If the mother is in fact murdering the child, then by no means should we protect the murderor on the grounds that the murderer may die. On the other hand, if abortion isn't murder, then clearly there isn't a problem. So it all comes down to whether aborition is murder and questions about the survival of the mother are a smokescreen around that issue.
Now, this is rather completely off-topic but I felt I should explain myself.
I'd say up to the end of the first trimester, or middle of the second, it's not murder. But thats just me.
You can't speak for other people. It is offensive to many. And before you say "too bad, they can suck on it", realize that its exactly like saying that to a Christian about their beliefs.
I'm a witch ( No I can't fly on a broomstick ) but "Jesus loves you" is not offensive to me. nor would "Buddha loves you" be offensive.
Keep in mind that religions are different ways of looking at the same world
I'm a witch ( No I can't fly on a broomstick ) but "Jesus loves you" is not offensive to me. nor would "Buddha loves you" be offensive.
Also keep in mind that othr people ar just that, other people. You can't use yourself as a template for how anyone will react.
"I'd say up to the end of the first trimester"
Is that high-school? or should they get a chance of college before they are weeded out
What exactly is a "pagan"?
I don't think you can say that Paganism is ordinary people who havn't converted to an invading religion.
My understanding is that Pagansim is a broad term encompassing those religions that primarily flourished in Europe pre-Roman Catholic Church, mostly practised by the Tribal "Barbarians", it includes things like Druidism,Wicca or Witchcraft (NOT satanic) and others that generally revered natural cycles of the seasons and the moon, and the power of nature in general etc and also greatly revered womanhood as the source of new life, often the "Earth Mother" was worshipped as the source of all life on the planet. Sometimes fairly dodgy practises like human sacrifice was an aspect of some Pagan religions though. Emperor Constantine and Co. and thier Catholic Church pretty much wiped out most of the Pagan practises by making them heresy against the Church (The Inquisition was pretty damn convincing there!), and the idea that they were "Satanic" has kinda stuck to this day. That's just my general understanding though...
If I had the cash, I'd donate to the ACLU. But I'm a poor student hardly able to pay my own rent. 
As for the Pirate Party... they are getting my vote.
Emperor Constantine and Co. and thier Catholic Church pretty much wiped out most of the Pagan practises by making them heresy against the Church (The Inquisition was pretty damn convincing there!)
You read too much Dan Brown.
There was no Catholic Church at the time of Constantine, nor was there an Inquisition.
Some pagan ideas and practices were absorbed by the early chuch anyway IIRC.
I just don't understand why any quote telling "someone" loves you, could ever be offensive.
I don't think you can say that Paganism is ordinary people who havn't converted to an invading religion.
A long time ago, almost everyone was either polytheistic or pantheistic. So for a Jew/Christian/Muslim to call someone pagan, it surely meant you were worshiping other gods / spirits / nature. With the rise of atheism, it's no longer the case. So while technically speaking, a pagan is traditionally just a non-Jew/Christian/Muslim, it does carry with it the connotation that you are actively worshiping something else.
A heathen is closer to being someone who is not religious, but even that carries the connotation that you are somewhat barbaric.
I just don't understand
Satan Loves you!
For "XYZ Loves You" to be insulting, you must first believe that XYZ exists and that he is against you. If you don't believe in him and you find it insulting, you are mentally unstable and probably take offense to statements such as "good morning". And of course, the "love" doesn't have anything to do with romantic love, in case anyone is confused. 
I just don't understand
Satan Loves you!
That's a good one. But according to Jesus you are supposed to "love your enemies," so one shouldn't really be offended if Satan is obeying Jesus.
I don't think you can say that Paganism is ordinary people who havn't converted to an invading religion.
My understanding is that Pagansim is a broad term encompassing those religions that primarily flourished in Europe pre-Roman Catholic Church, mostly practised by the Tribal "Barbarians", it includes things like Druidism,Wicca or Witchcraft (NOT satanic) and others that generally revered natural cycles of the seasons and the moon, and the power of nature in general etc and also greatly revered womanhood as the source of new life, often the "Earth Mother" was worshipped as the source of all life on the planet. Sometimes fairly dodgy practises like human sacrifice was an aspect of some Pagan religions though. Emperor Constantine and Co. and thier Catholic Church pretty much wiped out most of the Pagan practises by making them heresy against the Church (The Inquisition was pretty damn convincing there!), and the idea that they were "Satanic" has kinda stuck to this day. That's just my general understanding though...
... Don't burn people in elder cages, plants have feelings too
That story about human sacrifice is absolute nonsense, at least according to any "true" pagan religion.
Pagan religions are Earth/ nature based, therefore life itself is sacred.
.. We are all her children, it would be like "barbequeing your sister for mother's day"
If satan loves me it's good... for him
You read too much Dan Brown.
There was no Catholic Church at the time of Constantine, nor was there an Inquisition.
heheh well fair comment though I havn't read The Da Vinci Code (I also avoided the movie, though i did see a doco about it), a friend told me all about it though! I have read other books about the whole Priory of Scion thing. Actually most of my interest in this sort of thing came from playing Rome Total War! and growing up in England and learning about the Romans and thier huge impact on Britain. I remember being blown away that there are still remnants of Roman roads left and I visited Bath as a kid that has the remains of a Roman bathhouse there if fading memeory serves! Also there's Hadrian's wall, not to mention all the amazing feats of engineering in ancient Rome itself.
As I understand it Constantine did set in motion the wheels that led to the Catholic Church being founded, the Inquisition was much later, and it did kill off alot of women who otherwise practised pagan methods. I didn't mean that all that happened immediately.
Some pagan ideas and practices were absorbed by the early church anyway IIRC.
yea I heard that that had something to do with the Catholic Church revering Mother Mary as much is Jesus himself, and that made the religion more palatable to pagans at the time, but i don't know for sure of course!
That story about human sacrifice is absolute nonsense
Well maybe! who knows for sure?, if the sacrifice in question was outside that Druids MonkeySphere who knows! I mean the Stone Henges wern't just made for a good place to party you know!
That story about human sacrifice is absolute nonsense
I would think that sacrificing your enemies wasn't that uncommon back then
For "XYZ Loves You" to be insulting, you must first believe that XYZ exists and that he is against you.
I disagree. If you don't believe XYZ exists, then someone saying "XYZ Loves You" is implying "XYZ exists," and it's pretty normal to get upset with people who contradict beliefs you hold strongly. People tend to have a lot of emotional investment in questions like "is there a god?" ... regardless of their conclusion.
so one shouldn't really be offended if Satan is obeying Jesus.
But we might strongly believe that he isn't, and therefore believe that the person stating "Satan loves you" is lying to us, possibly intending to lead us to some nefariously misguided conclusion!
and it's pretty normal to get upset with people who contradict beliefs you hold strongly.
Yes it is. It's no reason to feel insulted though.
People tend to have a lot of emotional investment in questions like "is there a god?" ... regardless of their conclusion.
I don't agree with that. People who answer 'yes' to this question, maybe. But people who answer 'no' to this question tend to be indifferent in religious debates and generally aren't emotionally bound to that answer, and don't really care if somebody claims there is a god and He/She is XXX.
It's no reason to feel insulted though.
And definitely, it shouldn't be illegal anywhere even if some people feel it's insulting. If displaying any beliefs (not only religious) that would insult someone would be illegal, we wouldn't be allowed to speak at all.
Yes it is. It's no reason to feel insulted though.
Then why are people insulted when they are told that they are worshiping a false god?
god and He/She is XXX.
The god of XXX - now there is a god I can worship!
Well maybe! who knows for sure?, if the sacrifice in question was outside that Druids MonkeySphere who knows! I mean the Stone Henges wern't just made for a good place to party you know!
Stonehenge is built on a concentration of "energy" as where the first churches
Then why are people insulted when they are told that they are worshiping a false god?
Because that is telling them they are wrong, and telling someone that an opinion is wrong can be insulting. If I simply voice a different opinion from you however, I am not necessarily saying you are wrong.
It's no reason to feel insulted though.
Well, maybe not rationally, but -- upset, offended, insulted -- these emotions are all pretty close to each other. People easily get offended when they hear, even indirectly, "You are wrong."
People can start flamewars over a programming language, or an operating system choice, or their favorite IDE ... should we really be surprised if they feel insulted by a T-Shirt that tells them their whole life's philosophy is wrong?
But people who answer 'no' to this question tend to be indifferent in religious debates
Well, I suppose it depends how confident one is in that answer, and their history -- if they have a chip on their shoulder with respect to religion or not. I can't really make broad statements about what tendency is more common than the other, but I'd think an atheist or agnostic has at much at stake in the argument as a 'religious' man -- after all, if the religious guy is right, the atheist is probably supposed to end up burning for eternity or as a cockroach or something painful like that.
Personally I'd say I'm pretty confident in my beliefs, but I still don't like to be told I'm going to burn in hell.
But yes, if they have no emotional involvement in the issue, then they probably should care about the T-Shirt.
Because that is telling them they are wrong, and telling someone that an opinion is wrong can be insulting.
Well, when a person feels he/she is 100% correct on any subject, then they are stupid. The correct thing is to ask "why do you say I am wrong?"...but few people do that.
If displaying any beliefs (not only religious) that would insult someone would be illegal, we wouldn't be allowed to speak at all.
Didn't they ban some muslim clothes in Germany some time ago?
should we really be surprised if they feel insulted by a T-Shirt that tells them their whole life's philosophy is wrong?
First a nit-pick. It's not telling them they're wrong, it's merely expressing an opinion.
But no, I'd doubt that it's a surprise to anyone that people feel insulted by such things.
Having a reasonably thick skin is part of being mature. OTOH, swallowing complete bull through mental laziness is immature as well. I got quite angry last night when I seen on TV that Bush had prisoners "water-tortured" (with a short clip to show what was involved) and his excuse was (paraphrased) "It's not torture because torture is against the law". If I caught someone stealing stuff in my hootch and he said "I'm not stealing your stuff because that's illegal" he'd get much worse than if he'd just said "I thought I could get away with it".
after all, if the religious guy is right, the atheist is probably supposed to end up burning for eternity or as a cockroach or something painful like that.
Nope, at least not according to my religion. Would it be fair to punish someone just because he or she didn't get to know you ?
Maybe he of she needs to learn some other lessons first or is in some other way not ready yet.
For those who say the Pirate party is radical and unserious, I don't think you've followed the development.
When they first started, it was harsh. They wanted to completely get rid of copyright and patents.
But those are no longer the main questions. It is still there as a goal, but they have chosen to focus on the integrity issue.
The primary goal of the pirate party is now to protect your rights to privacy. To stop the increasingly ridiculous laws and demands from entertainment industries.
The pirate party wants filesharing to have the same rights as snail mail.
The post office isn't allowed to open your mail to see if you're sending a cd with illegal material. Why should your packets on internet be less protected?
It's not telling them they're wrong, it's merely expressing an opinion.
I don't understand your nitpick. If I opine X and you believe not-X, doesn't my opinion imply you are wrong? Is there really a useful distinction to be made between saying "X is true" or saying "If you believe not-X, you are wrong about X"?
If I opine X and you believe not-X, doesn't my opinion imply you are wrong?
Not at all. For example, I don't believe there is a god. I don't know this for a fact however, it is just my opinion. Therefore, people who do believe in a god are not wrong in my eyes just because they believe something different. It could be me who is wrong.
But unless there can be, and not be, a god at the same time, then believing there is no god means you believe the people who believe there is a god are wrong.
What I mean is, if you don't believe those people are wrong, then you believe you're wrong. If you don't believe you're wrong, then you believe they're wrong. It's nice that you're open to the possibility that you may be wrong, but that doesn't change that you believe you're right and they're not. You can't both be right.
Can we at least try to keep the thread on-topic?
You forgot one option: you don't know for sure if something is true or not. For example you can't be 100% sure that timetravel is impossible. Who are wrong, the one who believe its possible or the ones who don't?
Who are wrong, the one who believe its possible or the ones who don't?
It's not about who's wrong, it's about you believing someone else is wrong.
To be on-topic:
I've been trying to get people that don't want to use an obscenely dominating OS to not use it, when they do anyway because they think they have no choice. Breaking MS's stranglehold on the OS market is something that I see as beneficial to this country (if not the world).
I've been trying to get people that don't want to use an obscenely dominating OS to not use it, when they do anyway because they think they have no choice. Breaking MS's stranglehold on the OS market is something that I see as beneficial to this country (if not the world).
Actually, I get tired from this whole stranglehold discussion.
Sure, a de-facto monopoly like the one Microsoft has is a bad thing. Still, for Macs, the situation is even worse, since the company that makes the hardware is the same that also makes the OS; and I'd estimate the market share of MacOS in the mac sector a lot larger than that of Windows in the PC sector. Yet nobody seems to complain that Apple has a monopoly on Mac operating systems. (OK, you can use Windows on an Intel Mac, and quite some people do - but even before that, almost nobody complained).
What bothers me more than the fact that there is a monopoly, is how microsoft abuses this position to push non-secure, buggy, non-standard software into the market in order to extend the monopoly over other realms (e.g. browsers).
Still, for Macs, the situation is even worse, since the company that makes the hardware is the same that also makes the OS
Oh, trust me. I don't like Macs for that very reason. I'm not saying Apple is any better than MS, but MS is in a position to be able to do more damage to the industry (on purpose or not).
I get the idea that Apple still makes (mostly) good software, while microsoft abuses its monopoly to get away with inferior products.
A monopoly isn't a bad thing in itself. The problem is that too much power rests in too little hands, much like in a dictatorship or monarchy. A monarchy with a good, wise, and unselfish monarch is in fact the "ideal" society form. Unfortunately, good monarchs are rare.
Apple isn't a Good Monarch either; they too abuse their position. For example, after they bought emagic, they stopped development of the windows version of the Logic product family - the best music production tool I have encountered so far. The only reason to do so was to force studios to stick with or buy Macs, by artificially penalizing PC hardware in the competition.
Still, their software seems to have less bugs, look prettier, and be more ergonomic in general, than their microsoft counterparts (excluding Word, which should be the microsoft flagship instead of windows).