< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6958 OF 6958 ·
|Mar-30-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <al wazir: <Abdel Irada: I'm classing this with your long history of disingenuous, hidden-agenda-driven posts.> You're ridiculous, and that's a fact.>|
I think the <Colonel> nailed it:
<Colonel Mortimer: I get the impression <al wazir> values his capacity for being disagreeable over and above any capacity he may have for being objective.>
You are so eager to disagree with me that you make rash claims from which you must later backpedal.
That should tell you something.
|Mar-30-15|| ||al wazir: <Abdel Irada: You are so eager to disagree with me that you make rash claims from which you must later backpedal.> At least I am capable of locomotion in both directions. *You* have a fixed idea of my duplicitousness, from which you are unable or unwilling to retreat. Tell me more about my hidden agenda; it's hidden even from me, though apparently not from you.|
|Mar-30-15|| ||devere: "White House slams Indiana religious freedom law amid Obama hypocrisy criticism"|
|Mar-30-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <devere>, when you go looking for articles to link to, do you make a point of starting your search under rocks and rotting planks?|
I'm sure everyone here knows the _Washington Times_ is a publication of Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Perhaps that doesn't cast doubt on its objectivity in *your* eyes, but for most of us, it does.
Then again, if ever I saw a poster who lives his entire life firmly ensconced in an alternative media reality, it is you. If you have ever read and linked to a credible source, I don't recall the incident.
|Mar-30-15|| ||cormier: PHIL 2:6-11
Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to the point of death,
even death on a cross.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name
which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
|Mar-30-15|| ||Abdel Irada: This song has haunted me since I heard it in an episode of _The Untouchables_ in the 1990s. A few days ago, I looked up the lyrics to use in an article, and then I listened to it again on YouTube:|
Then I look at what's happened to Aleppo, and I wonder if it's true.
|Mar-30-15|| ||HeMateMe: mort gives the USA no slack at all, in any matters, which makes an otherwise intelligent person look stupid.|
|Mar-30-15|| ||Abdel Irada: The past is with us always:
|Mar-30-15|| ||MarkFinan: <Abdel Irada: <al wazir: <Abdel Irada: I'm classing this with your long history of disingenuous, hidden-agenda-driven posts.> You're ridiculous, and that's a fact.>
I think the <Colonel> nailed it:>|
And with all this blowing smoke up his A hole as you once again sit in agreement with "The Colonel!", I'll tell you what else I think he nailed.
You just don't know it yet, lol.
|Mar-30-15|| ||johnlspouge: Here is the crux of your discussion, <Jim Bartle> and <keypusher>.|
"What Makes Indiana's Religious Freedom Law Different?"
[ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics... ]
Have fun ;>)
|Mar-30-15|| ||devere: <Abdel Irada>
Personal insults from you are the high point of my day. They let me know I am doing the right thing and should continue. Thank you so much.
|Mar-30-15|| ||Abdel Irada: Pray continue, <devere>.|
Life is often difficult, and laughter is the best medicine.
|Mar-30-15|| ||Abdel Irada: One little caveat, though: If you think that was a personal insult, you apparently have very little experience of the internet.|
|Mar-30-15|| ||devere: "Liberals against Religious Liberty in Indiana"
|Mar-30-15|| ||Karposian: <johnlspouge: Here is the crux of your discussion, <Jim Bartle> and <keypusher>.>|
That is a great, informative piece, <jls>. Here is one of its main conclusions:
<Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.>
That sums it up pretty well, I think.
And one final quote:
<<..even dressed in liturgical garments, hateful discrimination is still a pig.>
Exactly my thoughts on the matter. It's just what I wrote on this forum earlier:
The bill is nothing but discrimination dressed up in "religious freedom" language.
|Mar-30-15|| ||cormier: PHIL 2:8-9
Christ became obedient to the point of death,
even death on a cross.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.
|Mar-30-15|| ||cormier: Gospel: MK 15:1-39
As soon as morning came,
the chief priests with the elders and the scribes,
that is, the whole Sanhedrin held a council.
They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate.
Pilate questioned him,
“Are you the king of the Jews?”
He said to him in reply, “You say so.”
The chief priests accused him of many things.
Again Pilate questioned him,
“Have you no answer?
See how many things they accuse you of.”
Jesus gave him no further answer, so that Pilate was amazed.
Now on the occasion of the feast he used to release to them
one prisoner whom they requested.
A man called Barabbas was then in prison
along with the rebels who had committed murder in a rebellion.
The crowd came forward and began to ask him
to do for them as he was accustomed.
“Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?”
For he knew that it was out of envy
that the chief priests had handed him over.
But the chief priests stirred up the crowd
to have him release Barabbas for them instead.
Pilate again said to them in reply,
“Then what do you want me to do
with the man you call the king of the Jews?”
They shouted again, “Crucify him.”
Pilate said to them, “Why? What evil has he done?”
They only shouted the louder, “Crucify him.”
So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd,
released Barabbas to them and, after he had Jesus scourged,
handed him over to be crucified.
The soldiers led him away inside the palace,
that is, the praetorium, and assembled the whole cohort.
They clothed him in purple and,
weaving a crown of thorns, placed it on him.
They began to salute him with, “Hail, King of the Jews!”
and kept striking his head with a reed and spitting upon him.
They knelt before him in homage.
And when they had mocked him,
they stripped him of the purple cloak,
dressed him in his own clothes,
and led him out to crucify him.
They pressed into service a passer-by, Simon,
a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country,
the father of Alexander and Rufus,
to carry his cross.
They brought him to the place of Golgotha
—which is translated Place of the Skull —
They gave him wine drugged with myrrh,
but he did not take it.
Then they crucified him and divided his garments
by casting lots for them to see what each should take.
It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him.
The inscription of the charge against him read,
“The King of the Jews.”
With him they crucified two revolutionaries,
one on his right and one on his left.
Those passing by reviled him,
shaking their heads and saying,
“Aha! You who would destroy the temple
and rebuild it in three days,
save yourself by coming down from the cross.”
Likewise the chief priests, with the scribes,
mocked him among themselves and said,
“He saved others; he cannot save himself.
Let the Christ, the King of Israel,
come down now from the cross
that we may see and believe.”
Those who were crucified with him also kept abusing him.
At noon darkness came over the whole land
until three in the afternoon.
And at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice,
“Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?”
which is translated,
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Some of the bystanders who heard it said,
“Look, he is calling Elijah.”
One of them ran, soaked a sponge with wine, put it on a reed
and gave it to him to drink saying,
“Wait, let us see if Elijah comes to take him down.”
Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.
Here all kneel and pause for a short time.
The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom.
When the centurion who stood facing him
saw how he breathed his last he said,
“Truly this man was the Son of God!”
|Mar-30-15|| ||Petrosianic: <The bill is nothing but discrimination dressed up in "religious freedom" language.>|
The way you've phrased it, your evaluation of the emotional state of strangers is critical to your conclusion. Is it really wise to tie the conclusion to something so wispy? Because The Amazing Randi is sure to come out and prove that you can't really read minds.
|Mar-30-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Jim Bartle>: <Seems to me a law shouldn't be passed if everything you say is undetermined. But its supporters will never admit that.>|
That was the way Obamacare was sold. "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it". This isn't as bad as that, though. At least in this case, we DO know what's in the bill: Two ideas that are both very important individually, but we're not quite sure how they interface with each other. It would be nice if the Supreme Court would tell us that without having to send a law to them to evaluate, but that's not the way they do business.
|Mar-30-15|| ||Karposian: <Petrosianic: Because The Amazing Randi is sure to come out and prove that you can't really read minds.>|
Except for himself, perhaps :)
<The way you've phrased it, your evaluation of the emotional state of strangers is critical to your conclusion. Is it really wise to tie the conclusion to something so wispy?>
Well, the mindset of those who propose these kind of bills is rather transparent, I think. Anyway, I am just voicing my personal opinion, not an analysis of the proposed bill. So, a little subjectivity does not hurt, don't you think?
But the whole thing is rather wispy, I'll give you that. I agree with you that it would be useful if the Supreme Court was more proactive, But that is not a part of their mandate. (Even their judicial review powers is not mentioned at all in the Constitution! But that is another debate for another time..)
|Mar-30-15|| ||johnlspouge: < <Karposian> wrote: That is a great, informative piece, <jls>. >|
Thanks. I certainly prefer constructive discourse to receiving lessons on how to look stupid from the resident expert.
< Here is one of its main conclusions:
<Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.> >
The conclusion you chose is well worth reinforcing. Much appreciated.
|Mar-30-15|| ||Abdel Irada: Congratulations, <devere>, on setting out to prove me wrong by linking to a substantive article from a respected (if wrong-headed) source.|
I disagree with the conclusion, but at least reasoning is present in lieu of unadulterated invective. I applaud this development in your posting pattern and encourage its perpetuation.
However, I can't help but wonder: If the baker were Muslim, would you have leapt so bravely to the defense of his religious freedom?
|Mar-30-15|| ||Jim Bartle: Same idea: A Muslim waiter won't serve women whose head is not covered. A store won't sell to Christians. (See: Christians are already complaining about persecution everywhere.) A hotel refuses to rent a room to blacks.|
All based on religious beliefs.
|Mar-30-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <I certainly prefer constructive discourse to receiving lessons on how to look stupid from the resident expert.>|
Unfortunately, this forum suffers several of them.
Most, however, are now dwellers in Coventry. The best bad neighbor is a distant one.
|Mar-30-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Jim Bartle> Right, I think that's the way they should probably decide it. In the Hobby Lobby case, people were being asked to actually subsidize behavior they were morally opposed to, and asked to be, in effect conscientious objectors.|
The cases we're discussing here are a little different. The baker isn't being asked to approve of gay marriage, or pay for it. He's being asked to do what he's in business to do: sell his product. He obviously has no religious objection to people eating cake if he's a baker. The only cases where I'd make exceptions might be in
1) Private non-licensed transactions (If I offer to sell you my car cheap, to do you a favor, I'm not obligated to make the same offer to any stranger who walks by).
2) Creative endeavors. For example, suppose I'm a professional writer. The American Nazi Party comes to me asking me to write a recruitment poem, that will encourage people to join them. I don't really know how to do that, and my heart wouldn't be in it if I tried. I think I'd be well within my rights to tell them no. On the other hand, if I were a grocer, and they came to me asking to buy a quart of milk, then no, I shouldn't be able to refuse service for something like that. I have an objection to you conquering Europe, I don't have an objection to you drinking milk.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6958 OF 6958 ·