Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

It's that time again!Follow

#102 Dec 12 2012 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I played Medieval: Total War. Those viking dudes are total Catholics.

Except Mazra's aunt. She's a **** prostitute.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Dec 12 2012 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,951 posts
. . . What?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#104 Dec 12 2012 at 4:37 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Belkira wrote:
Guenny wrote:

Sorority's can have their charters revoked for any number of reasons, from not having enough pledges (not making enough money) or various disciplinary reasons, so if there really was an absence of sororities while you were in school, it's possible that they all had just lost their national recognition, which kills local chapters.


Oh, we had plenty of Sororities at school. The urban legend is about the physical houses where sorority members can live.

Sororities thrive in Tennessee.

Thanks for the correction.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#105 Dec 12 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,984 posts
Jophiel wrote:
She's a **** prostitute.


More like a Mormon prostitute. Nuns "marry" Jesus when they join the convent.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#106 Dec 12 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This hardly represents some kind of movement towards discrimination against Atheists.
About as much of a movement towards the discrimination against Christians.


"This" (meaning the old law(s) we were talking about doesn't but the host of lawsuits and legal decisions in the last 50 years which have consistently pushed religious speech (and specifically Christian speech) out of the public square absolutely does. Perhaps if you lived in an area where we've seen landmarks on public parks that have been there for multiple decades being torn down because they are symbols of Christianity, you might get it. The Cross on Mt Soledad was originally erected in 1913. It was replaced with a new one in 1954. Only in 1989 did some group of Atheists decide that it violated the 1st amendment. So something that was legal for 70 plus years now suddenly violated the 1st amendment of the constitution? There are several other similar cases. In a state largely created because of Catholic missionaries, it's somewhat silly to separate state history from religious symbology, but they're trying to do it anyway.

The law didn't change. The interpretation of the law did. You're free to hold your own position on the issue, but please don't pretend that there has not been a growing movement just in the last few decades to eliminate religious symbols from public land. It absolutely does represent a "movement" in that regard.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Dec 12 2012 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So something that was legal for 70 plus years now suddenly violated the 1st amendment of the constitution?

No, something was violating the First Amendment got called out after 70 years.

Illinois hasn't allowed concealed carry in decades. Recently, a judge ruled that had to change based on Amendment #2. So suddenly something that was legal for 70 plus years now suddenly violates the Second Amendment? Preposterous, right? Attack on someone-or-another? Must be if some activist judge changed it now...

As for that cross, God **** that thing is ugly. I also see a church a mere couple hundred feet away offered to host the eyesore and the ACLU was completely fine with this. It was the "OMG WAR ON US!!!" faction who declared that was completely unsuitable and they could never ever compromise (you know, because I guess the rich history of Catholic missionaries as told by cinder block couldn't be revealed if it wasn't right there). And the San Diego city council appears to have terribly mismanaged the entire fiasco.

Also I see the original one was so revered for its religious-historical significance that it was torched to scare away the black people Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#108 Dec 12 2012 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So something that was legal for 70 plus years now suddenly violated the 1st amendment of the constitution?

No, something was violating the First Amendment got called out after 70 years.


No. Something which no one ever considered to be a violation of the first amendment from the beginning of our nations history is now considered one because the interpretation of the law has changed over the last 50 years or so.

Quote:
Illinois hasn't allowed concealed carry in decades. Recently, a judge ruled that had to change based on Amendment #2. So suddenly something that was legal for 70 plus years now suddenly violates the Second Amendment?


No. From the beginning of our nations history the carrying of firearms for personal defense was allowed. Until the last 50 years or so when some states began passing laws which violated the 2nd amendment. In this case it took 50 years to get a case to the Supreme Court to demonstrably declare the Illinois law unconstitutional.

Quote:
Preposterous, right? Attack on someone-or-another? Must be if some activist judge changed it now...


Two major differences:

1. The crosses were not erected by legal requirement. There was no law passed which placed them where they were. The Illinois law is, well, a law. It changed a condition which was legal (carrying firearms) to one that was illegal. So not directly comparable situations.

2. The Illinois law was a violation of the 2nd amendment the day it was passed. The placement of crosses on public land was not a violation of the 1st amendment at any point in our nations history until the relatively recent change in interpretation. How .long a particular cross was in a particular location is not the issue.

Quote:
I also see a church a mere couple hundred feet away offered to host the eyesore and the ACLU was completely fine with this.


It was determined that there was no way to move the cross without destroying it completely. That's also an irrelevant argument. We should not make decisions about infringement of rights based on how easily someone can work around the infringement. So it's ok to deny someone the right to speak in public if their own property is within a short distance and they could speak there if they wanted? Not your best argument Joph.

Quote:
And the San Diego city council appears to have terribly mismanaged the entire fiasco.


Several mistakes were made, but also several incredibly bad rulings. They took the obvious course. They sold the land to a private party. Apparently, selling public land isn't allowed if there's a religious symbol on it either. One kinda has to conclude that the whole claim that this is just about public funds used to display religious symbols is a front for really just wanting to eliminate any religious symbols from locations where anyone might see them. I mean, the city twice attempted to sell the land and twice the sale itself was ruled illegal. Think about that.


While I'm hardly running around lighting my hair on fire over this issue, you really do have to kinda have your head in the sand to not see that this is an organized effort (a "movement" even) with the specific intent to eliminate to the greatest degree possible any exposure anyone might have to religion in any form. Public land is the first step, but I have serious doubts that this movement will stop there. I don't find it hard to imagine at all that once such things are banned "on" public property, they'll be banned "within plain view of" public property. Why not? I mean, churches can have their crosses on the inside of the church and not force their symbols on any random person walking by on a public street, right? I ought to have a right to walk down the street without being assailed by such things!

Not hard to imagine at all. Because the movement isn't really about the first amendment. It just uses the first amendment to achieve its goals. Failing to see that is a huge mistake.


Edited, Dec 12th 2012 6:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#109 Dec 12 2012 at 10:31 PM Rating: Good
As a non-Christian, garbaji....why do you care?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#110 Dec 12 2012 at 11:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So something that was legal for 70 plus years now suddenly violated the 1st amendment of the constitution?

No, something was violating the First Amendment got called out after 70 years.
No. Something which no one ever considered to be a violation of the first amendment from the beginning of our nations history is now considered one because the interpretation of the law has changed over the last 50 years or so.

Ah, so suddenly "70 years" has become "for the first time in our nation's history". I've better things to do than look for any examples of religious iconography removed from public land in a timeline so I'll just say... so what? If it's a violation, it's a violation. It seems much more like there's been plenty of willful violations for years that were never addressed because of social pressures and lack of clout.
Quote:
No. From the beginning of our nations history the carrying of firearms for personal defense was allowed.

Per the same document that disallows the entanglement of Church and State, right? Right.

Quote:
Two major differences:

(1) The Republicans like crosses so ignoring the 1st Amendment is good
(2) The Republicans like guns so ignoring the 2nd Amendment is bad

Not much more complicated than that.

Quote:
It was determined that there was no way to move the cross without destroying it completely.

No great loss. It's not as though you'd needed the finest artists of the Classical Age to resculpt the thing.

Quote:
That's also an irrelevant argument.

Not so much in the whole mythical "War on Christians! OMG those athiests hate Jesus and won't let us have anything ever!" aspect. No one gives a sh*t if the cross is 200' away on privately owned land. As far as the ACLU was concerned you could move it there, adorn it with neon lights and everyone have a big God party at its base... so long as it wasn't on publicly owned land. There's no fear of giant ugly-ass crosses with no redeeming artistic or historical value, just the simple fact that they don't belong on taxpayer funded dirt. The basic argument that it violated the First Amendment stands on its own and doesn't need "It's easy to move" as a defense. The fact that they refuse to move it just points to how much they actually care about the chunk of concrete versus throwing a righteous hissy fit.

Quote:
One kinda has to conclude that the whole claim that this is just about public funds used to display religious symbols is a front for really just wanting to eliminate any religious symbols from locations where anyone might see them.

Hahaha... thanks for making my point so crystal clear for me. You want to dearly to make this into some imaginary crusade where no one is allowed to display any religious symbol... oh, except it's totally okay to display it a stone's throw away but that doesn't count because it has to be right there with no exceptions.

I guess 200' was too far for you to walk before you nailed yourself up there and cried pretend tales of persecution Smiley: laugh

As a side note, I had to look the thing up because I first thought it was the Mojave desert cross that was in the news a few years ago. That one was made out of some welded steel bars and was temporarily replaced by one made of PVC. Between your cinder block looking thing and this one, what is it with these people and their hard-on for crosses made out of construction debris? Couldn't you people find a nice cross with some sort of cultural merit to make an argument about?

Edited, Dec 12th 2012 11:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#111 Dec 13 2012 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
******
43,382 posts
gbaji wrote:
please don't pretend that there has not been a growing movement just in the last few decades to eliminate religious symbols from public land. It absolutely does represent a "movement" in that regard.
Well, Mr. Bill O'Reily, it isn't so much a movement against Christianity as it is that Christians have spent the last few millennia as the center of attention, and now that other people are finding other beliefs more appealing to themselves they can't take it. The best way to get that attention back is to make themselves the victims.

It is kind of cute that you argue that your argument is essentially that we should ignore the state and religion laws because it's old, but you'll go out of your way to argue that we shouldn't change the ones about marriage. This must be that legendary consistent stance you say you have with your well thought out and logical arguments.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#112 Dec 13 2012 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
please don't pretend that there has not been a growing movement just in the last few decades to eliminate religious symbols from public land. It absolutely does represent a "movement" in that regard.
Well, Mr. Bill O'Reily, it isn't so much a movement against Christianity as it is that Christians have spent the last few millennia as the center of attention

It isn't so much a "movement" as Christians were able to ignore aspects of the First Amendment that didn't work for them since they controlled both government and culture in the United States. As recently as the 1950s when that eyesore was erected, being an atheist was akin to being a communist and enemy of the nation. We were busy plugging "One nation under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, blacklisting Hollywood actors and passing the Communist Control Act around that year to show how freedom loving we all were. Small wonder people weren't lining up to fight it then.

The fact that a group was able to ignore the rules by virtue of having a small and marginalized opposition doesn't make ignoring those rules legitimate. Nor does that period of ignoring the rules suddenly become evidence that it's how it always should have been. Now that things are changing and they can't ignore the rules, it's all wailing and wringing of hands saying how "under attack" they are that they can't flaunt and ignore the First Amendment.

Edited, Dec 13th 2012 9:38am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Dec 13 2012 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
As a non-Christian, garbaji....why do you care?


Because I believe in protecting other people's rights, even if I don't benefit myself. Aside from the principle involved, if everyone only fought for rights that benefited themselves directly, pretty soon we wouldn't have any.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Dec 13 2012 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
As a non-Christian, garbaji....why do you care?


Because I believe in protecting other people's rights, even if I don't benefit myself. Aside from the principle involved, if everyone only fought for rights that benefited themselves directly, pretty soon we wouldn't have any.
Given your stance on SSM, that's got to be the most **** hypocritcal thing youv'e ever posted here.

You really are a terrible human being.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#115 Dec 13 2012 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So something that was legal for 70 plus years now suddenly violated the 1st amendment of the constitution?

No, something was violating the First Amendment got called out after 70 years.
No. Something which no one ever considered to be a violation of the first amendment from the beginning of our nations history is now considered one because the interpretation of the law has changed over the last 50 years or so.

Ah, so suddenly "70 years" has become "for the first time in our nation's history".


You're using a bait and switch Joph. That specific site had a cross on it for 70 years. But the legality of crosses on public land was protected for the entire history of our nation. You're making it seem like that was the first time anyone ever put a cross on public land in the US and it took 70 years for the courts to rule it unconstitutional. But that's not the case.

Where that *is* the case is with regard to Illinois' law restricting the carrying of firearms. Up until that law was passed, it was legal to carry firearms. That law changed that, and it took 50 years for it to be ruled unconstitutional. Do you see how one case is not the same as the other?

Quote:
Quote:
No. From the beginning of our nations history the carrying of firearms for personal defense was allowed.

Per the same document that disallows the entanglement of Church and State, right? Right.


Except that the constitution does not disallow all expressions or symbols of religion on public land Joph (lets stick to language describing this case, shall we?). On the other hand the constitution is quite clear about the right to keep and bear arms.

Quote:
(1) The Republicans like crosses so ignoring the 1st Amendment is good
(2) The Republicans like guns so ignoring the 2nd Amendment is bad


Wrong. Republicans aren't ignoring the 1st amendment. They don't believe that it says that crosses can't be allowed on public land. There's a massive difference. Conservatives stick to the interpretation of both of those amendments as they were from the beginning of our nation. Liberals want to change the interpretation without bothering to change the wording of the amendments themselves. That's the crux of the disagreement in both cases. Liberals don't like guns, so they reinterpret the 2nd amendment to mean that you can't really own or bear arms after all. They don't like crosses, so they reinterpret the 1st amendment so that you can't have crosses on public land.

One side is trying to change the interpretation of the law to suit their current political agenda. The other isn't. Both sides are completely consistent once you understand this.

Quote:
Quote:
One kinda has to conclude that the whole claim that this is just about public funds used to display religious symbols is a front for really just wanting to eliminate any religious symbols from locations where anyone might see them.

Hahaha... thanks for making my point so crystal clear for me. You want to dearly to make this into some imaginary crusade where no one is allowed to display any religious symbol...


You honestly don't realize that this is precisely what the atheists want? If atheists could do whatever they wanted right now, they'd make all religions illegal Joph. You must realize that. The only reason they aren't attempting to pass such a law is because they cant. Yet. You can't possibly believe that if they were to succeed in eliminating all displays of religion from public spaces that they'd just declare their objectives met and be happy, can you?

Quote:
As a side note, I had to look the thing up because I first thought it was the Mojave desert cross that was in the news a few years ago. That one was made out of some welded steel bars and was temporarily replaced by one made of PVC. Between your cinder block looking thing and this one, what is it with these people and their hard-on for crosses made out of construction debris? Couldn't you people find a nice cross with some sort of cultural merit to make an argument about?


So it it looks prettier to you, you think the legal arguments being made would not apply? If the Cristo Redentor were located on public land in the US, the same arguments being used to destroy the Mt Soledad cross would be being applied to it. I assume you'd be ok with just tearing that down as well, right?

Edited, Dec 13th 2012 2:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Dec 13 2012 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
As a non-Christian, garbaji....why do you care?


Because I believe in protecting other people's rights, even if I don't benefit myself. Aside from the principle involved, if everyone only fought for rights that benefited themselves directly, pretty soon we wouldn't have any.
Given your stance on SSM, that's got to be the most @#%^ing hypocritcal thing youv'e ever posted here.


Ignoring the whole "marriage status and benefits isn't a right" bit, it's not hypocritical at all. I'm not married. I'm protecting a status that applies to and benefits other people because even though it doesn't benefit me either way, I understand why the status exists and believe that it makes the most sense for that status to continue to be limited to that group. I'm not picking sides based on what benefits me the most, or what benefits some group I want to help.

I think far too many people think in terms of who they want to help or harm rather than what is the right thing to do.

Quote:
You really are a terrible human being.


Because I don't think a legal system based on rewarding people I like and penalizing people I don't like is a good idea? If that makes me terrible, then so be it. I think that if you pulled yourself out of the emotional aspects of these individual issues and looked at the bigger picture, you might just realize that my positions are not only the right ones, but benefit all of us more in the long run.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#117 Dec 13 2012 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,524 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think that if you pulled yourself out of the emotional aspects of these individual issues and looked at the bigger picture, you might just realize that my positions are not only the right ones, but benefit all of us more in the long run.


After removing myself from the emotional aspects of these individual issues, and looking at the bigger picture, I still don't agree with you.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#118 Dec 13 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Good
No. You made up a reason you believe the status exists.

Also, why do you assume that I have an emotional stake in SSM? I'm not **** and don't personally know any gays looking to marry each other.

I have this crazy notion that, as an American who is not a selfish a-hole, that anyone should be free to do as they like so long as it doesn't harm others.


You can go on and on about he horrible tax burden these sneaky gays lay upon us (or would if they got the benefits you say they don't deserve) but I'd personaly rather see them get marriage benefits then see one more year of, say, massive tax breaks (oops, I meant subsidies) for, say, the oil companies who clearly don't need them.

gbaji wrote:
If that makes me a terrible person than so be it.


For the record, most of us are sick of your Ayn Randian **** attitude. At least I am.


____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#119 Dec 13 2012 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,909 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I played Medieval: Total War. Those viking dudes are total Catholics.

Except Mazra's aunt. She's a **** prostitute.


Well, from my knowledge of Crusader kings, it's a pain in the neck to get those guys to embrace the Jesus.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#120 Dec 13 2012 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,984 posts
The whole "Thou shalt not steal" thing didn't mesh well with the way things were handled back then.

Also, mead. Bible only mentions wine, which is not beer. Major flaw in their marketing strategy.

Edited, Dec 14th 2012 12:38am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#121 Dec 13 2012 at 5:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You honestly don't realize that this is precisely what the atheists want? If atheists could do whatever they wanted right now, they'd make all religions illegal Joph. You must realize that.

Well, just so long as you're not going hysterical with imaginary persecution complexes Smiley: laugh

Quote:
So it it looks prettier to you, you think the legal arguments being made would not apply?

Nope. But you were the one trying to make all sorts of historical and cultural arguments for these displays in previous posts, not me. I was just chuckling that your trademark case now involves such a piece of junk.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Dec 13 2012 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,984 posts
I'm all for SSM and all that, but I don't get why homosexual couples want to get married in a church in the first place. I'm a pig-eating infidel, which is why I don't plan on getting married in a mosque. I sure wouldn't demand that an imam ties the knot. What's wrong with doing it at the city hall? If the religion forbids same **** relationships, why seek it out?

Hopefully that doesn't come across as homophobic or anything. We can argue whether or not the christian religion needs to be updated slightly to match modern times, but until it does, the priests should not be forced to abandon their religious beliefs.

Whatever. I'm drunk.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#123 Dec 13 2012 at 6:19 PM Rating: Good
When the US peeps go on about SSM it's about the right to see a spouse in hospital, get the spousal benefits, etc. Not so much the church sanction.


Yeah, you're drunk.Smiley: clown
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#124 Dec 13 2012 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,984 posts
Well, what do I know. Homosexual couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples in our country. The SSM debate here is about homosexuals wanting to be wed in a church, by a priest, and the priests refusing to do so because it goes against their constitutional right.

Homosexuals should obviously be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals. Can't even believe it's still up for discussion.

Edit: By the way, sorry if I'm using the terminology wrong here. I'm not sure if gays, homosexuals and so on is offensive. Homosexuals is the common term for, well, homosexuals here. Primarily because we don't give a **** MORE BEER! Smiley: mad

Edited, Dec 14th 2012 1:26am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#125 Dec 13 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mazra wrote:
I'm all for SSM and all that, but I don't get why homosexual couples want to get married in a church in the first place.

I don't think most of them do. Or, rather, they don't want to get married in a church that doesn't want them (plenty of congregations of various denominations are fine with homosexuals).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Dec 13 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mazra wrote:
Edit: By the way, sorry if I'm using the terminology wrong here. I'm not sure if gays, homosexuals and so on is offensive. Homosexuals is the common term for, well, homosexuals here

Homosaurus Dix
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#127 Dec 13 2012 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,984 posts
**** titter.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#128 Dec 13 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Maybe they want to get married in a specific church because it's pretty? I dunno.

Last week I got into an argument with a co-worker about the whole Christmas vs. Holidays thing. One of our regulars came in and wished us a Merry Christmas. After she left I jokingly said that next time she came in I'd wish her a Happy Yule (seeing as how I'm Wiccan). Then my co-worker asked what Yule was and I explained to her that it was a celebration of the winter solstice that many pagans celebrated. She just about threw a hissy fit right then and there. Started going off on why do people who don't celebrate Christmas buy each other presents or celebrate the holiday in any way, and a bunch of other crazy **** that didn't even make sense. Luckily there were three of us that day, and our third co-worker stepped in and basically told us both to shut up. I think it must have been my use of the word pagan that set her off, but I don't know. She's not very bright. This is the same girl that thought that Asia and Europe were countries and asked me where Irish people come from. I **** you not.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#129 Dec 13 2012 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Maybe they want to get married in a specific church because it's pretty? I dunno.

That usually doesn't work even if you're having a heterosexual wedding. Most churches have a thing about wanting you to actually belong to that church before they marry you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Dec 13 2012 at 9:07 PM Rating: Good
That's how it is here in the US, yeah. Who knows, maybe they're more lax about that over in Denmark. Personally I don't know why anyone would want to get married in a place that is only doing it because they're legally required. I would think the negative auras in a wedding like that would just be rampant. When I get married I want people to be happy about it!
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#131 Dec 14 2012 at 12:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Legalizing SSM wouldn't force clergy to perform the ceremonies any more than you can currently force a Jewish rabbi to marry a Catholic couple or vice versa. The only people who would be obligated to perform SSM ceremonies would be in a "Justice of the Peace" civil setting.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#132 Dec 14 2012 at 12:52 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,951 posts
I think churches here are pretty lax about that, mostly because only about 30-40% of our country is actually religious so the majority doesn't belong to any church.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#133 Dec 14 2012 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,984 posts
I honestly don't know what it's like here. I know that you have a legal right to be wed in a church if you're a member of the National Church, which is why we've got the debate about homosexual weddings in the first place. Priests have a right to practice their religion, which means they can't be forced to wed homosexual couples, but homosexual couples also have a right to be wed by a priest.

Some priests choose to wed homosexuals, others choose not to. I think that's fine, but some people are still on the fence about "equal rights" and demanding that priests should set aside their legal rights for the legal rights of others. It's a bit stupid, really, and unlikely to lead anywhere until the Christian churches acknowledge SSM.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#134 Dec 19 2012 at 4:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Bijou wrote:

I have this crazy notion that, as an American who is not a selfish a-hole, that anyone should be free to do as they like so long as it doesn't harm others.


You would think so, but somehow we always stay interested in these things.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#135 Dec 19 2012 at 6:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Mazra wrote:
Well, what do I know. Homosexual couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples in our country. The SSM debate here is about homosexuals wanting to be wed in a church, by a priest, and the priests refusing to do so because it goes against their constitutional right.


Thus sorta proving the slippery slope part of the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Dec 19 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Legalizing SSM wouldn't force clergy to perform the ceremonies any more than you can currently force a Jewish rabbi to marry a Catholic couple or vice versa. The only people who would be obligated to perform SSM ceremonies would be in a "Justice of the Peace" civil setting.


Guess I should have read this for the lulz first. Keep pretending that it's just about what's being fought over today.


It's funny because I was thinking about differences between liberal and conservative political methodology, and something I've sorta known all along but hadn't really verbalized occurred to me. Liberals are directionally oriented, while conservatives are positionally oriented. What I mean by this is that conservatives tend to pick a position where they think some issue should be based on their own principles and ideals. Liberals tend to pick a direction on an issue based on their own principles and ideals. So, for example, a liberal might be for more social spending and less military spending, while a conservative will instead pick an amount that he thinks we should spend on social stuff and military stuff.

This often leads to massive misunderstanding between the two groups. A conservative might be more than willing to cut some unnecessary or wasteful military spending (because he believes we should spend "enough" money, but not more), which the liberal interprets as agreement but then becomes upset when he refuses to cut spending even more. Similarly, a conservative might be fine with a certain amount of social spending, which again confuses the liberal when he wants to spend more but is opposed. But that, while sometimes amusing, isn't so much of a problem.

The real problem is that liberals don't have an end point. But it is an inherent problem when you argue "for" something or "against" something. You don't stop being for that thing once you've removed the things hindering it, but will continue to be for it while arguing for additional benefits. Conservatives tend to place the point we should be at the point at which a group is neither unduly hurt or helped. Obviously, where they perceive that to be can change over time, but the changes are always based on the "position" they think that point should be. But liberals will keep pushing on past that point in whatever direction they've picked. So if you are for women, you'll push past eliminating discrimination in the workplace and right on to requiring other people to pay for their birth control. If you are against smoking, you'll go right past people smoking in the workplace, then on to smoking in planes, to smoking in restaurants, to smoking in bars, to smoking in parks, and even in people's own homes. The examples of this kind of thing are numerous.

What's ironic though, is that many liberals don't seem to realize this. They insist that they just want to achieve the current thing. But once that thing is achieved, they will not stop there, but will move on to the next thing. Liberals actively pursue a slippery slope, but are often the first to deny it, and denounce as absurd any conservative who dares to point it out.



Dunno. Just something I've been thinking about lately, and this particular bit reminded me of it.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 4:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Dec 19 2012 at 11:38 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Oh, gbaji. It's amazing how you know everybody so much better than they know themselves.

Never change.

#138 Dec 20 2012 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Guess I should have read this for the lulz first. Keep pretending that it's just about what's being fought over today.

I was responding to Pigtails and Mazra who both expressed opinions on SSM being performed by clergy. When you can show me the laws requiring clergy to perform weddings between any other group they don't want to perform for, you just let me know.

But it's swell that you typed all that in response to... nothing. Good for you!

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 8:12am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#139 Dec 20 2012 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Belkira wrote:
Oh, gbaji. It's amazing how you know everybody so much better than they know themselves.

If you weren't so directionally orientated you'd see that he's right.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#140 Dec 20 2012 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
gbaji wrote:

What's ironic though, is that many liberals don't seem to realize this.
...and that's why we have you, luv.

Keep on showing us the truth. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#141 Dec 23 2012 at 7:48 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
So I noticed a sign on a bank that said "holiday closing, closed on 24th/25th DEC". Given that Christmas Eve is on a Monday (a closed day anyway), a "Closed for Christmas" or "Closed for DEC 25th" would have been more appropriate. I've seen similar signs. They are all for the "holidays", but hours of operation only change for Christmas.

I would wager that the average person can't even spell Chanukah let alone know when it starts and ends. What I've realize is that this "movement" isn't about being inclusive to other celebrations, but not offending atheists. I've never heard other religious people complaining about Christmas, only not equally being represented.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#142 Dec 23 2012 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Christmas Eve isn't typically a day places close. Close early maybe, but usually not closed outright.


Happy Holidays Alma.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#143 Dec 23 2012 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
As a non-Christian, garbaji....why do you care?


Because I believe in protecting other people's rights, even if I don't benefit myself. Aside from the principle involved, if everyone only fought for rights that benefited themselves directly, pretty soon we wouldn't have any.
What right is being violated?



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#144 Dec 23 2012 at 12:50 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Christmas Eve isn't typically a day places close. Close early maybe, but usually not closed outright.


Happy Holidays Alma.


It wasn't closing for Christmas Eve, it was closing because it was a Monday and it's always closed for Mondays. Hence the reason why I said the sign was stupid since it was essentially only closing for Christmas.

Happy Holidays to you too.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#145 Dec 23 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
You have a bank that closes Mondays? That seems odd to me.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#146 Dec 23 2012 at 8:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Yes, The Navy Federal Credit Union, the commissary on post and my barbershop (in TN) work on Saturdays and get off Sundays and Mondays.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#147 Dec 30 2012 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
I stand corrected. The bank IS opened on Mondays. I'm not sure how I confused that with the other establishments..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#148 Dec 30 2012 at 11:52 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
What I've realize is that this "movement" isn't about being inclusive to other celebrations, but not offending atheists. I've never heard other religious people complaining about Christmas, only not equally being represented.


It's both. As someone who is Wiccan, I don't get offended if someone wishes me a merry Christmas, but I vastly prefer to say Happy Holidays to people because then I don't have to worry about the off chance of offending them, AND I am equally representing all holidays. I could just as easily say Happy Yule, but then people look at me funny. Smiley: sly
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#149 Jan 02 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
A little late, but...

Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
As a non-Christian, garbaji....why do you care?


Because I believe in protecting other people's rights, even if I don't benefit myself. Aside from the principle involved, if everyone only fought for rights that benefited themselves directly, pretty soon we wouldn't have any.
What right is being violated?


The right to express their beliefs in a public venue, just like any other expression? If group A is free to put up a display with Santa and Rudolf in a public place, but group B is not free to put up a display with Baby Jesus in the same public place, and the only reason for the discrepancy is that one is an expression of religion while the other is not, then that absolutely is a violation of the right of free speech of group B. How can it not be? You're singling out just religious speech to be barred from public places.

Think about that for a minute. If we're going to allow other expressions in a public space for some reason, then we can't make the fact that an expression might be religious in nature a criteria for allowing it in the first place. To do so is a clear violation of free speech.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Jan 03 2013 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
A little late, but...

The right to express their beliefs in a public venue, just like any other expression? If group A is free to put up a display with Santa and Rudolf in a public place, but group B is not free to put up a display with Baby Jesus in the same public place, and the only reason for the discrepancy is that one is an expression of religion while the other is not, then that absolutely is a violation of the right of free speech of group B. How can it not be? You're singling out just religious speech to be barred from public places.

Where did this happen?



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#151 Jan 03 2013 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A little late, but...

The right to express their beliefs in a public venue, just like any other expression? If group A is free to put up a display with Santa and Rudolf in a public place, but group B is not free to put up a display with Baby Jesus in the same public place, and the only reason for the discrepancy is that one is an expression of religion while the other is not, then that absolutely is a violation of the right of free speech of group B. How can it not be? You're singling out just religious speech to be barred from public places.

Where did this happen?


You're kidding, right? Isn't this entire discussion about one side arguing it's ok to exclude religious displays on public land (because they are religious in nature), and the other arguing it's not?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CDT
Bijou, idiggory, Sandinmygum, Anonymous Guests (34)