On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
>
> I think he was just offering both as examples of religious intolerance,
> though you spun the banning of Sharia law into "banning murder and rape for
> Muslims". Murder and rape is already banned, no matter what...that would
> never be allowed
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Are you saying banning murder and rape for Muslimns or allowing some
> to say Christmas in public are equally overt hate crimes?
>
> I need some clarity here.
>
I think he was just offering both as examples of religious intolerance,
though you sp
Are you saying banning murder and rape for Muslimns or allowing some
to say Christmas in public are equally overt hate crimes?
I need some clarity here.
.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> OK then why are the incidents of religious hate crimes going up.
> Reporting c
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> OK then why are the incidents of religious hate crimes going up.
>
Because intolerance may be rising. I didn't say it wasn't. You said
religious tolerance was "dead"i think that was a bit hyperbole, that's
all.
> Reporting criteri
More a function of the omnipresence of media and information sharing
than any true increase in bigotry and intolerance. Bad acts make the
internet at the speed of twitter instead of being small town secrets
as they were 40 years ago.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> O
OK then why are the incidents of religious hate crimes going up.
Reporting criteria has not changed. Its not just overt hate crimes
either. Incidents like banning sharia is a good example, or the
continual refrain about the war on religion/christmas etc. Or the
efforts to get creatinism in the pub
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I was referring to specific groups like the puritans or early mormons.
> Those groups practiced a brand of religious intolerance that tried to
> get it enshrined in the law. That strain of religiosity is far too
> prevalent here. The rece
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Eric Roberts <
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
> In my faith, we prefer to do things naked, but that doesn't mean that we
> should be allowed to do a ritual in a public park naked.
>
Women and men can go topless in NY State Parks.
~~
I was referring to specific groups like the puritans or early mormons.
Those groups practiced a brand of religious intolerance that tried to
get it enshrined in the law. That strain of religiosity is far too
prevalent here. The recent firebombing of a mosque under construction
in Tennessee is a go
Have the same what? Have your religion, but don't try to tangle it up
in the law. If your religion tells you to do something that is a
violation of basic human rights as understood by the legal system of the
U.S., then too bad.
On 1/12/2012 3:19 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Are you willing
Agitators should be imprisoned indefinitely
On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:31 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Yeah, hence my disclaimer:
>
> "Sure their idea of religious freedom was a bit different, but the spirit
> has broadened and endured and become a bedrock of Americanism."
>
> Though certainly there
The Universalists and Deists (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Rush, etc)
sought religious freedom for all. Religion (and a-religion) in United
States at the time of the founding was a complex patch work. Can't
paint it so easily with a single broad brush.
Judah
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Larry
I am at work, so i am clothed..
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Michael Dinowitz <
mdino...@houseoffusion.com> wrote:
>
> And here I thought the naked thing was for rituals only. So you're
> starkers in front of the keyboard now? Actually, forget the question.
> I don't want to know. :)
>
> On
ROFL!
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> All a bunch of drunks anywayyou know what they say about Catholics:
>
> Wherever three or four are gathered, you will find a fifth :)
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Eric Roberts <
> ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> >
And here I thought the naked thing was for rituals only. So you're
starkers in front of the keyboard now? Actually, forget the question.
I don't want to know. :)
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> In my faith, we prefer to do things naked, but that doesn't mean that we
> sh
Yeah, hence my disclaimer:
"Sure their idea of religious freedom was a bit different, but the spirit
has broadened and endured and become a bedrock of Americanism."
Though certainly there are many people today who would just as soon
implement the Puritans idea of "religious freedom".
On Thu, Ja
I thought that they sought religious freedom for themselves, so they
could joyfully suppress others. E.g., the puritans in new england or
the catholics in Maryland really had a lot of fun suppressing any
other christian or indian religion within their territorial bounds.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3
OK prohibitions of receiving blood.
The kirpan can be entirely symbolic, with its length being about an inch.
for that matter should orthodox jews be special?
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Ther is already exemptions for conscientious objectors...so they are
> covered
All a bunch of drunks anywayyou know what they say about Catholics:
Wherever three or four are gathered, you will find a fifth :)
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Eric Roberts <
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> works for me...they can use grape juice for minors. Or we can get ri
works for me...they can use grape juice for minors. Or we can get rid of
drinking laws...works either way for me :-D
Eric
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Eric Roberts <
> ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think any re
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Eric Roberts <
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> Ther is already exemptions for conscientious objectors...so they are
> covered. Not all conscientious objectors do so for religious reasons. I
> think these faiths need to get out of the middle ages and
In my faith, we prefer to do things naked, but that doesn't mean that we
should be allowed to do a ritual in a public park naked. It's long past
time to evolve folks. Times are way different when these religions came
about. People walked around with swords daggers, and other blades and
weapons,
Ther is already exemptions for conscientious objectors...so they are
covered. Not all conscientious objectors do so for religious reasons. I
think these faiths need to get out of the middle ages and modernize a bit.
We don't allow others to walk around carrying large knives that can almost
be co
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Eric Roberts <
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think any religion should get an exemption for
> anything...especially when it comes to matter that regard minors. If it
> violates the law, it violates the law. Just because your stone age faith
what about groups like the Amish or Mennonites? They have very
specific exemptions regarding military service for instance. If the
draft was suddenly reinstated should be through all eligible amish and
mennonite people in jail for following their pacifist religion. Or
another good example, what a
I don't think any religion should get an exemption for
anything...especially when it comes to matter that regard minors. If it
violates the law, it violates the law. Just because your stone age faith
says it is OK, doesn't mean that we should allow it. You have a choice to
be in that faith, the
Are you willing to have the same for the Amish, Orthodox Hebrew,
Mennonites and other religious groups that have similar exemptions?
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM, PT wrote:
>
> Someone needs to smack that judge individually and not make a blanket
> rule, especially not an amendment to a const
There have, historically, been religious exemptions to a great deal of
law. People can opt out of mandatory immunizations due to religious
exemptions, religious organizations are allowed to discriminate
against protected classes in employment due to their religious
beliefs, etc. In Oregon, we've b
Someone needs to smack that judge individually and not make a blanket
rule, especially not an amendment to a constitution.
Sorry Muslim dudes, but your religious laws do not trump U.S. criminal
law. I don't think I would get a pass for killing someone with the
justification being that the Old
yeah except it was in another state and probably another appeal circuit,
but yeah, it does make a bit more sense now, in a Fox News kind of way...
the sponsor of this law bragged about in campaign speeches, right?
Not, of course, that I don't agree that the New Jersey judge was completely
out of
If you had followed the passing of this law, the bill was drafted in
response to a judge's ruling in New Jersey, evoking Sharia law, finding a
husband not worthy of a restraining order based on spousal abuse (physical
and sexual) because "it was part of the husband's religion".
Earlier this year
I was wondering how Sharia law would even come into play...has anyone in
Oklahoma ever tried to invoke it? I have been to Oklahoma and am kinda
boggling at the concept.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:38 PM, PT wrote:
>
> I wonder how he feels his first amendment rights will be violated. What
> is t
I wonder how he feels his first amendment rights will be violated. What
is the state's compelling interest?
On 1/11/2012 2:29 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71334.html
~|
Order the Ado
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71334.html
AP: Sharia Law: Oklahoma ban on Islamic law unconstitutional
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) A federal appeals court has upheld a stay on an
Oklahoma constitutional amendment that would ban state courts from
considering international or Islamic law
34 matches
Mail list logo
