panzade
 
  1  
Fri 12 Mar, 2010 01:24 pm
@edgarblythe,
I feel the same. There's a lot of stuff in state constitutions that is kept as a nyah nyah.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 12 Mar, 2010 01:26 pm
@panzade,
Quote:
Get over yourself


I wish I could pan. It would have saved me a lot of trouble and expense.

Apology accepted.
panzade
 
  1  
Fri 12 Mar, 2010 01:28 pm
@spendius,
You knucklehead. Go ahead and get yourself a pint...on me.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 12 Mar, 2010 02:52 pm
@panzade,
A lot of things are on the books from sheer inertia. Nobody has reviewed them, and nobody has objected to them. Many small towns still have ordinances on the books forbidding black people to be in the city limits after sundown.
panzade
 
  1  
Fri 12 Mar, 2010 03:50 pm
@Setanta,
I don't understand that. You'd think people would want to ease their way into the 21st century
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Fri 12 Mar, 2010 04:07 pm
From a website that specializes in exposing dumb laws:

http://news.dumblaws.com/adopt-some-logic/#more-587
Adoption is the most noble and selfless thing a human being can do. Taking someone who desperately needs to be loved in the most innocent person is, in my mind, the greatest expression of love in this cold universe.

So why, according to TIME, do some states have a law forbidding atheists from adopting?

Sounds like someone doesn’t “love thy neighbor.”

The judge who heard one atheist couple’s case who were denied the chance to adopt said that placing a child in their care would violate that child’s Constitution rights for fear they would be “influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.” I think being denied the opportunity to have parents would completely shatter my belief in a Supreme Being.

panzade
 
  1  
Fri 12 Mar, 2010 04:17 pm
@edgarblythe,
You put the nitty gritty in it edgar
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 12 Mar, 2010 04:28 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
I think being denied the opportunity to have parents would completely shatter my belief in a Supreme Being.


I think the judge was denying those particular parents and not the right of the kid to be adopted. There are strict rules here about such things but I don't know what they are. I knew a couple who adopted two kids and they told me it was a long procedure vetting them.

We need ALL the details of the case to come to a sensible view on it. Assuming the judge is off his/her head calls into question how he/she became a judge in the first place.

On the general matter Setanta raised I have read that some states outlaw certain sexual practices between married couples.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Fri 12 Mar, 2010 04:33 pm
From Alabama:
Quote:
It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.


I completely support that law
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 12 Mar, 2010 06:16 pm
@panzade,
Chicken!!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sun 14 Mar, 2010 12:11 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
State constitutions, too, send messages, whether they have immediate legal consequences or not. When a state's constitution permits the government to disqualify nonbelievers from public office, that's a powerful message of discrimination, even when the federal constitution keeps the state from acting on it. This needs to stop.

Case in point: North Carolina politicians are currently trying to harass an atheist office holder out of his job, invoking the (equally unenforcable) North Carolina State constitution. Deist TKO started a thread about it today.
spendius
 
  0  
Sun 14 Mar, 2010 12:32 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
State constitutions, too, send messages, whether they have immediate legal consequences or not. When a state's constitution permits the government to disqualify nonbelievers from public office, that's a powerful message of discrimination, even when the federal constitution keeps the state from acting on it. This needs to stop.


Who says so? Why does it need to stop? What other aspects of the Constitution do you think need to be rendered inoperative? And for what reasons?

Couldn't a Proposition not be included at the next election so the voters of each state can decide. That's fair enough.

One assumes the provisions are intended to be a "powerful message". Why would ineffectual messages be included?
Thomas
 
  1  
Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:16 pm
@Thomas,
I just discovered that YouTube also features an auxilliary series to Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief. It's called The Atheism Tapes and contains extended versions of the interviews Miller had with notable atheists. (They are: The philosopher Colin McGuinn, the physicist Steven Weinberg, the dramatist Arthur Miller, the biologist Richard Dawkins, the theologist Dennis Turner, and the philosopher Daniel Dennett. All of them are well worth watching for anyone interested in the subject.

This YouTube directory provides a convenient entry point. Just pick any interview at random and dive in.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:19 pm
Thanks, thomas. I bookmarked that.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:19 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas has obviously been unable to find the time to answer the questions which were put to him.

Name dropping is one tried and tested method of doing that without it being glaringly apparent.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  0  
Sun 14 Mar, 2010 07:12 pm
@spendius,
Most probably Thomas has you on ignore too.The best example I can give is if Cornwall County still had an ordnance that women couldn't vote yet the law in the UK had been rescinded a hundred years ago
ossobuco
 
  1  
Sun 14 Mar, 2010 07:16 pm
@Thomas,
Thanks, Tommaso.

I haven't read - much less watched - any of all this, including Miller. Once I stopped with theology, I was out of there.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 09:00 am
@panzade,
Now pan--I wouldn't post this to any old Tom, Dick or Harry.

It is Chapter XXXI of Volume VIII of Tristram Shandy.

Quote:
IF anything in this world, which my
father said, could have provoked my
uncle Toby, during the time he was in
love, it was the perverse use my father
was always making of an expression of
Hilarion the hermit ; who, in speaking
of his abstinence, his watchings, flagel-
lations, and other instrumental parts of
his religion -- would say -- tho' with more
facetiousness than became an hermit --
``That they were the means he used, to
make his ass (meaning his body) leave
off kicking."
It pleased my father well ; it was not
only a laconick way of expressing ----
but of libelling, at the same time, the
desires and appetites of the lower part of
us ; so that for many years of my fa-
ther's life, 'twas his constant mode of
expression -- he never used the word pas-
sions once -- but ass always instead of
them ---- So that he might be said truly,
to have been upon the bones, or the back
of his own ass, or else of some other
man's, during all that time.
I must here observe to you, the differ-
ence betwixt
My father's ass
and my hobby-horse -- in order to
keep characters as separate as may be, in
our fancies as we go along.
For my hobby-horse, if you recollect
a little, is no way a vicious beast ; he has
scarce one hair or lineament of the ass
about him ---- 'Tis the sporting little
filly-folly which carries you out for
the present hour -- a maggot, a butterfly,
a picture, a fiddle-stick -- an uncle Toby's
siege -- or an any thing, which a man makes
a shift to get a stride on, to canter it away
from the cares and solicitudes of life --
'Tis as useful a beast as is in the whole
creation -- nor do I really see how the
world could do without it ------
---- But for my father's ass ------ oh!
mount him -- mount him -- mount him --
(that's three times, is it not?) -- mount
him not : -- 'tis a beast concupiscent -- and
foul befall the man, who does not hinder
him from kicking.


How does an atheist hinder the concupiscent beast from kicking?

Are the great and the good in N. Carolina supposed to sit idly by and allow the beast to kick to its heart's content which is the only intellectual position the atheist they are seeking to remove from office can possibly take unless he seeks to inhibit the kicking by laws which also apply to his own ass and those of his colleagues. And laws which will need to be draconian in proportion as the ass seeks to kick for the 9.3 million residents of the state.

It may be that the idea that they have overlooked an old law by default is a mere conceit on the part of atheists. They might well mean what they say with Laurence Sterne's words and their own asses in mind.

Any fool can be an atheist in a Christian world where the kicking is ready hindered. Try being free in an atheist world.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Thu 18 Mar, 2010 06:12 am
I wasn't sure where to post this, but this thread seems as good a place as any.
Richard Dawkins, speaking recently at the Sydney Opera House. This video contains his full speech, almost an hour long. It may be of interest to some of you, though maybe very familiar territory to others of you.. :

http://media.theage.com.au/richard-dawkins-lecture-in-full-1235193.html?&exc_from=strap

He's been in Oz for the 2010 Atheist Convention, billed as "the biggest Atheist event in Australia's history". It was sold out!

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/
Eorl
 
  1  
Fri 19 Mar, 2010 12:20 am
@msolga,
Very cool msolga
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 47
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 06/26/2024 at 03:54:40