# Local high schools want to have their graduation in a church - UPDATED 6/4 post 84



## MtnBikerChk (Jun 2, 2010)

Judge Won't Allow Enfield, Enrico Fermi High Schools To Hold Graduations At Church - Courant.com

A federal judge on Monday ruled that Enfield High School and Enrico Fermi High School will not be able to hold their graduations at First Cathedral, culminating a months-long debate over whether it is unconstitutional to host students' ceremonies at the mega-church.

The Enfield school system plans to appeal the judge's decision.

U.S. District Court Judge Janet Hall last week heard closing arguments in a legal challenge that five Enfield residents ??? two high school seniors and three parents ??? filed to block the town from renting the 3,000-seat Christian church in nearby Bloomfield. The graduations are scheduled for June 23 and 24.

In her ruling Monday, Hall wrote that the school system's decision to hold graduations at First Cathedral violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"By choosing to hold graduations at First Cathedral, Enfield schools sends the message that it is closely linked with First Cathedral and its religious mission, that it favors the religious over the irreligious and that it prefers Christians over those that subscribe to other faiths, or no faith at all," Hall wrote. "In addition to the character of the forum, the history and context of the decision to hold the graduations at First Cathedral also support the conclusion that, in doing so, Enfield Public Schools has endorsed religion."

Vincent McCarthy, lead counsel for Enfield's public schools and senior Northeast counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice, said he will seek "an expedited appeal to the 2nd Circuit in New York."

"We will ask them to take a look at this decision and we will ask them to overturn it," he said Monday.

The Enfield Board of Education voted in April to rent First Cathedral for its graduation ceremonies. That vote prompted a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and a group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State, seeking a court injunction to bar the town from using the church. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the two students and three parents, all requesting anonymity, who alleged that using the church was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by government. The plaintiffs wanted the graduations held in a nonreligious setting.

"We're thrilled, of course, with the ruling," said Alex Luchenitser, lead attorney for the plaintiffs and senior litigation counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "We're thrilled the students will not be coerced to go to church at the price of attending their own graduation."

"We thought we put out a strong case. We felt good about it coming out of the hearing," he continued.

Luchenitser said there are several other venues comparable to First Cathedral in price, distance from the high schools or seating capacity at which the graduations could be held. He offered as examples the MassMutual Center and Symphony Hall in Springfield, the Big E Coliseum in West Springfield and La Renaissance banquet hall in East Windsor.

"The most important thing is that this is a victory for the separation of church and state," Luchenitser said. "This is an event family members should be able to enjoy regardless of what their religion is."

Andrew Schneider, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said the decision sets a standard for other cases like it that might arise throughout the country.

"I think it definitely makes a clear statement to other public schools that might consider having a graduation in an overtly religious setting that this is not acceptable," Schneider said. "This has now been found to clearly violate the Constitution."

Andrew Silva, a senior at Enrico Fermi who is class valedictorian, was outside the high school with other students Monday to express disappointment at the judge's ruling.

"I planned at one point in my speech to congratulate everybody and say, 'The reason you're here today is because you stood up to the ACLU, who said we couldn't graduate here,' " he said. "Obviously, that's not an option right now."

McCarthy, the lead counsel for the Enfield school system, said he was dismayed by the judge's analysis of the case.

"We feel she misinterpreted the evidence. We disagree with her interpretation of the facts and the law," he said. "She seems to be very one-sided in her view of the case and not very fair."

McCarthy said that attorneys will look over the judge's full decision today and decide the specifics of how to proceed.

"We're seeking an appeal so Enfield can have its graduations at First Cathedral ??? the place that they chose," he said.


----------



## Little Wing (Jun 2, 2010)

what a crock of bullshit. maybe it's just a nice building you tools. this was even better

Church Used in Porn Film May Need Reconsecration

The bishop of a diocese in the uplands of central Italy was last night  mulling over whether to reconsecrate one of his churches following the  discovery that it had been used to film a hardcore pornographic movie  five years ago.

 Il Confessionale 

Described by one specialist website as "very hot Italian porno", the  movie tells the story of a priest who "begins to give in to his sexual  urges with young women who visit him for confession".

Couples from all over Italy are married in the picturesque church of San  Vincenzo at Gioia Vecchio in the Abruzzo region, and questions have  been raised about the validity of the hundreds of marriages celebrated  since 1998, when the film was made.


i suppose the porn industry unfairly favors one religion over another? 

religion has very little to do with simply renting a building.

btw it's a pretty good movie.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 2, 2010)

Everyone knows the porn industry supports the Catholic church... and vice versa


----------



## MtnBikerChk (Jun 2, 2010)

Little Wing said:


> religion has very little to do with simply renting a building.



I agree - and their argument is ridiculous saying the school would be endorsing the church etc etc.

My argument against it is just - I'm not Christian - I wouldn't want to graduate from high school under a crucifix!


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 2, 2010)

I would assume using the building would not be free.

I wouldn't want my graduation dollars ending up paying a church.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 2, 2010)

I would have raised holy hell if my 99% church going classmates had wanted to hold our grad in Church...seriously everyone in my grad class went to church Weds and Sunday, in fact 2 of my classmates were preachers daughters...


----------



## DOMS (Jun 2, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> I would assume using the building would not be free.
> 
> I wouldn't want my graduation dollars ending up paying a church.



You're making an assumption.  Many churches lend out their churches for free for various events.

My turn for an assumption: the owners of the church gave out their property for free and were very happy, until some douche bag started crying "Oh no, it's a church!"


----------



## maniclion (Jun 2, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You're making an assumption.  Many churches lend out their churches for free for various events.
> 
> My turn for an assumption: the owners of the church gave out their property for free and were very happy, until some douche bag started crying "Oh no, it's a church!"


My turn for assumption, you didn't read that the school wanted to "rent" the church...


----------



## MtnBikerChk (Jun 2, 2010)

maniclion said:


> My turn for assumption, you didn't read that the school wanted to "rent" the church...



Yeah - the church isn't giving anything away for free......


----------



## DOMS (Jun 2, 2010)

MtnBikerChk said:


> Yeah - the church isn't giving anything away for free......



I've seen plenty of churches that have.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 2, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I've seen plenty of churches that have.



Sure, you have to if you want people to keep giving every Sunday. But every church in the world takes in more than it gives out. Otherwise it couldn't sustain itself.


----------



## MDR (Jun 2, 2010)

Graduation in a church is not a good idea.  I would think that people not involved in organized religion, or even opposed to religion in general might feel a bit alienated.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 2, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Sure, you have to if you want people to keep giving every Sunday. But every church in the world takes in more than it gives out. Otherwise it couldn't sustain itself.



Okay, yeah, whatever.  No Christian ever does anything selflessly.  Only non-religious people do.

Actually, that's a load of unbelievable bullshit.  I've seen more religious people (not just Christians) do good things for others than I have non-religious people.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 2, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Okay, yeah, whatever.  No Christian ever does anything selflessly.  Only non-religious people do.
> 
> Actually, that's a load of unbelievable bullshit.  I've seen more religious people (not just Christians) do good things for others than I have non-religious people.



As usual, anything religious based that I say, you warp into something else so you can attack something that I never said. 

I know the numbers and the facts. Conservative Christians give more to charity than anyone else in America. I can't remember the book, but the author was being interview at UC Berkly a while back. 

However, I make the point again. All churches take in more than they give back. That is a basic law of economics. The church has bills to pay, utilities, paying the preacher or priest's expenses. Almost every chuck pays their preacher in the form of free houses and cars, or an outright salary. 

So again, I don't know what you are talking about. I am just throwing out a basic fundamental truth. A church produces no goods or services and has many expenditures. Therefor, it must take in more than it gives out to keep the fucking lights on.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 2, 2010)

KelJu said:


> As usual, anything religious based that I say, you warp into something else so you can attack something that I never said.
> 
> I know the numbers and the facts. Conservative Christians give more to charity than anyone else in America. I can't remember the book, but the author was being interview at UC Berkly a while back.
> 
> ...



More bullshit.

MtnBikerChk: Yeah - the church isn't giving anything away for free......
Me: I've seen plenty of churches that have. 		
You: Sure, you have to if you want people to keep giving every Sunday.

You implied that churches do good so that people "keep giving every Sunday."  Which is to say that if they're not going to get something for it, they're not going to do good for someone else.

Either you're lying or need to work on your writing skills.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 2, 2010)

"Conservative Christians give more to charity than anyone else in America."

But who donates more of their time and soul, people like non-religious blood in a vial Angelina Jolie or little spiritual but not religious hippie liberals.....you can throw money at people all day, Jesus stopped and spent time with them....


----------



## MDR (Jun 2, 2010)

Churches do some good work. They are also responsible for many of societies' problems. The are granted tax-exempt non-profit status by the federal government.  Charging schools rent to use their facilities seems to me to fall under the category of services-for-hire.  Take away the tax break, and we'll see how many churches make a go of it without federal assistance.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 2, 2010)

DOMS said:


> More bullshit.
> 
> MtnBikerChk: Yeah - the church isn't giving anything away for free......
> Me: I've seen plenty of churches that have.
> ...



No, you replied with 
"Only non-religious people do.

 I've seen more religious people (not just Christians) do good things for others than I have non-religious people. "

None of which I would argue against in respect to public charity part. However churches are just a business. You want to see the worst of it, take a drive to southern Alabama. Take a drive around your average rural town and ask yourself why the highschool is caving in, or why some people still don't have running water and electricity, but the churches in town look like mega cathedrals. The southern baptist are fucking criminal cocksuckers. They would host a breakfast and serve the athletes meals on the mornings on the games, but they would get that money back 3 fold from the parents the following Sunday. One fucking chuck was bigger and cost 10 times more than a school that held over 500 kids.   

Whoopty-fucking-doo, you saw a church lady doing something nice for those in need. That is the individual's credit which is what real spirituality is about anyway. It is a beautiful thing, and what what do everyone good. But, the church is an entity that needs feeding, otherwise it dies. So know damn well that someone has to manage the chuch just like a business in by bringing in new followers (AKA customers), and managing PR.


----------



## jmorrison (Jun 2, 2010)

I actually like it when we disagree on something DOM's.  We agree on so much other shit that it's fun to debate on others.

While I am a christian myself, I agree with the ruling.  I recognize that many students and families are not Christian and would not be comfortable being forced to attend their graduation in a place that they may personally find offensive.

Now if the students wanted to rent the church for an after graduation party or service with their own money, I would support that completely as no child would be forced to attend simply to graduate.

While I would rather see everyone want to attend church, the Constitution is pretty clear on the subject, and as always, I defend the Constitution.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 2, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> I actually like it when we disagree on something DOM's.  We agree on so much other shit that it's fun to debate on others.
> 
> While I am a christian myself, I agree with the ruling.  I recognize that many students and families are not Christian and would not be comfortable being forced to attend their graduation in a place that they may personally find offensive.
> 
> ...



Fuck you, you moronic cocksu-...jmorrison?  How'd you get on that side?

I agree with you, I suppose.  There are plenty of people that get ass hurt around churches.  In much that same way I wouldn't want to attend a meeting at a building that houses any part of the NAACP.

It makes sense I guess.  So long as the school had a viable alternative that was decent.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 2, 2010)

KelJu said:


> No, you replied with
> "Only non-religious people do.
> 
> I've seen more religious people (not just Christians) do good things for others than I have non-religious people. "
> ...



Fair enough, I didn't grow up in the south.  However, I did spend 8 years around Mormons.  A church were the leader and working members don't get paid anything unless they're providing a real professional service.  People who I've seen give money to people who weren't even in their church.  A church that uses an outside accounting firm to prevent financial abuse.  That's the type of Christian that I've seen.


----------



## jmorrison (Jun 2, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Fuck you, you moronic cocksu-...jmorrison?  How'd you get on that side?
> 
> I agree with you, I suppose.  There are plenty of people that get ass hurt around churches.  In much that same way I wouldn't want to attend a meeting at a building that houses any part of the NAACP.
> 
> It makes sense I guess.  So long as the school had a viable alternative that was decent.



That was my liberal twin.  

I dont know man, my ideology is so fucked up.  One one hand I am anti-gun law, am all for flat tax, am against the healthcare reform, and make a living drilling for oil.

On the other I support gay marriage, separation of church and state, and legalization of marijuana.  

I am broken and need some Jesus and Glenn Beck.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 2, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> That was my liberal twin.
> 
> I dont know man, my ideology is so fucked up.  One one hand I am anti-gun law, am all for flat tax, am against the healthcare reform, and make a living drilling for oil.
> 
> ...



From what I've heard, no one needs Glenn Beck.

I understand where you come from.

I'm pro-gun; grew up homeless, but hate welfare programs; won't hesitate to give away my last dollar; I'm not incredible religious, but I'm not for complete separation of Church and State; against health reform (it's welfare); I think repeat drunk drivers should have a life time driving ban, but support the legalization of MJ.

I make my money from the IT field and trading options.

We you decide to think for yourself, you don't pigeon-hole.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 2, 2010)

MtnBikerChk said:


> Judge Won't Allow Enfield, Enrico Fermi High Schools To Hold Graduations At Church - Courant.com
> 
> A federal judge on Monday ruled that Enfield High School and Enrico Fermi High School will not be able to hold their graduations at First Cathedral, culminating a months-long debate over whether it is unconstitutional to host students' ceremonies at the mega-church.



The fact that a _public_ school would attempt this is disturbing.

Organized religion has no place in the public schools, in my opinion, and there's good reason for it. 

What's next?  

Have a public graduation in an Islamic atmosphere?  Hindu?  Jewish?  Mormon?  

But some students are of different religions, so one group will have a graduation ceremony under one religions atmosphere while others have ones in a different religious atmostphere.

And what about the Diest, agnostics, and non-theists?


----------



## ZECH (Jun 3, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Organized religion has no place in the public schools, in my opinion, and there's good reason for it.



I disagree. That is what is wrong with schools. They took God out. 
But I digress.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I've seen plenty of churches that have.



... they just take 'donations'


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

NeilPearson-right out of his ass said:


> ... they just take 'donations'



Nope.


----------



## MtnBikerChk (Jun 3, 2010)

dg806 said:


> I disagree. That is what is wrong with schools. They took God out.
> But I digress.



Yeah but my God is different than your God.

Which one(s) should we put back into public schools?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Nope.



Your church turns away donations?


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

Little Wing said:


> btw it's a pretty good movie.



I'm listening


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> Your church turns away donations?



I don't have a church, but the Mormons will lend out their buildings to people that don't go to their church for free.  You just have to clean up after yourself when your done.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

MtnBikerChk said:


> Yeah but my God is different than your God.
> 
> Which one(s) should we put back into public schools?



The one that was there in the first place.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

maniclion said:


> "Conservative Christians give more to charity than anyone else in America."
> 
> But who donates more of their time and soul, people like non-religious blood in a vial Angelina Jolie or little spiritual but not religious hippie liberals.....you can throw money at people all day, Jesus stopped and spent time with them....



you mean people like tim tebow who goes to the philippines to perform missionary work and humanitarian aid? Christians give of their time. to even suggest otherwise is ignorance.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

KelJu said:


> No, you replied with
> "Only non-religious people do.
> 
> I've seen more religious people (not just Christians) do good things for others than I have non-religious people. "
> ...



statistically there are more christians than athiests so by default they are going to comprise most of the charities in this country.  I'm  pretty sure most non profit children's hospitals are athiestic or without religious affilliation, warren buffet and bill gates both athiests gave more than most churches gave in this century.  As the most productive partner in my practice I donate$ 25,000 a year to cancer research every year directly from my practice, my two republican partners keep their 25,000 as bonuses at the end of the year.  They do tithe about 500 dollars a month to their church.   I'm sure my contribution does not get " counted" as an athiestic charity though?  Ironically, I am the only partner that volunteers one night a week at the free medical cllinic located at a church even though the other two are christians.  It's quite ironic. 

The pastor at "Church in the Now" lives in  palasade mansion off Floyd Street in Covington, georgia which I note when I do my long road rides out there.  Most of these southern churches are huge, huge money machines.  I only donate to the sole quaker church in decatur, georgia since they are so nondescript and accepting of all religions.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> statistically there are more christians than athiests so by default they are going to comprise most of the charities in this country.  I'm  pretty sure most non profit children's hospitals are athiestic or without religious affilliation,



wrong. wrong. wrong. St. Judes anyone? ever heard of it? everyone right now needs to think about the local hospitals they have around them. how many have crosses? how many have a chapel in the hospital? how many are named after a saint? catholic, 7th day adventist, and multiple various protestant churches all run hospitals here. matter of fact the history of hospitals is closely linked to Christian churches in this country. bandaidwoman for being in healthcare you are yet again staggeringly putting forth thoughts not based in fact in a field you should know more about.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> wrong. wrong. wrong. St. Judes anyone? ever heard of it? everyone right now needs to think about the local hospitals they have around them. how many have crosses? how many have a chapel in the hospital? how many are named after a saint? catholic, 7th day adventist, and multiple various protestant churches all run hospitals here. matter of fact the history of hospitals is closely linked to Christian churches in this country. bandaidwoman for being in healthcare you are yet again staggeringly putting forth thoughts not based in fact in a field you should know more about.



First of all I said I was pretty sure but not definative, by looking around me  all the children's hospital here are non religious ( Childrens Health Care of atlanta the biggest one and one of the best in the nation.) is not religious based. Grady hospital, Northside, Crawford Long,Atlanta Medical, Wellpoint hospital,Rockdale Hospital, Hillendale Hospital, Newton General etc.  St Joes is the only religious one here in atlanta that I can think off hand.  So when I look around me, there is only one  hospital that has a cross.......

But you have not proved your point either, show me a link that says most children's hospitals are religious ,if you can't then we are both at an impasse.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> First of all I said I was pretty sure but not definative, by looking around me  all the children's hospital here are non religious ( Childrens Health Care of atlanta the biggest one and one of the best in the nation.) is not religious based. Grady hospital, Northside, Crawford Long,Atlanta Medical, Wellpoint hospital,Rockdale Hospital, Hillendale Hospital, Newton General etc.  St Joes is the only religious one here in atlanta that I can think off hand.  So when I look around me, there is only one  hospital that has a cross.......
> 
> But you have not proved your point either, show me a link that says most children's hospitals are religious ,if you can't then we are both at an impasse.



showing a link that shows the statistics behind religious backing of hospitals seems somehow to cheapen the statistic. Christian love and charity speaks for itself for those with the ability to open their eyes and see it.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> showing a link that shows the statistics behind religious backing of hospitals seems somehow to cheapen the statistic. Christian love and charity speaks for itself for those with the ability to open their eyes and see it.



I'm not saying you are wrong but even though I am not a Pediatrician Dartmouth sent us out to south central, Los Angles, UCLA,  New Haven Ct ( yale) , Arizona, Rhode Island,  etc to do my rotations and most of the hospitals, including children's in my experience were not religious affilliated hospitals.

It just means you and I can't support our  hypothesis (  mine based on some exposure to many state  hospital systems and intimate knowledge of the ones here).  But it is foolish to attack someone and throw out "St Judes"  as "proof" that most children's hospitals are religious based, like me throwing out "Kaiser" hospital,  both well known names,  as proof that most  hospitals are not religious based.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

and mine is based upon the fact I call into at least 3 hospitals daily across the united states every business day over the last 2 years.

like i said despite your apparent credentials im constantly surprised by the opinions you express. you are definitely in the minority when it comes to professional health care providers opinions


----------



## Phineas (Jun 3, 2010)

dg806 said:


> I disagree. That is what is wrong with schools. They took God out.
> But I digress.



And, what about the rest of us who feel ALL Religions are a total crock of horseshit? 

If other people choose to continue following archaic beliefs from ancient times when we were sacrificing each other and neglect what science has taught us about human life and our origins then that's their vice. 

The important thing to remember is that everything all you regilious type believe -- and, I'm talking about ALL relgions -- all the afterlife this, "God" created that, etc, none of that is scientifically proven. Granted, it's probably impossible to disprove God(s), but there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence for evolution, the birth and consequent expansion of the universe, and much better theoretical analyses of time/space than "this guy who lives in the sky somewhere impregnated a virgin without having sex with her, then she gave birth to....him...then, because apparently his sky-incarnation was pissed off that everyone was having sex and committing crimes, he decided to sacrifice himself....to...himself....and, because of that mankind has to spend their "physical" lives worshipping him and limiting themselves to appease his seemingly sick, twisted mind -- even though he mercilessly committs terrible acts against the people he 'loves'....but it's only because he works in mysterious ways..it's his way of dealing with satan...even though he's supposedly omnipotent and could thus destry satan and all evil, he for some reason DOESN'T and insists that he let satan 'tempt' humans with, what basically we non-brianwashed see as, just about anything that makes life enjoyable, so that he (God) can judge those people for the 'unpios' behaviour he truthfully put on them"

Ya, that makes a lot of sense. I wonder why I've never gone for Religion?

Anyway, before I get ranting too much my point is...are you ready??? 

YOU CAN'T GOVERN SOCIETY BASED ON THE _BELIEFS_ OF A CERTAIN PROPORTION OF OF THE POPULATION.

If you God-fearing shut-ins want to worship your magical savior then please respect our rights and keep it the hell (no pun intended) away from us. There is nothing more I hate than Relgions trying to push their beliefs on others. Seriously, fuck right off.

Relgious beliefs are holding mankind back too much. Far too much of the bad in the world is centered on Relgion. In an otherwise highly advanced specifes, why the fuck are we clinging to these Stone Age concepts? 

I feel that humans' greatest flaw is our insecurity with our own existence, because this is what gave birth to Religion. Most people on this planet are insecure and frightened not knowing the answers to how we got here, "where we're going", why they do what they do. Moreover, people are too insecure to deal with the stresses of life; they need to feel like they always have a magical friend looking over them. 

"It's alright, 'cause I know I have Jesus."

"I'd like to thank God for making this possible."

"Well, I'm nothing without the Lord and Saviour."

Relgious followers are so insecure with their own existence that they submit themselves to a fictional character (and, before one of you starts flaming me for that just admit it, God IS fictional, until proven scientifically) and view themselves as inferior and worthless. What the hell is that about?

I'm glad to read about this court case, because it's one small step in the right direction: separation of Church and State. They don't belong together.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

Phineas said:


> And, what about the rest of us who feel ALL Religions are a total crock of horseshit?



You've done a great job of divesting religion from just about everything.  You're also standing around bitching about why things are getting so bad.

Great job.  Take a bow.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You've done a great job of divesting religion from just about everything.  You're also standing around bitching about why things are getting so bad.
> 
> Great job.  Take a bow.



can't do it so i'll just say it. i give DOMS 50k in rep points for this post.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Relgious followers are so insecure with their own existence that they submit themselves to a fictional character (and, before one of you starts flaming me for that just admit it, God IS fictional, until proven scientifically) and view themselves as inferior and worthless. What the hell is that about?
> 
> I'm glad to read about this court case, because it's one small step in the right direction: separation of Church and State. They don't belong together.



Prove God scientifically? as a scientist i feel confident saying science is far from perfect or complete. Science hasn't learned anything God doesn't already know. suggesting to prove God scientifically is ignorance of the capabilities of science. 

answer me this. where in our laws does it say there should be a separation of church and state?


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm blown away that this is even an issue. Im a devout Mormon. having a graduation ceremony in a cathedral, mosque, or protestant chapel wouldn't bother me in the least. as long as nothing doctrinal is being preached it's just a nice building that can hold students and family.


----------



## Phineas (Jun 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Prove God scientifically? as a scientist i feel confident saying science is far from perfect or complete. Science hasn't learned anything God doesn't already know. suggesting to prove God scientifically is ignorance of the capabilities of science.
> 
> answer me this. where in our laws does it say there should be a separation of church and state?



If you read all of my post you saw that I mentioned God can't be disproved. I only said that as a hypothetical. Because, without actual proof, God is still a fictional character.

Well, at one point in time there was no law about murdering others. Does that mean they shouldn't have created the law?

Religious type get so bent out of shape when an atheist critisizes them. What I'm arguing is that government and law should be objective; it's for utilitarian purposes. Looking after the greater of good of the population means giving objective freedom and room -- within reason (e.g. violence, etc) -- to pursue personal lifestyle. I said if you religious type want to follow your religions then by all means. But, how ethical do you think it is to govern an entire country based on what you believe? Not everyone believes what you do. There's always going to be disagreements on laws that don't concern religion drectly like taxes, etc, but for many issues like abortion religion is always on one side of the debate, and it shouldn't be. Abortion and same-sex marriage should be legal so that people can choose for themselves. Just because abortion would be legal doesn't mean all women have to get abortions. It just means that those who don't believe in God and sin have the right of ownership over their own body.


----------



## Phineas (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You've done a great job of divesting religion from just about everything.  You're also standing around bitching about why things are getting so bad.
> 
> Great job.  Take a bow.



Is that supposed to make me feel guilty?

Look, believe what you want. I don't care. Just don't think you have the right to push those beliefs on the rest of us.


----------



## Phineas (Jun 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I'm blown away that this is even an issue. Im a devout Mormon. having a graduation ceremony in a cathedral, mosque, or protestant chapel wouldn't bother me in the least. as long as nothing doctrinal is being preached it's just a nice building that can hold students and family.



On one hand I completely agree with you. It's ludicrous that a building would foster such animosity. However, on the other hand, all religious structures -- particularly churches -- are symbolic of religions' influence on their followers. And so, to the non-religious -- and ESPECIALLY to the anti-religious -- it can be discomforting knowing you're surrounded by mindsets you reject. I've been in only 1 church and 1 synagogue, both when I was much younger, and even then I felt extremely uncomfortable and out of place.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Is that supposed to make me feel guilty?
> 
> Look, believe what you want. I don't care. Just don't think you have the right to push those beliefs on the rest of us.




I'm not saying that anyone has the right to push any religion on anybody, but you have the right to push it out of where it's been?  Hypocritical bullshit.

Guilty?  No.  Stupid?  Maybe.

You (in a general sense) push moral codes of conduct out of society, yet bitch and whine that kids, and adults, are showing less morals and self-control; and you seem confused.

Stupid?  Likely.


----------



## Phineas (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I'm not saying that anyone has the right to push any religion on anybody, but you have the right to push it out of where it's been?  Hypocritical bullshit.
> 
> Guilty?  No.  Stupid?  Maybe.
> 
> ...



Push it out of where? State? Or, churches? 

What the hell makes you think I'm trying to "push out" morality from society? When did I say that? When I did I complain about others' self-control? I don't care about things like pre-marital sex or birth control. 

Do people really need the fear of being cast in hell from some dominating jerk to be a decent person? I don't believe in God or any form of spirituality and I'm a good person: I help others when I can; I encourage others to do their best in their endeavours; I obey laws; I'm honest; I'm polite (except when those I argue against get defensive and hostile....); I beleive in law and government; I believe in morality; I believe in respecting others; I'm anti-homophobia; I'm anti-racism; I'm anti-sexism; I give change to homeless; I genuinely care for other people. 

Just because I don't believe in your God doesn't mean I go around telling people to wreak havoc on the world. I know someone who was regularly beat by their Christian parents. I realize that not all members of a religion can be judged by the actions of some, but my point is that some people are bad and some people are good. What about all those Catholic priests involved in sexual harassment? Morality isn't exclusive to religion.

I'm not confused about anything. I think I'm actually very fair in this. I wasn't intially going to express my frustration with religion in this thread because I didn't want to jeapordize my relationship with any of our board's members, as I'm pretty fond of everyone. However, as soon as I saw other members pushing their pious arguments then I felt justified in rebutting. 

My argument is very fair, objective, and simple: you're free to believe what you want, but it's unethical to govern an entire population based on those beliefs.

And, lashing out at someone and calling them "stupid" is very immature and makes for a weaker argument. To me it seems like a half-assed way to discredit my argument. I really don't appreciate it.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Push it out of where? State? Or, churches?
> 
> What the hell makes you think I'm trying to "push out" morality from society? When did I say that? When I did I complain about others' self-control? I don't care about things like pre-marital sex or birth control.
> 
> ...



As I said, it was the general sense of people that have tried to push religion out of society, and not necessarily you in particular.



Phineas said:


> And, lashing out at someone and calling them "stupid" is very immature and makes for a weaker argument. To me it seems like a half-assed way to discredit my argument. I really don't appreciate it.



And what was "And, what about the rest of us who feel ALL Religions are a total crock  of horseshit?", a compliment?  Oh, so when *you* throw down, it's being "fair, objective, and simple", but when _*I*_ do it, it's "very immature and makes for a weaker argument."

Okay.  Got it.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

Oh, crap.  I just realized this is your first outing with me on a debate.

Don't read too much into my use of pejoratives.  It's just the way I write.  I find it to be amusing.  With obvious exceptions, I don't mean too much by it.


----------



## Phineas (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> As I said, it was the general sense of people that have tried to push religion out of society, and not necessarily you in particular.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> ...



Okay, I guess you got me on that one. My first sentence was harsh, but after reading some of the other aggressive comments I felt it was a little more fitting. But, I admit I probably shouldn't have said that.

At least I went into detail after...main point. I may express my feelings bluntly but at least I back up what I have to say.



DOMS said:


> Oh, crap.  I just realized this is your first outing with me on a debate.
> 
> Don't read too much into my use of pejoratives.  It's just the way I write.  I find it to be amusing.  With obvious exceptions, I don't mean too much by it.



No worries man. I love healthy debate!


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

Phineas said:


> At least I went into detail after...main point. I may express my feelings bluntly but at least I back up what I have to say.



"Express you feelings bluntly"?  I do it with a verbal machete.  Over the years, quite a few people assumed that since I'm so caustic in my posts that I can't possibly know the topic and that I'm trying to cover it up.  Only to have their shit ruined in the end.

Few people post as many credible sources as I do during a debate, so I have backed up a lot of what I've said.  However, this debate is almost entirely founded in opinion.  There will be little, if any, credible sources on the effects of removing religion from society.  So there won't be any "backing anything up" in this argument.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> The one that was there in the first place.



Damnit...............cant rep you but I will!


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> answer me this. where in our laws does it say there should be a separation of church and state?



Just a dumb ass Asian immigrant who had to take the citizenship test but we were taught it was inferred by the first amendment, then reinforced  by both  the baptist church ( yes they were behind the seperation of church and state) along with Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase then by multiple judgments based on this "doctrine" that were  passed by the supreme court.  Apparently it is a "doctrine" on which multiple laws are passed to protect the religious as in "Everson vs Education" as well as non -religious. As for all the judgments, I leave that to citizens that are familiar with constitutional law.  It was why I fought so hard to be a citizen.  I always joke to my husband,  a devout southern baptist,  that the reason I don't mind marrying a southern baptist is that they supported my favorite founding father on this principle.  Also, I was taught the obligation of a Republic, which I was taught what America is, not a true democracy  like the mob rule in  Serbia that is was incumbant in a Republic for the majority to protect the rights of the minority.  Back in the old days that was different religious sects that were not part of the major christian denomination, but the brilliance of the American constitution kept up with changing times and it means protecting those like us.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Do people really need the fear of being cast in hell from some dominating jerk to be a decent person? .



I am always astounded that my southern christian counterparts pretty much assume this to be true of us athiests/agnostics etc.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 3, 2010)

Phineas said:


> And, what about the rest of us who feel ALL Religions are a total crock of horseshit?



Thats your choice and I'm fine with that. But this country was founded on God and christianity. The further we get from that the worse things get and this country is getting ready to fall. I will stick to what I believe and you can do the same.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> "Express you feelings bluntly"?  I do it with a verbal machete.  Over the years, quite a few people assumed that since I'm so caustic in my posts that I can't possibly know the topic and that I'm trying to cover it up.  Only to have their shit ruined in the end.
> 
> Few people post as many credible sources as I do during a debate, so I have backed up a lot of what I've said.  However, this debate is almost entirely founded in opinion.  There will be little, if any, credible sources on the effects of removing religion from society.  So there won't be any "backing anything up" in this argument.



well, other than communism and the french revolution. we have plenty of examples of societies that have altogether rejected religion and have seen exactly what happens in those circumstances. pol pot ring a bell anyone?

when people join together to form a society morality becomes a major part of that society. for instance abortion. some argue that it is the right of the mother to choose. ok that's fine (I personally don't agree with over turning roe vs wade) but what about the other side. what is the detriment to society when the society no longer values a human life? don't i have the right to live in a society that values human life? I have the right to vote for laws that support human life because that is the society i want to live in. If I get out voted, then I have two options. deal with it or move.

 same thing with gay marriage. I want to live in a society that values marriage between a man and woman as the building blocks of a healthy society. I feel if that fundamental building block is removed then society as a whole will crumble. I have the right to vote that way. if I am out voted I have 2 options. the debate between individual rights and rights of society goes back a long ways. in some cases decisions must be made between the individual and society. 

as another example miranda rights. at what point do we protect an individual's right not to self incriminate vs. society taking a dangerous person off the streets? in this case it has been determined that the individual's rights must be protected because the potential for the government to wrongly persecute it's citizens is more dangerous to society than the individual who has committed a crime.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

In my home country the Taiping rebellion killed as many people as the Cultural Revolution so it is about 50/50 on religion vs non -religion ( although athiestic governments  don't fight for the sake of athiesm, they fight on political principles).

Buddists are the only religious sect that have not fought wars based on religious doctrine. Buddist leaders have fought wars for land, resources etc, just like non- buddist leaders, but never on religious principles since buddism is generally accepting of different beliefs ( Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph smith are  all avatars).  Don't ignore the religious beliefs ( mostly buddism) of the giant, Red Dragon that is breathing down America's neck as it begins it climb to superpowerdom. 

Pol Pot /kmer rouge is a poor example, America played a vital role in his uprising and supported him intially, Nixon even lobbying for his inclusion into UN, they supported him in hopes he would defile and weaken the "communist" north vietnamese regime.The carpet bombings further steered disenchanted cambodians from the US.

My dad who was in Air America will tell you he had to help lead the CIA directed invasion in 1970 and the puppet general Lon Nol in Cambodia. 
The carpet bombings dropped on Cambodia, more than three times the tonnage dropped on Japan in all of World War II.

Land became untillabble, 95% of the population could not earn a living.  It didn't matter if it was Khmer or a evangelical christian, or scientilogists,  they would turn to anyone.  

And if americans don't know about it, then your history books were censored. 

The saddest thing is that America never bothered to bring POL pot to justice like Saddam.  



.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> well, other than communism and the french revolution. we have plenty of examples of societies that have altogether rejected religion and have seen exactly what happens in those circumstances. pol pot ring a bell anyone?



Just look at the place with the least amount of religion: sub-Saharan Africa.  Far and away, you won't find a more fucked up place on the planet.  In South Africa, a person is raped every 26 seconds.  A *child* (ages 3 to 12) is raped every 90 minutes.  I don't mean that someone touched a child inappropriately, I talking about forced intercourse.

Yay for no religion...


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> In my home country the Taiping rebellion killed as many people as the Cultural Revolution so it is about 50/50 on religion vs non -religion ( although athiestic governments  don't fight for the sake of athiesm, they fight on political principles).
> 
> Buddists are the only religious sect that have not fought wars based on religious doctrine. Buddist leaders have fought wars for land, resources etc, just like non- buddist leaders, but never on religious principles since buddism is generally accepting of different beliefs ( Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph smith are  all avatars).  Don't ignore the religious beliefs ( mostly buddism) of the giant, Red Dragon that is breathing down America's neck as it begins it climb to superpowerdom.
> 
> Pol Pot is a poor example, America played a vital role in his uprising and supported him intially, even lobbying for his inclusion into UN, they supported him in hopes he would defile and weaken the "communist" north vietnamese regime.The carpet bombings further steered disenchanted cambodians from the US.


pol pot is an excellent example. I'm not excusing anything the US has done in our past. what I am saying is look at the outcome of societies that reject religion. The Khmer Rouge did just that. for the purposes of this debate the example is one of the best I can think of


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> Pol Pot /kmer rouge is a poor example, America played a vital role in his uprising and supported him intially.



Do you have a _*credible*_ link to back this up?


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Do you have a _*credible*_ link to back this up?



LOL. other than a story related to her by her father? you run us dangerously close to getting off topic DOMS. but I applaud your effort anyways


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> pol pot is an excellent example. I'm not excusing anything the US has done in our past. what I am saying is look at the outcome of societies that reject religion. The Khmer Rouge did just that. for the purposes of this debate the example is one of the best I can think of



fair enough


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Do you have a _*credible*_ link to back this up?




just my history books in Malaysia and when I lived in Thailand and Japan, all three countries.  Why don't you just google polpot Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, CIA etc.  I laugh that americans have no idea their history has been censored. And please, don't tell me asian historians know jack shit about their history.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> and mine is based upon the fact I call into at least 3 hospitals daily across the united states every business day over the last 2 years.
> 
> like i said despite your apparent credentials im constantly surprised by the opinions you express. you are definitely in the minority when it comes to professional health care providers opinions


The only church hospital in my area I can think of is St. Francis where I go to see my Jewish neurologist.....Shriners is the local childrens hospital, the rest are Straub, Kaiser, Queens, Kapiolani, Castle....


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> just my history books in Malaysia and when I lived in Thailand and Japan, all three countries.  Why don't you just google polpot Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, CIA etc.  I laugh that americans have no idea their history has been censored. And please, don't tell me asian historians know jack shit about their history.



And I laugh because your a sanctimonious third-worlder who's benefiting (leaching?) on the very people you put down and actually think you, and the third-world that spawned you, is somehow better.

I've searched the web, and most of what I've find is unsubstantiated crackpot theories that are being repeated, often verbatim.  The only thing close to creditble is the US destabilized the region, which we did, but not in an effort to help Pol Pot.  He simply took advantage of it.

But of course, you being the non-American have the "truth", while we poor simple Americans don't.

It's not that Asians don't know shit, it's just that they're no better than anyone else.

I'll also point out that you failed to provide a credible link.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> And I luagh because your a sanctimonious third-worlder who's benefiting (leaching?) on the very people and society you put down.
> 
> I've searched the web, and most of what I've find is unsubstantiated crackpot theories that are being repeated, often verbatim.  The only thing close to creditble is the US destabilized the region, which we did, but not in an effort to help Pol Pot.  He simply took advantage of it.
> 
> ...



CIA FOIA - Special Collections: Vietnam Histories

from your own cia website, talks about the cia surrogate war in laos etc,


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> LOL. other than a story related to her by her father? you run us dangerously close to getting off topic DOMS. but I applaud your effort anyways



Hell no.  She's an awesome Asian with the _truth!_  You know, the one we American's aren't allowed to know.  She's got the dope on the good shit.  We're about to get all historical up in this bitch.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Hell no.  She's an awesome Asian with the _truth!_  You know, the one we American's aren't allowed to know.  She's got the dope on the good shit.  We're about to get all historical up in this bitch.


Friends of Pol Pot
 they seem on the up and up

so did the american people even know that nixon and later johnson waged this secret war or are the carpet bombings a figment of our imagination?
If you think your govenemnt like mine is not culpable of some heinous acts, like the non questioning chinese citizens you also have been brainwashed

look up the history of air america, unfortunately there isn't much about them either except they were the CIA airforce.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> CIA FOIA - Special Collections: Vietnam Histories
> 
> from your own cia website, talks about the cia surrogate war in laos etc,



Once again, you're posting links to shit that you're not reading.  I did a search for Pol Pot in that document.  There is exactly _one_ entry.  It details that the actions taken by the NVA helped to solidify Pol Pot's regime.

Everyone knows that the US was doing all sorts of clandestine stuff in Asia.  None of which was done in concert with Pol Pot.  Like I said, he took advantage of the fallout of the US' action there, and that was it.

The US has sided with plenty of dictators, you don't need to go making shit up.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Once again, you're posting links to shit that you're not reading.  I did a search for Pol Pot in that document.  There is exactly _one_ entry.  It details that the actions taken by the NVA helped to solidify Pol Pot's regime.
> 
> Everyone knows that the US was doing all sorts of clandestine stuff in Asia.  None of which was done in concert with Pol Pot.  Like I said, he took advantage of the fallout of the US' action there, and that was it.
> 
> The US has sided with plenty of dictators, you don't need to go making shit up.



Uh oh. DOMS decided to come in swinging. Im going to watch the fun


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> Friends of Pol Pot
> they seem on the up and up
> 
> so did the american people even know that nixon and later johnson waged this secret war or are the carpet bombings a figment of our imagination?
> ...



Like I said, that's the same unsubstantiated crap that's been repeated every time the supposed link between the US and Pol Pot comes up.

"Two U.S. relief aid workers"?  That's their source?  Even then, what diabolic thing was the US supposed to have done?  They made sure that everyone, including the Khmer Rouge, had access to aid sent to SE Asia.  The horror!

The US gave Saddam weapons of mass destruction, but this shit, making sure that everyone got the humanitarian aid, that's the master move in supporting a dictator!


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Uh oh. DOMS decided to come in swinging. Im going to watch the fun



This isn't the first time I've debated this.  The first time I did, I simply assumed it was true.  The US has a track record for doing that crap; but try as I might, I simply couldn't find_ any credible proof_ that links the US to Pol Pot.

It's like the third-worlders don't want to believe that one of their own could rise up and kill like that on their own.  Inferiority complex?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

STRATFOR Search | STRATFOR

then go to statfor, reliable link, unfortunately archived articles are over 14 days require membership which I have but if you want to join you can


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> STRATFOR Search | STRATFOR
> 
> then go to statfor, reliable link, unfortunately archived articles are over 14 days require membership which I have but if you want to join you can



Post it.  You're done it before.

Also, I find it hard to believe that one pay site on the _entire Internet_ is going to have the only real proof.  What's more likely is that someone is going to use the same information that everyone has access to, and use leaps in logic, assumptions, and such to try to "prove" it.

Put another way: they're not going to have any real proof.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Post it.  You're done it before.
> 
> Also, I find it hard to believe that one pay site on the _entire Internet_ is going to have the only real proof.  What's more likely is that someone is going to use the same information that everyone has access to, and use leaps in logic, assumptions, and such to try to "prove" it.
> 
> Put another way: they're not going to have any real proof.



Pol Pot: Biography from Answers.com 
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-khmer-rouge-and-cold-war-geopolitics-by-robert-miller
this is what we were taught kind of the cliffs notes of what asians have been taught

Perhaps we can agree that both sides don't really have proof either way?  It's our history books vs yours. I believe it is a fact that america lobbied for khmer rouge inclusion into UN which is dammning to us Asians about your support for the regime? To us asians, that was the biggest affront when the US recognized them as the legitamite government of cambodai.  Perhaps we can leave it at that. As for statfor I am pissed at them since some of those older articles i had partial access to them and needed to cough up more bucks for enterprise access whatever the hell that is.  I know you would not be happy with partial summaries.  I get it free from my dad so I have no idea how to upgrade the damn thing. It;s not cheap that I know.  And we both know our respective goverments are capable of heinous actions.  and I include china who by the way supported the khmer rouge, so I am not just pointing fingers at the US>


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> Pol Pot: Biography from Answers.com
> this is what we were taught kind of the cliffs notes of what asians have been taught
> 
> Perhaps we can agree that both sides don't really have proof either way?  I believe it is a fact that america lobbied for khmer rouge inclusion into UN which is dammning to us Asians about your support for the regime?  Perhaps we can leave it at that. As for statfor I am pissed at them since some of those older articles i had partial access to them and needed to cough up more bucks for enterprise access whatever the hell that is.  I know you would not be happy with partial summaries.  I get it free from my dad so I have no idea how to upgrade the damn thing. It;s not cheap that I know.  And we both know our respective goverments are capable of heinous actions.  and I include china who by the way supported the khmer rouge, so I am not just pointing fingers at the US>



You really, really need to read the stuff you link to. I quote (emphasis mine):

 "testified at the UN-backed Tribunal, that US policies in the 1970s  contributed to the brutal regime's rise to power.[9]  ."I think the Khmer Rouge would already have been demolished," he said  of their status by 1970. "But Mr Kissinger  (then US secretary of state) and Richard  Nixon were quick [to back coup leader Gen Lon Nol], *and then the  Khmer Rouge noted the golden opportunity*."

I will not just agree there's no t proof either way.  There simply is no proof that the US did anything other than destabilize the region, which Pol Pot seized upon.  

_*THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL THAT THE US ACTIVELY AIDED POL POT.  NONE.*_

That is one simple irrefutable fact.  Unless you're saying that all sorts of documents leaked about all the other dictators the US backed, but just not, miraculously, those about Pol Pot.

Let me put this another way: US textbooks have barely any facts, but Asian ones do, except that they have no proof.  Yeah, those books are_ so much better_ than ours.

I have no problem owning up to the crap that US has done, I just won't do it for completely unsubstantiated crap.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

It was all covert and yes I read it 



> U.S. Covert Support for Khmer Rouge
> 
> The official U.S. policy towards the Khmer Rouge is explained in two formerly secret, but now declassified, documents.38 One of these documents records a meeting between the U.S. Department of Sate and the Foreign Ministry of Thailand.39 The other records a meeting between Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger and General Suharto in Jakarta in December 1975.40 In the first document Henry Kissinger says to the Thai Foreign Minister, Chatchai Chunhawan, the he "should tell [the Khmer Rouge] that we bear no hostility towards them. We would like them to be independent as a counterweight to North Vietnam", and that he "should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs but we won't let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them."  Kissinger also said that "we are aware that the biggest threat in Southeast Asia at the present time is North Vietnam. Our strategy is to get the Chinese into Laos and Cambodia as a barrier to the Vietnamese."41 This is all very telling. The phrase "independent counterweight to Vietnam" almost certainly says a lot more than it first seems since the Khmer Rouge were not independent of Vietnam, but openly hostile and violent towards them. Assuming that Kissinger knew of Khmer Rouge racial policies against ethnic Vietnamese and the border attacks on Vietnam, and it would be quite surprising if he didn't, then his offer to be friends with them is most likely a way to punish Vietnam for defeating the U.S. and straying from the role that the U.S. selected for them. After all, the U.S. was already trying to punish Vietnam with an embargo and if Vietnam was sufficiently punished then other countries would be too scared to defy the U.S. in the future, surely one of the major reasons behind the Vietnam war in the first place.
> 
> ...



the key is covert support. the links to the kissinger documents look good.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 3, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> It was all covert and yes I read it
> 
> the key is covert support.  which is why there is also so little on air america.



Where does this quote come from?  What document or recording is taken from?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 3, 2010)

Cambodian Genocide Program | Yale University

yale university

it's real neat click on the links and it has the actual scanned documents.

For the record, in our history books, ( Thailand and Malaysia's) _I remember being taught that our respective countries were saved by American's entry into the Vietnam conflict_.  Ho had his sights intialy on us, we are rich in natural resources ( especially Malaysia's rubber and tin industry) and governments were unstable at the time, heck I think Thailand was on the brink of a civil war ( the wandering guerrillas and militia government) , we think that if Ho chi minh was not distracted by battle on the homefront he would have dominated us, something the US history books also don't teach...


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> you are definitely in the minority when it comes to professional health care providers opinions



we academic research clinicians are a different species from private practice physicians ( although I am a rarity since i straddle both worlds). I will take a gander you don't hang out with research academians, more private practice high end specialties like radiologists and anesthesiologists etc.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 4, 2010)

Religious Doctors No More Likely To Care For Underserved Patients

back to the topic at hand, at least for doctors religiosity does not mean a higher calling to served the underserved


----------



## MtnBikerChk (Jun 4, 2010)

UPDATE on the original topic:  The school board is not appealing.

Enfield school board quits the fight to have graduations at church - Courant.com

ENFIELD ??? ???
The board of education will not appeal a federal judge's ruling barring the district from holding high school graduations at First Cathedral in Bloomfield later this month.

The board voted 5-4 Thursday night against filing an appeal. The board then voted 7-2 to hold graduations at each high school on June 23 and 24.

"Appealing would not have meant we were going to the cathedral," board member Judith Apruzzese-Desroches said. "We need to get it done. We need to provide something for these students who are graduating. The board needs to move on and establish a graduation site and get back to education."

School administrators will determine whether to plan for an indoor or outdoor graduation ceremony at each school, the board decided.

The appeal would have been on a decision by Judge Janet Hall Monday to grant an injunction request included with a federal lawsuit filed against the district in May. The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, representing two seniors and three parents, alleged in the suit that the board of education was endorsing religion by using the church for graduations.

"The board of education decided tonight to choose a graduation location that will bring people together rather than divide them," said Andrew Schneider, director of the ACLU of Connecticut. "This will bring certainty to the graduation plans of Enfield students and will refocus the attention on what matters most ??? the education and graduation of Enfield students."

Vincent McCarthy, the board's attorney, said after the vote that he was shocked that the board will not appeal the ruling. He said he intended for the board to file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York.

"I personally think it was a mistake this evening not to continue with the appeal," said board Chairman Gregory Stokes. "I've always believed the backup plan would be [holding graduations] at the school properties."

Stokes said that if the board decided to appeal, administrators still would have planned for an alternate location, assuming that ceremonies would not be held at the church.

Enrico Fermi High School valedictorian Andrew Silva said after the vote that he was disappointed, and heard many students say that if the graduations were held at the high schools they would consider not attending.

"It all has to do with the number of seats," Silva said. "That's all it's always been about; it's never been about religion."

He said he hoped the board could still choose another off-campus location, but thought that there probably is not enough time to reserve another site.


----------



## MDR (Jun 4, 2010)

Nice that someone got back on topic!  Glad to hear the ceremony will be held somewhere that includes all involved.  Seems to me that this whole thing is about what is best for ALL the students involved, regardless of their individual belief systems.  As an atheist, I know I would not have taken part in a ceremony at a church.  I suspect a portion of the student body feels the same way.  I did get a kick out of some of the arguments here.  I realize that the country was founded on christian values, values that included slavery and female subjugation.  Things change for a reason, and countries evolve.  The majority of people may still believe in god, but that does not in any way imply that they are right in their beliefs, or that they have the right to foist their antiquated beliefs on the rest of us.  I believe strongly in the freedom of religion.  But this also includes those of us who do not believe in god or organized religion in any way, shape or form.  People have the right to believe what they want, but part of the cost of that freedom is respect for people who express their right to disagree and dissent.  It is one of the important things that make this the greatest country in the world-the right to expouse your beliefs without persecution from those who disagree with you, especially when the government comes into play.  I may disagree with your beliefs, but I will defend your right to believe what you choose, so long as you don't try to force everyone to believe they way you do.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> The one that was there in the first place.



That was Odin right?  Or was it Thor?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

Phineas said:


> On one hand I completely agree with you. It's ludicrous that a building would foster such animosity. However, on the other hand, all religious structures -- particularly churches -- are symbolic of religions' influence on their followers. And so, to the non-religious -- and ESPECIALLY to the anti-religious -- it can be discomforting knowing you're surrounded by mindsets you reject. I've been in only 1 church and 1 synagogue, both when I was much younger, and even then I felt extremely uncomfortable and out of place.



I know what you mean.  I feel like I am betraying my beliefs every time I have to enter a church for events like weddings.  I have a real moral struggle supporting anything that is associated with religion in any way.

I support these guys:

Freedom From Religion Foundation


----------



## Phineas (Jun 4, 2010)

mdr said:


> nice that someone got back on topic!  Glad to hear the ceremony will be held somewhere that includes all involved.  Seems to me that this whole thing is about what is best for all the students involved, regardless of their individual belief systems.  As an atheist, i know i would not have taken part in a ceremony at a church.  I suspect a portion of the student body feels the same way.  I did get a kick out of some of the arguments here.  I realize that the country was founded on christian values, values that included slavery and female subjugation.  Things change for a reason, and countries evolve.  The majority of people may still believe in god, but that does not in any way imply that they are right in their beliefs, or that they have the right to foist their antiquated beliefs on the rest of us.  I believe strongly in the freedom of religion.  But this also includes those of us who do not believe in god or organized religion in any way, shape or form.  People have the right to believe what they want, but part of the cost of that freedom is respect for people who express their right to disagree and dissent.  It is one of the important things that make this the greatest country in the world-the right to expouse your beliefs without persecution from those who disagree with you, especially when the government comes into play.  I may disagree with your beliefs, but i will defend your right to believe what you choose, so long as you don't try to force everyone to believe they way you do.



bingo!


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Just look at the place with the least amount of religion: sub-Saharan Africa.  Far and away, you won't find a more fucked up place on the planet.  In South Africa, a person is raped every 26 seconds.  A *child* (ages 3 to 12) is raped every 90 minutes.  I don't mean that someone touched a child inappropriately, I talking about forced intercourse.
> 
> Yay for no religion...



...and religion worked real well for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and more recently all of the middle east and the terrorist accounts linked to religion.

Places are messed up in this world.  For every non-religious messed up place out there, there is a religious messed up place too.  There is no corelation


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

I was just wondering if the LDS approved of your boob swinging avatar


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> I was just wondering if the LDS approved of your boob swinging avatar



Yes, yes we do!  that boob swinging avatar honors God's greatest creation. Woman.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Yes, yes we do!  that boob swinging avatar honors God's greatest creation. Woman.



Somehow I don't believe the Mormon religion approves of viewing girls as sex symbols, showing nipples through clothing and swinging them around.

Hypocrites!


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> Somehow I don't believe the Mormon religion approves of viewing girls as sex symbols, showing nipples through clothing and swinging them around.
> 
> Hypocrites!



it's a drawing dude. you need to lighten up


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> it's a drawing dude. you need to lighten up



It's about the way you advertise your religion to others... It just shows that you think of women as meat and not as people.  It's not a good public image to give.

Take a laptop in and show it to the LDS officials or elders or whatever you call them and ask if they think it is appropriate


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 4, 2010)

Secular societies don't mean moral chaos , Africa is poor example

If the following stats are right
Adherents.com: Atheist Statistics | Agnostic

the countries with the most professed athiests or secularists are doing pretty well.
( Sweden,Denmark, Norway, Japan) not exactly countries swimming in anarchy and roving rapist gangs.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> It's about the way you advertise your religion to others... It just shows that you think of women as meat and not as people.  It's not a good public image to give.
> 
> Take a laptop in and show it to the LDS officials or elders or whatever you call them and ask if they think it is appropriate



you of all people are going to give me advice on how women should be treated?

you treated your marriage like a business deal. your divorce had nothing to do with your wifes feelings and everything to do with money. after that you say that I treat women like a piece of meat?  you can kiss my white ass if you think you're going to lecture me on morality. you have no moral code and no honor.

By the way. DOMS isn't mormon.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> you of all people are going to give me advice on how women should be treated?
> 
> you treated your marriage like a business deal. your divorce had nothing to do with your wifes feelings and everything to do with money. after that you say that I treat women like a piece of meat?  you can kiss my white ass if you think you're going to lecture me on morality. you have no moral code and no honor.
> 
> By the way. DOMS isn't mormon.



Isn't that judgemental of you... I thought Christians weren't supposed to be judgemental.

My divorce was not over money... I ended up giving her almost all of it.

The entire marriage felt more like a business deal more than a relationship.  That is why I ended it.  I don't see how that is treating her like a piece of meat.

You know nothing about my moral code and whether or not I have honor.  You have no idea how I treat women.  I am great to women that deserve it.

I never claimed to be anything other than what I am.  I never claimed to come from some moral high ground.  I don't care if you treat women like a peice of meat or not.  I am just pointing out the hypocrisy that exists in religion.  The religious claim to believe in all these virtuous ideals but their lives don't reflect it.  They are just full of shit.

I am what I am, good or bad.  I don't claim to be anything else and I stand by and support my actions.  I have no regrets.  Because I don't believe my past actions were a sin, I am sinless.  I live up to my standards perfectly.  I am perfect in every way.

You don't and can't live up to your religious standards.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> By the way. DOMS isn't mormon.



yeah well, whatever he is...


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> Isn't that judgemental of you... I thought Christians weren't supposed to be judgemental.
> 
> My divorce was not over money... I ended up giving her almost all of it.
> 
> ...



you made a covenant to love, honor and cherish your wife till death. you took the selfish way out and didn't live to your word. I don't find much honor in that.

I'm not perfect, nor do I claim to be. It's one thing to set the bar of perfection so high that you can never reach it, but in doing so you become better and stronger as you strive for it. It's another to set the bar so low that you can have the audacity to claim to already have reached it.

mind telling me what religious standards you don't feel i'm meeting? you know nothing of me or my religious standards/ideals yet you feel like you can lecture me on morals? especially when your own life shows that you are incapable of keeping your word. If there is any hypocrisy here going on it is on your shoulders. but im sure that as long as it meets your own personally derived moral code then it is all right, and you are sinless. hitler had his own moral code too. is he sinless?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> you made a covenant to love, honor and cherish your wife till death. you took the selfish way out and didn't live to your word. I don't find much honor in that.
> 
> I'm not perfect, nor do I claim to be. It's one thing to set the bar of perfection so high that you can never reach it, but in doing so you become better and stronger as you strive for it. It's another to set the bar so low that you can have the audacity to claim to already have reached it.
> 
> mind telling me what religious standards you don't feel i'm meeting? you know nothing of me or my religious standards/ideals yet you feel like you can lecture me on morals? especially when your own life shows that you are incapable of keeping your word. If there is any hypocrisy here going on it is on your shoulders. but im sure that as long as it meets your own personally derived moral code then it is all right, and you are sinless. hitler had his own moral code too. is he sinless?



I lived by my word of marriage for ten years.  The marriage wasn't serving either of us very well so I ended it.  We are both better off now.  Why is it honorable to stay in an unsatisfying marriage?  That sounds like stupidity really... I would highly recommend divorce for people that no longer are in love.  Dragging it out to the bitter end is just a waste of two lives.

I don't really know what religious standards you are failing to meet.  I don't know you really and internet gibberish on this board is very different than what people are really like.  I'm not judging you.  It really doesn't matter to me.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> ...and religion worked real well for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and more recently all of the middle east and the terrorist accounts linked to religion.



Link shit that Christians did as far back as a 1000 years ago to what Muslims are doing today is pretty fucking stupid.



NeilPearson said:


> Places are messed up in this world.  For every non-religious messed up place out there, there is a religious messed up place too.  There is no corelation



Bullshit.  The absolute worst place on the planet is the one most devoid of religion.  The best places on this planet?  Founded by religious people.

Suck it.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> yeah well, whatever he is...



While DOMS isn't LDS he says he likes the LDS faith because the people actually live what they preach. 

thats the thing i absolutely love in this scenario. You made a covenant with a woman to love her till death. broke it, and now have the balls to claim that DOMS isn't living the LDS standards (which he isn't) because he has a cartoon avatar of a woman? 

Hi pot, how are you?
Good kettle, how about yourself?
I'm doing really well kettle, but you have some black all over you that offends me.

there are times neil that i can read your posts and i like them even if I don't agree with them. it's interesting to see another perspective. But in this you are so far off base and so obviously looking for a fight that i have no respect for what you are trying to pull


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> I was just wondering if the LDS approved of your boob swinging avatar



I don't remember asking.

Even if they didn't like it, it doesn't change the fact that I think that people that push religion out of everything, and then bitch about how self-respect and morality is fading, are dumb shits.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> yeah well, whatever he is...



A non-denominational Christian.

I like Mormons because of what I've *seen* them actually _*do*_ good.  They do more good than most (all?) other Christians groups that I've seen.  Although, the really good Christians (Mormon and non) do good and don't tell anyone about it.  So it's likely there are other Christian groups just like them.

Almost every group out there that does good in an organized way has a religious component to it.  That might make you ass hurt to know that, but it's true.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> I lived by my word of marriage for ten years.  The marriage wasn't serving either of us very well so I ended it.  We are both better off now.  Why is it honorable to stay in an unsatisfying marriage?  That sounds like stupidity really... I would highly recommend divorce for people that no longer are in love.  Dragging it out to the bitter end is just a waste of two lives.
> 
> I don't really know what religious standards you are failing to meet.  I don't know you really and internet gibberish on this board is very different than what people are really like.  I'm not judging you.  It really doesn't matter to me.



you are calling me a hypocrite. sounds a bit judgmental to me.

you need to stop coming after religion as a ridiculous way of somehow justifying your actions.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> mind telling me what religious standards you don't feel i'm meeting? you know nothing of me or my religious standards/ideals yet you feel like you can lecture me on morals?



I think it's hilarious that non-religious people will talk shit about religious people, and then get all butt hurt when the religious people talk back.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I think it's hilarious that non-religious people will talk shit about religious people, and then get all butt hurt when the religious people talk back.



well said


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Bullshit.  The absolute worst place on the planet is the one most devoid of religion.  The best places on this planet?  Founded by religious people.



That is just retarded and complete bullshit

Is There A Connection Between Religion And Standard Of Living?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> That is just retarded and complete bullshit
> 
> Is There A Connection Between Religion And Standard Of Living?



That article is shit.

"And you guessed it, several of the least religious countries have the  highest living standards, including Hong  Kong, Japan"

_Japan? _ Least religious?    Nearly every person there is Buddhist _*and*_ Shintoist.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> You made a covenant with a woman to love her till death.



Covenant usually implies a religious covenant in this situation which it wasn't.

There was no "as long as you both shall live" in my vows.

It was a legal contract.  I ended it legally.  What's the problem?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I think it's hilarious that non-religious people will talk shit about religious people, and then get all butt hurt when the religious people talk back.



whose butt hurts?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> you are calling me a hypocrite. sounds a bit judgmental to me..



Oh look at that, I guess it is 



bio-chem said:


> you need to stop coming after religion as a ridiculous way of somehow justifying your actions.



I have no actions that need justification


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> Covenant usually implies a religious covenant in this situation which it wasn't.
> 
> There was no "as long as you both shall live" in my vows.
> 
> It was a legal contract.  I ended it legally.  What's the problem?



Bio, I'm going to have to side with Neil on this.  Sometimes, marriages fall apart.  Often it's mutual, but I've seen far too many people get married (especially young) and watch as one of them changes for the worst.  

I've seen this scenario play out at least three times: The couple gets married.  As the woman ages, she lets herself go and gets fat.  Then, because she's no longer attractive and enjoys the perks thereof, she becomes bitter.  Then she starts to take it out on the husband.  There's no fixing that, the woman is set in her new ways and the only option (all three times) was for the man to leave.

I've also seen a guy get so super-possessive that the woman, if she wants any sort of freedom, has to leave.

So yeah, some divorces do have to happen.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> That article is shit.
> 
> "And you guessed it, several of the least religious countries have the  highest living standards, including Hong  Kong, Japan"
> 
> _Japan? _ Least religious?    Nearly every person there is Buddhist _*and*_ Shintoist.



Nearly every person there huh?

from wikipedia:

Religion in Japan is mainly associated with Shintō and Buddhism. Most Japanese people generally do not exclusively identify themselves as adherents of only one religion, but rather incorporate various elements in a syncretic fashion.[1] Japanese streets are decorated on Tanabata, Obon and Christmas. Japan grants full religious freedom allowing minority religions like Christianity, Islam and Sikhism to be practiced. High figures of 84% to 96% adhering to Shinto and Buddhism are not based on self-identification, but rather come primarily from birth records, following a longstanding practice of family lines being officially associated with a local Buddhist temple or Shinto shrine.[2][3][4][5]. *70 percent of Japanese profess no religious membership[6] and possibly only one in five Japanese claim a belief in God[7]. However, polls generally show that two-thirds of Japanese profess no religion[8] and according to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God and 55% do not believe in Buddha*


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Link *shit *that Christians did as far back as a 1000 years ago to what Muslims are doing today is pretty *fucking *stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is that a nice way for a religious person to talk?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Bio, I'm going to have to side with Neil on this.  Sometimes, marriages fall apart.  Often it's mutual, but I've seen far too many people get married (especially young) and watch as one of them changes for the worst.
> 
> I've seen this scenario play out at least three times: The couple gets married.  As the woman ages, she lets herself go and gets fat.  Then, because she's no longer attractive and enjoys the perks thereof, she becomes better.  Then she starts to take it out on the husband.  There's no fixing that, the woman is set in her new ways and the only option (all three times) was for the man to leave.
> 
> ...



Thank you!

And I appreciate your swinging boobs too


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> Nearly every person there huh?
> 
> from wikipedia:
> 
> Religion in Japan is mainly associated with Shintō and Buddhism. Most Japanese people generally do not exclusively identify themselves as adherents of only one religion, but rather incorporate various elements in a syncretic fashion.[1] Japanese streets are decorated on Tanabata, Obon and Christmas. Japan grants full religious freedom allowing minority religions like Christianity, Islam and Sikhism to be practiced. High figures of 84% to 96% adhering to Shinto and Buddhism are not based on self-identification, but rather come primarily from birth records, following a longstanding practice of family lines being officially associated with a local Buddhist temple or Shinto shrine.[2][3][4][5]. *70 percent of Japanese profess no religious membership[6] and possibly only one in five Japanese claim a belief in God[7]. However, polls generally show that two-thirds of Japanese profess no religion[8] and according to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God and 55% do not believe in Buddha*



Also from wikipedia:

"The highest estimates for the number of Buddhists and Shintoists in  Japan is *84–96%*, representing a large number of believers in a  syncretism of both religions.[10][129]  However, these estimates are based on people with an association with a  temple, rather than the number of people truly following the religion.[130]  Professor Robert Kisala (Nanzan University) suggests that only 30 percent of the  population identify themselves as belonging to a religion.[130]"

Nevermind what the people actually _*say*_, it's what a_* professor thinks *_that matters.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

You're original article is cherry picking the data to "prove" his point.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> Is that a nice way for a religious person to talk?



This is the butt hurt that I was talking about.

Here you go:


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Also from wikipedia:
> 
> "The highest estimates for the number of Buddhists and Shintoists in  Japan is *84???96%*, representing a large number of believers in a  syncretism of both religions.[10][129] *However, these estimates are based on people with an association with a  temple, rather than the number of people truly following the religion*.[130]  Professor Robert Kisala (Nanzan University) suggests that only 30 percent of the  population identify themselves as belonging to a religion.[130]"
> 
> Nevermind what the people actually _*say*_, it's what a_* professor thinks *_that matters.



So if you take the highest estimate that is based on people with an association with a temple then I guess it would be higher... I'm actually surprised its not 100%.  Why be associated with a temple if you weren't


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> Thank you!
> 
> And I appreciate your swinging boobs too



Like almost everything I believe in, my thoughts on divorce on first on what I've seen, then on what I've heard from another, and then on what I've read or watched (video).

No one should have to suffer because another person goes bad.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> This is the butt hurt that I was talking about.
> 
> Here you go:



That's not good butt hurt.  Here is good butt hurt:

Weightlifter


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Bio, I'm going to have to side with Neil on this.  Sometimes, marriages fall apart.  Often it's mutual, but I've seen far too many people get married (especially young) and watch as one of them changes for the worst.
> 
> I've seen this scenario play out at least three times: The couple gets married.  As the woman ages, she lets herself go and gets fat.  Then, because she's no longer attractive and enjoys the perks thereof, she becomes better.  Then she starts to take it out on the husband.  There's no fixing that, the woman is set in her new ways and the only option (all three times) was for the man to leave.
> 
> ...



I guess I need to clarify. I'm not some hard nosed ultra-religious crack pot individual who thinks divorce should never happen. there are instances that divorce needs to happen. I also think that divorce is too prevalent and people now days find it easier to quit than show some commitment and work through it. I'm making a generalization here and not specific to any circumstance. Neil started a thread about his divorce and nothing I read in there indicated anything other than him giving up on his marriage vows. I used his divorce as an example here to show the utter lunacy of him calling you a hypocrite for your avatar when he has been so free publicly with his own life that is much more morally suspect than a cartoon


----------



## DOMS (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> So if you take the highest estimate that is based on people with an association with a temple then I guess it would be higher... I'm actually surprised its not 100%.  Why be associated with a temple if you weren't



I've done my research on world-wide religions way before today.  I have a special interest in Japan.  For the Japanese, religion is an everyday thing, but not for one day a week.  They take it very seriously and use it in their relationships with family members.  A lot of homes (don't have the number) even have family shrines _in the home_.

So for that article to claim that Japan has little religion is, for me, far beyond ludicrous.  it's almost nonsensical.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> Covenant usually implies a religious covenant in this situation which it wasn't.
> 
> There was no "as long as you both shall live" in my vows.
> 
> It was a legal contract.  I ended it legally.  What's the problem?



do you prefer Vow or promise to covenant? arguing semantics here when the truth is you gave up shows you have nothing


----------



## maniclion (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> pol pot is an excellent example. I'm not excusing anything the US has done in our past. what I am saying is look at the outcome of societies that reject religion. The Khmer Rouge did just that. for the purposes of this debate the example is one of the best I can think of


There is a difference between Rejecting Religion and not allowing it to be forced upon others....nobody here is denying the religious their rights, they are only enforcing the rights of the non-religious....

I am constantly put in awkward situations where everyone is praying with their heads bowed and I'm just standing their looking around, I had to huddle up with my football team before games while they did their lords prayer thing, here at work they say prayer before we eat at company luncheons, funerals always do this to me.....I don't complain I just wait patiently, but I wouldn't allow my graduation to force me to hold my ceremony in a Church because it's a special time for me, I don't want my diploma hand-off pictures to have a crucifix in the background misrepresenting my beliefs....


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I've done my research on world-wide religions way before today.  I have a special interest in Japan.  For the Japanese, religion is an everyday thing, but not for one day a week.  They take it very seriously and use it in their relationships with family members.  A lot of homes (don't have the number) even have family shrines _in the home_.
> 
> So for that article to claim that Japan has little religion is, for me, far beyond ludicrous.  it's almost nonsensical.



I only know about the statistics I read.  If wikipedia is wrong, someone should update it.  There are references to their claims though.  It probably depends on who you ask


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> do you prefer Vow or promise to covenant? arguing semantics here when the truth is you gave up shows you have nothing



There was no reason to stay in the marriage.  There were no kids.  We didn't like either other that much.  We never spent time together.  Why continue it?


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

maniclion said:


> There is a difference between Rejecting Religion and not allowing it to be forced upon others....nobody here is denying the religious their rights, they are only enforcing the rights of the non-religious....
> 
> I am constantly put in awkward situations where everyone is praying with their heads bowed and I'm just standing their looking around, I had to huddle up with my football team before games while they did their lords prayer thing, here at work they say prayer before we eat at company luncheons, funerals always do this to me.....I don't complain I just wait patiently, but I wouldn't allow my graduation to force me to hold my ceremony in a Church because it's a special time for me, I don't want my diploma hand-off pictures to have a crucifix in the background misrepresenting my beliefs....



Like I said before. as long as doctrine isn't being preached it is only a nice building. You won't see crosses at an LDS building, but it wouldn't bother me in the least to have a graduation in either a catholic or protestant church, a mosque, or a synagogue.

everyone of the examples you gave doesn't make sense to me. them expressing their beliefs in those situations doesn't force anything upon you. you aren't praying if you don't want to. there is nothing awkward about it. I have attended religious ceremonies of catholics, protestants, and other religions and while I don't participate it doesn't bother me in the slightest to show patience and respect for another individual as they express their spirituality.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> There was no reason to stay in the marriage.  There were no kids.  We didn't like either other that much.  We never spent time together.  Why continue it?



and how did it get to that point? how did it go from total love and selflessness on your wedding day (I'm assuming those were true then) to no love and selfishness? if you weren't spending time together you weren't making time. not making time to spend with your wife doesn't tell me that you know how to treat a woman. the problem isn't the divorce. It's all those little decisions you made that allowed your marriage to fail that led to the divorce that shows your true character.

I'm sure it seems like I'm taking a hard line ass hole stance on this, and I probably am. I won't however sit here and be called a moral hypocrite by a guy who claims he is without sin and is perfect. I also feel people giving up on marriage shows a real problem in the US right now. marriage should be viewed as more than a business contract. marriage is special and should be treated that way.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Like I said before. as long as doctrine isn't being preached it is only a nice building. You won't see crosses at an LDS building, but it wouldn't bother me in the least to have a graduation in either a catholic or protestant church, a mosque, or a synagogue.
> 
> everyone of the examples you gave doesn't make sense to me. them expressing their beliefs in those situations doesn't force anything upon you. you aren't praying if you don't want to. there is nothing awkward about it. I have attended religious ceremonies of catholics, protestants, and other religions and while I don't participate it doesn't bother me in the slightest to show patience and respect for another individual as they express their spirituality.


I just don't like it when people assume you are a christian.  Just because I'm white, quiet, forgiving, nice and respectful doesn't mean I am a christian...and during prayer I alway's get a glance or 2 from someone like "WTF don't you see we have our heads bowed and are holding our sacred seance to the imaginary bringer of this food we ordered from the chinese restaurant"  Of course it doesn't bother you because you are biased toward religion, I am not....


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

maniclion said:


> I just don't like it when people assume you are a christian.  Just because I'm white, quiet, forgiving, nice and respectful doesn't mean I am a christian...and during prayer I alway's get a glance or 2 from someone like "WTF don't you see we have our heads bowed and are holding our sacred seance to the imaginary bringer of this food we ordered from the chinese restaurant"  Of course it doesn't bother you because you are biased toward religion, I am not....



No you are biased against it. 

what I'm saying is it doesn't bother me when people around me express religious beliefs contrary to mine openly. it doesn't effect my beliefs or my relationship/lack of with God in any way. 

are you really so thin skinned that a glance from someone you are eating dinner with offends you? something like that could be used as a great opportunity to discuss your beliefs civilly. but you use it as a point of separation and want them to stop expressing their beliefs in your presence? sounds pretty immature in my opinion. I've prayed with many differing religions with different beliefs than mine and not once have i been offended or given offense to them. its not that hard


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> and how did it get to that point? how did it go from total love and selflessness on your wedding day (I'm assuming those were true then) to no love and selfishness? .



I'm not sure we were ever really in love.  I think we just thought we were.  I don't think it went from total love and selflessness to no love and selfishness.  I don't think it really changed much.  There was never really love and I don't think either one of us was particularily selfish.



bio-chem said:


> if you weren't spending time together you weren't making time. not making time to spend with your wife doesn't tell me that you know how to treat a woman.



It has nothing to do with not knowing how to treat a woman.  She worked a lot and when she wasn't working, she was out with her horses... which I was selflessly helping to fund for about $1000 a month even though she would make a big deal about me wanting to get a $200 video card or something once a year.



bio-chem said:


> the problem isn't the divorce. It's all those little decisions you made that allowed your marriage to fail that led to the divorce that shows your true character..



It's not the little decisions.  We weren't right for each other from the start.  We made a young foolish mistake and stuck it out for 10 years.  You know nothing about my true character from some random postings on the internet that are mostly designed just to stir up shit.



bio-chem said:


> I'm sure it seems like I'm taking a hard line ass hole stance on this, and I probably am. I won't however sit here and be called a moral hypocrite by a guy who claims he is without sin and is perfect. I also feel people giving up on marriage shows a real problem in the US right now. marriage should be viewed as more than a business contract. marriage is special and should be treated that way.



It's nothing personal.  I think the religious by definition are hypocrites because a human can't possibly live up to the unrealistic standards of religion.  That's why Jesus told people not to judge.  He realized there wasn't anyone that could live without sin as defined by religion.

On the other hand, I am without sin because I don't believe the things I do are sins.

Some marriages are special and should be treated that way.  Mine wasn't really all that special.  We were just kind of roommates for the most part.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> It's nothing personal.  I think the religious by definition are hypocrites because a human can't possibly live up to the unrealistic standards of religion.  That's why Jesus told people not to judge.  He realized there wasn't anyone that could live without sin as defined by religion.
> 
> On the other hand, I am without sin because I don't believe the things I do are sins.
> 
> Some marriages are special and should be treated that way.  Mine wasn't really all that special.  We were just kind of roommates for the most part.



don't try and use the words of Jesus when you don't believe them or understand them. just makes you look ignorant.

i'm forced to go back to an extreme example to prove my point. hitler didn't appear to think what he was doing was a sin. doesn't mean he was perfect. your logic is unbelievably flawed.

there is no gradation of marriage. some being special and some not being special. the covenant/vow/promise of marriage is always special and should be treated as such.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> No you are biased against it.
> 
> what I'm saying is it doesn't bother me when people around me express religious beliefs contrary to mine openly. it doesn't effect my beliefs or my relationship/lack of with God in any way.
> 
> are you really so thin skinned that a glance from someone you are eating dinner with offends you? something like that could be used as a great opportunity to discuss your beliefs civilly. but you use it as a point of separation and want them to stop expressing their beliefs in your presence? sounds pretty immature in my opinion. I've prayed with many differing religions with different beliefs than mine and not once have i been offended or given offense to them. its not that hard


I don't care that people express their beliefs in front of me or even for my sake, it's the look as though I am a demon spawn because I'm staring off into the clouds while everyone is praying, or one time I was scribbling in my notebook and got a dirty look or the time I took a swig of beer during their prayer and one of my co-workers who was saying a prayer decided to add m little prayer for god to reach my soul and bless me oh heavenly father...

You pray so you can camouflage into them, I don't pray so I do what I do, write, drink and daydream....I live in the moment physically and spiritually, freely that is my belief system....


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

maniclion said:


> You pray so you can camouflage into them, I don't pray so I do what I do, write, drink and daydream....I live in the moment physically and spiritually, freely that is my belief system....



I absolutely don't pray so i can "camouflage into them". I never compromise my beliefs to fit in. but allowing someone else to worship how they see fit doesn't make me do that.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 4, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I absolutely don't pray so i can "camouflage into them". I never compromise my beliefs to fit in. but allowing someone else to worship how they see fit doesn't make me do that.


You don't stick out like a sore thumb because your actions mimic theirs, but I'm sure you are saying your own prayers, like if you were with muslims you wouldn't be praisng allah and their prophet....


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2010)

maniclion said:


> You don't stick out like a sore thumb because your actions mimic theirs, but I'm sure you are saying your own prayers, like if you were with muslims you wouldn't be praisng allah and their prophet....



again. not true. when attending the catholic church I sat there quietly, watching their whole ceremony. I never once bowed my head when they did nor did I say amen at the end of their prayers. I was a silent observer and to those who watched me I most certainly stuck out. I did find it as an opportunity to watch how others choose to worship and try to understand what they felt was appealing about their form of worship


----------

