Look at many European countries, for instance, that have very low church attendance. So, yes, the country may technically be majority Christian. But that doesn't mean that many people (especially those under, say, 70) are taking part very often. I've been to Europe a few times (France, Italy). And I remember, particularly in France but also even in Italy, more than one person telling me that the churches were basically empty. The exceptions were those that were filled with tourists, like Notre Dame or Chartres (both of which any sane person should try to see at least once in a lifetime, by the way).
While the country with highest regular church attendance is Nigeria. And I don't know anyone who would call that a bastion of acceptance.
And if you look at the United States, the states with the most attendance are Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, S. Carolina. The states with the lowest attendance are Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. Now, I'm fairly certain that all those states are technically majority Christian. But it doesn't seem like many of the people in New England (or Nevada for that matter) are all that interested in going to church.
I said nothing at all about church attendance. Not even sure why that is relevant to the fact of a country being majority-Christian.
And if you look at the United States, the states with the most attendance are Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, S. Carolina. The states with the lowest attendance are Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. Now, I'm fairly certain that all those states are technically majority Christian. But it doesn't seem like many of the people in New England (or Nevada for that matter) are all that interested in going to church.
Traditionally the US was founded by Christians. So were most of its universities, charities and hospitals. They seem like a pretty generous bunch of people. Not so sure about the deep south Bible Belt believers. That just might be a different religion.
But if you spew nonsense on a public forum that accepts different viewpoints, you should expect to get called out on it.
Right back atcha my friend:
1. You made an assertion that no scientist would ever talk about a "consensus"
2. I showed you a web page from Nasa that uses the very term in its page title
3. You dismissed it as being irrelevant to your argument that no individual pro-climate-change scientist advocate person would use the word "consensus"
4. You never bothered to explain what your argument WAS; ie, why should anyone give a shit that scientists allegedly don't use the term "consensus" with climate change, even if that were a true assertion? How is that relevant to anything? It might be, but you didn't bother to say
5. I gave a list of several reputable scientists who – as you would term it – are "deniers"
6. Prior to that, you made an insinuation that anyone who questions the apparent consensus is as dumb and ignorant as someone who believes in alien visitations (ad hominem).
I'm happy to debate you, but not on those terms. Have fun with it.
How do you explain the fact that, across the globe today, the relatively more tolerant societies -- by and large -- are majority-Christian?
Perhaps the same way you could create a numbers that show Christians tend to have better oral hygiene or access to more TV shows than people of other religions when looking at global numbers. It seems to me that Western Culture or 1st world nations* might simply be setup differently. Perhaps it's simply higher wealth per capita that either affords people to be less tolerable, or provides better education that allows people, mostly who identify as Christians, to be more tolerable, within your body of evidence. I would also assume your evidence would show a high percentage of English as their primary language, but I don't think you'd say that those that speak English as a first language are inherently more tolerable of other cultures because they speak English as a first language.
edit: Here is an infamous video of a Christian pastor speaking against homosexuality in a most bizarre way. I would say that Uganda, as well as many other more impoverished nations with a heavy Christian population, are intolerant, at least in this video.
[VIDEO]
* Not a fan of that phrasing but I don't have another to use in this example.
I'd say Buddhism is a conflicted religion/philosophy. How can one believe that you are reborn over and over as is the belief of Karma and yet not believe in God? What is facilitating this constant rebirth of people's souls?
I do admire their philosophies regarding the ways to live a pure life, but they believe in magic as much as the next religion, just my opinion.
Perhaps the same way science tells us that we are made from stardust and that even our star is not the first star from this matter since the Big Bang. I can see why one would think that has to be the work of an all knowing, all seeing creator, but, to me, that sounds more like man projecting human-like characteristics and a direct correlation to each person, but what if this plane of existence (i.e.: this Universe) was created by accident and is a merely moment in time for this other plane of existence. Whatever created this Universe is therefore the creator, but that doesn't make it sentient, or even if it is within that plane, doesn't make it even aware of our plane of existence.
I enjoyed this movie based on Abbot's satirical novella:
I said nothing at all about church attendance. Not even sure why that is relevant to the fact of a country being majority-Christian.
My point was only that having a technically majority Christian state (whether State or state) could mean a lot of different things. It could mean that the people really are practicing Christians who go to church, pray, and all that stuff; whereas it could also mean that a bunch of people simply identify as Christian but don't take any part in practice (like the vast majority of people I know). Then you have countries like Nigeria, that I mentioned, that have a massive Christian population, who actually practice, and is definitely NOT somewhere I would want to go.
Don't get me wrong: I get your point, and I think there are a number of reasons for what you are saying (for example, most primarily Christian countries weren't colonies, they were the ones doing the colonization, etc.). I was just trying to point out that it is more complicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Traditionally the US was founded by Christians. So were most of its universities, charities and hospitals. They seem like a pretty generous bunch of people. Not so sure about the deep south Bible Belt believers. That just might be a different religion.
Heh. I could make a smartass remark about the South right here, but I'll refrain. I'll just leave it as good enough that I'll never go there. Well, I might go to SXSW sometime, but that's Austin.
1. You made an assertion that no scientist would ever talk about a "consensus"
2. I showed you a web page from Nasa that uses the very term in its page title
3. You dismissed it as being irrelevant to your argument
4. You never bothered to explain what your argument WAS; ie, why should anyone give a shit that scientists allegedly don't use the term "consensus" with climate change, even if that were a true assertion? How is that relevant to anything? It might be, but you didn't bother to say
5. I gave a list of several reputable scientists who – as you would term it – are "deniers"
6. Prior to that, you made an insinuation that anyone who questions the apparent consensus is as dumb and ignorant as someone who believes in alien visitations (ad hominem).
I'm happy to debate you, but not on those terms. Have fun with it.
1. I stand by that assertion. You still have not shown me a scientist who has claimed that. In fact, most scientists are cautious, by nature, and rarely make such sweeping statements.
2. NASA = government agency ? scientist.
3. Yes, I did. See (1) and (2) above.
4. You used the word 'consensus' in your original post. I merely responded to that attribution you made, and pointed out it is false.
5. 'Reputable scientist' ? 'Reputable climate scientist.' It would be like saying that you'd let your excellent dermatologist (doctor) do to you what your excellent heart surgeon (also doctor) does. Btw, the use of something like a Wikipedia page is lazy, but the use of a highly politicized one is downright silly and does not make your case. I never once used the term "deniers". And, I gave you the example of Lindzen in that list, and you have not taken me up on it.
6. Again, you're the one using the word 'consensus' (although I see you qualified it a bit). Incidentally, I do agree that it's completely irrelevant whether there is consensus on not. As we know from the history of good science.
It seems to me that Western Culture or 1st world nations* might simply be setup differently. Perhaps it's simply higher wealth per capita that either affords people to be less tolerable, or provides better education that allows people, mostly who identify as Christians, to be more tolerable, within your body of evidence. I would also assume your evidence would show a high percentage of English as their primary language, but I don't think you'd say that those that speak English as a first language are inherently more tolerable of other cultures because they speak English as a first language.
Why might they be set up differently, or have higher wealth per capita, or have better education? Did that magically, exogenously happen?
Your example of 'English as primary language' is very confusing, and has nothing to do with my point. Are you saying that a majority of the people within individual majority-Christian countries are (e.g., everything from Sweden to France to Brazil to The Philippines) are English speaking?
Couldn't agree more. I think that the far Right in the US has a serious problem with this because it upsets many deeply-held, faith-based precepts.
Incidentally, I think the Left also exhibits dumbness vis-a-vis science, especially when it comes to GMOs, nuclear power, and vaccines.
I agree science blindless, or using science as needed happens on the left and the right, that's why I'm a centrist (AKA Liberal in Canada). I believe we should be using GMO, nuclear, accept global warming and vaccines, some of these need more scrutiny than others to make sure they don't also cause harm. What I oppose is absolute idiological senseless opposition like saying nuclear is somewhat non-natural... WTH.. We wouldn't even exist without nuclear energy (fusion or fission).
I think that pipelines should be built which much scrutiny (a lot of regulation) because the alternatives right now are worse (my father's home town of Mégantic was destroyed by the a oil train derailment) and I don't believe shipping oil from the middle east or Africa (with all geo-political implications) is better than getting slightly dirtier oil coming from next door. That's the kind of pragmatism I don't think much people left or right can do. I'm even wary of even telling people I'm for the pipeline because most of them think that this is a blanket stamp on whatever oil/drilling state sponsored subsidy they dreamt about!! When, my approval is very narrow and depends very much on regulation and implementation.
The left tends to have a frankeinstein anti-government view of science (comes from a bohemian influence and the fact that industrialization was used to hurt workers) (science is seen as unnatural (sic) and can hurt the collectivity in that view), while the right selectively picks and chooses which science it deems to support (for religious reasons and when it seems to run counter to entrenched businesses or attitudes) (science runs afoul of individual rights).
In some case, like anti-vaccination, anti-science people on the right and left sort of coalesce into one, which argument is used depends on the community and country.
Why might they be set up differently, or have higher wealth per capita, or have better education? Did that magically, exogenously happen?
The reasons are innumerable. The pitfall I'm trying to avoid is a post hoc logical fallacy.
Your example of 'English as primary language' is very confusing, and has nothing to do with my point. Are you saying that a majority of the people within individual majority-Christian countries are (e.g., everything from Sweden to France to Brazil to The Philippines) are English speaking?
I was using another example where one might have an anecdotal experiences which they then attribute to English as the primary language even though it may unrelated. My experiences tell me that religious belief (or lack thereof) doesn't result in a person's capacity for being compassionate or tolerant of others. I personally find the "teachings" of Jesus to be excellent, just as I find philosophical musings of Ecclesiastes to be excellent, but I am neither Christian or Jewish, respectively. I'm also not an atheist as, by definition, it would mean believing in something I can't begin to prove.
A church that collects money and occupies a physical presence on taxable property is not the same as a religion. You can practice your religion almost anywhere in private and many places in public and none of that ability to practice the religion is impeded by taxation.
I'm against all taxes, but if taxes are levied, churches should be afforded no special favors. It's a violation of the Establishment Clause. I believe the excuse that is used today is that these religious exemptions are part of "tradition", which is a weak argument if I've ever heard of one. The Constitution is in constant jeopardy by incursions from any and all sides and with any and all excuses.
I have never heard of the excuse of "tradition." I think you are presenting a straw man argument. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to tax a church is the right to ban it, which is a violation of the establishment clause. How would you feel about taxing the Democratic Party on the contributions it receives? And if it does not pay those taxes, then it is not allowed to meet or vote or publish ads or have any other rights?
An income tax on churches would have the same effect and be just as illegal as an income tax on political parties. Are you advocating that the Democrats should be forced to pay an income tax on their contributions?
An income tax on churches would have the same effect and be just as illegal as an income tax on political parties. Are you advocating that the Democrats should be forced to pay an income tax on their contributions?
Most mega churches these days are 503 1C not for profit corporations.
Don't you understand?! Tim Cook's life goal is to make every guy choose to be gay so he can have butt sex with them¡
And you say I'm not listening. That comment is almost as bad as calling someone racist or a bigot in an attempt to delegitimize their opinion on this topic. That's what happens in these threads, when someone can't truly defend their argument or they try to put you out of the debate the racist and bigot comments start flying. I assume your comment was sarcasm but just read through this thread racist and bigot start to come up more and more as the posts move on.
Like I said in a previous posts it always strikes me as interesting when a group wants to preach tolerance yet are the ones that throw the biggest stones. By the way thank you for the link to the page with Tim Cooks message I have never seen that before and I stand corrected.
I started to post in this thread because I felt it might not be a good idea for Tim Cook to be such a vocal activist when he is the CEO of Apple because that can come across as him trying to push his agenda using the power of Apple. I'm also not sure why people are so upset with the word agenda.
I'm also not sure why Apple or Cook need to keep pointing out how diverse they are, when running a company it should be really simple the best person get the job. While liberals love this does this mean the best person isn't getting the job so Apple can tout diversity? No one should be discriminated against on the flip side no one should be given a job to meet a quota.
What's truly sad and pathetic even with all this self promotion Apple still gets attacked for trying to make diverse Emojis. Too many people are looking for a reason to be offended.
One last note while it's great to have a page about Inclusion inspires innovation lets take a look at this page.
Property taxes is a different matter altogether. Churches should pay property taxes just like other property owners. Just my opinion.
Where I live, I'm about a mile from a shoreline. Along that shoreline are some of the most beautiful homes, huge, old mansions with gargantuan properties. Well, the ones that are still there, anyways -- over the past 20-25 years, a lot of those properties were split up and replaced with stupid-looking McMansions that have about as much individuality as ... well, something with no individuality.
Anyways ... getting back to my point ... along that shoreline is a Catholic church. The amount of property it takes up is immense. For decades it has really PISSED ME OFF that they don't have to pay property taxes. They own the property. They should pay taxes on it just like anyone else would.
Property taxes is a different matter altogether. Churches should pay property taxes just like other property owners. Just my opinion.
How are they different? In fact, they are worse. Besides being terribly regressive, telling people that they cannot meet in their own building to worship unless they pay a tax is a gross violation of the establishment clause. Basically it is saying we only want rich churches around here. You po' people can go meet in another town.
That comment is almost as bad as calling someone racist or a bigot in an attempt to delegitimize their opinion on this topic.
Almsot as bad? Almost?! Considering I used sarcasm and hyperbole make a joke I would assume, from your PoV, that it would be a lot worse.
That's what happens in these threads, when someone can't truly defend their argument or they try to put you out of the debate the racist and bigot comments start flying.
So when one reveals an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of others that calls for their civil rights to be squashed I can't use the term bigot to describe them? That is the very definition of the term.
If you want to believe that homosexuality is a choice, and not a product of nature, that can be cured with counseling and religion, you have that write, and I support you in that right to be a homophobic bigot, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call you out for what you are… as I have that right.
One last note while it's great to have a page about Inclusion inspires innovation lets take a look at this page.
Fifteen executive profiles. Twelve males, three females only one being african american. Diversity appears to end at a certain level.
And? What is the most successful combination of diversity for Apple execs? Should Cook fire everyone so that the sex, genders and skin colours match up to some Cupertino, California, United States, North America, Western Hemisphere, or Earth average? How about instead of "putting lipstick on a pig" by covering up the fact that the various people are less likely to have their aptitude recognized for these positions with forced inclusions at the expense of the company, that Apple works from the bottom up to create change that allows everyone to be given a more even playing field… exactly like they are doing. But this isn't an overnight change and can't be done by Apple along. We, as a society, have to stop being homophobic, have to stop be misogynistic, have to stop thinking our religion and skin colour is the only that matters so we can get the hardest working people with the most aptitude to help push society forward.
[@]anantksundaram[/@], his comment about Apple executives is another example. Does the fact there as 80% men on Apple's executive team mean that mean are inherently better that business? I don't think so, that are many other cultural reasons at play, and there is no evidence that suggests that women have inferior minds or less leadership potential.
How are they different? In fact, they are worse. Besides being terribly regressive, telling people that they cannot meet in their own building to worship unless they pay a tax is a gross violation of the establishment clause. Basically it is saying we only want rich churches around here. You po' people can go meet in another town.
That is not the way it works. A new congregation usually start out as a home study group. You pool your resources and buy some land and build a church if that is what God calls you to do. But you should pay property taxes, just like the homeowner did where your church was founded.
An income tax on churches would have the same effect and be just as illegal as an income tax on political parties. Are you advocating that the Democrats should be forced to pay an income tax on their contributions?
Not at all. I'm saying the income tax is a major assault on personal liberty and you'll go to jail if you don't pay it.
Much like "child support" payments which are basically a fee than men have to pay to women in order to be able to see their children after divorce.
There are all kinds of fees imposed by government restricting ones right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The argument is always the same: it's to help children/the poor/make sure gays aren't discriminated/protect the environment!
And the counter argument is always the same: the vast majority of people love their children/tolerate whatever/care about the environment and will do whatever they can with the resources they have, even collectively and community-based and b) the money usually doesn't get used for the reasons those taking it from you at gunpoint say it's going to be used, making all socialist schemes a sham and a hustle.
For example I pay child support for one of my children and receive for the other (two moms). But it's stupid because they're going to be clothed and fed and educated regardless of what some old impotent fool in a courtroom says. If a parent neglected their child that's child abuse and a crime. We don't need a multi billion dollar apparatus of courts, lawyers and feminists/leftoids to supposedly FORCE people to care for their kids as a pretense when it's actually a gender based wealth transfer at gunpoint. I'm lucky to be one of about 7% of males who actually receives CS, but that's VOLUNTARY on the part of her mother. It's unlikely any court in the Western Hemisphere would support it.
EDIT: to be clear I don't take cash from the mother. But she pays for a lot of things my daughter needs DIRECTLY and I'm the primary care parent due to circumstances.
Comments
<< SHRUG >> Due to lack of time or sufficient scale on my personal giveashit-o-meter...
That's entirely fine. And sadly, predictable.
But if you spew nonsense on a public forum that accepts different viewpoints, you should expect to get called out on it.
It's a lot more complicated than that, though.
Look at many European countries, for instance, that have very low church attendance. So, yes, the country may technically be majority Christian. But that doesn't mean that many people (especially those under, say, 70) are taking part very often. I've been to Europe a few times (France, Italy). And I remember, particularly in France but also even in Italy, more than one person telling me that the churches were basically empty. The exceptions were those that were filled with tourists, like Notre Dame or Chartres (both of which any sane person should try to see at least once in a lifetime, by the way).
While the country with highest regular church attendance is Nigeria. And I don't know anyone who would call that a bastion of acceptance.
And if you look at the United States, the states with the most attendance are Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, S. Carolina. The states with the lowest attendance are Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. Now, I'm fairly certain that all those states are technically majority Christian. But it doesn't seem like many of the people in New England (or Nevada for that matter) are all that interested in going to church.
I said nothing at all about church attendance. Not even sure why that is relevant to the fact of a country being majority-Christian.
And if you look at the United States, the states with the most attendance are Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, S. Carolina. The states with the lowest attendance are Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. Now, I'm fairly certain that all those states are technically majority Christian. But it doesn't seem like many of the people in New England (or Nevada for that matter) are all that interested in going to church.
Traditionally the US was founded by Christians. So were most of its universities, charities and hospitals. They seem like a pretty generous bunch of people. Not so sure about the deep south Bible Belt believers. That just might be a different religion.
Right back atcha my friend:
1. You made an assertion that no scientist would ever talk about a "consensus"
2. I showed you a web page from Nasa that uses the very term in its page title
3. You dismissed it as being irrelevant to your argument that no individual pro-climate-change scientist advocate person would use the word "consensus"
4. You never bothered to explain what your argument WAS; ie, why should anyone give a shit that scientists allegedly don't use the term "consensus" with climate change, even if that were a true assertion? How is that relevant to anything? It might be, but you didn't bother to say
5. I gave a list of several reputable scientists who – as you would term it – are "deniers"
6. Prior to that, you made an insinuation that anyone who questions the apparent consensus is as dumb and ignorant as someone who believes in alien visitations (ad hominem).
I'm happy to debate you, but not on those terms. Have fun with it.
Perhaps the same way you could create a numbers that show Christians tend to have better oral hygiene or access to more TV shows than people of other religions when looking at global numbers. It seems to me that Western Culture or 1st world nations* might simply be setup differently. Perhaps it's simply higher wealth per capita that either affords people to be less tolerable, or provides better education that allows people, mostly who identify as Christians, to be more tolerable, within your body of evidence. I would also assume your evidence would show a high percentage of English as their primary language, but I don't think you'd say that those that speak English as a first language are inherently more tolerable of other cultures because they speak English as a first language.
edit: Here is an infamous video of a Christian pastor speaking against homosexuality in a most bizarre way. I would say that Uganda, as well as many other more impoverished nations with a heavy Christian population, are intolerant, at least in this video.
[VIDEO]
* Not a fan of that phrasing but I don't have another to use in this example.
Perhaps the same way science tells us that we are made from stardust and that even our star is not the first star from this matter since the Big Bang. I can see why one would think that has to be the work of an all knowing, all seeing creator, but, to me, that sounds more like man projecting human-like characteristics and a direct correlation to each person, but what if this plane of existence (i.e.: this Universe) was created by accident and is a merely moment in time for this other plane of existence. Whatever created this Universe is therefore the creator, but that doesn't make it sentient, or even if it is within that plane, doesn't make it even aware of our plane of existence.
I enjoyed this movie based on Abbot's satirical novella:
[VIDEO]
I said nothing at all about church attendance. Not even sure why that is relevant to the fact of a country being majority-Christian.
My point was only that having a technically majority Christian state (whether State or state) could mean a lot of different things. It could mean that the people really are practicing Christians who go to church, pray, and all that stuff; whereas it could also mean that a bunch of people simply identify as Christian but don't take any part in practice (like the vast majority of people I know). Then you have countries like Nigeria, that I mentioned, that have a massive Christian population, who actually practice, and is definitely NOT somewhere I would want to go.
Don't get me wrong: I get your point, and I think there are a number of reasons for what you are saying (for example, most primarily Christian countries weren't colonies, they were the ones doing the colonization, etc.). I was just trying to point out that it is more complicated.
Traditionally the US was founded by Christians. So were most of its universities, charities and hospitals. They seem like a pretty generous bunch of people. Not so sure about the deep south Bible Belt believers. That just might be a different religion.
Heh. I could make a smartass remark about the South right here, but I'll refrain. I'll just leave it as good enough that I'll never go there. Well, I might go to SXSW sometime, but that's Austin.
Right back atcha my friend:
1. You made an assertion that no scientist would ever talk about a "consensus"
2. I showed you a web page from Nasa that uses the very term in its page title
3. You dismissed it as being irrelevant to your argument
4. You never bothered to explain what your argument WAS; ie, why should anyone give a shit that scientists allegedly don't use the term "consensus" with climate change, even if that were a true assertion? How is that relevant to anything? It might be, but you didn't bother to say
5. I gave a list of several reputable scientists who – as you would term it – are "deniers"
6. Prior to that, you made an insinuation that anyone who questions the apparent consensus is as dumb and ignorant as someone who believes in alien visitations (ad hominem).
I'm happy to debate you, but not on those terms. Have fun with it.
1. I stand by that assertion. You still have not shown me a scientist who has claimed that. In fact, most scientists are cautious, by nature, and rarely make such sweeping statements.
2. NASA = government agency ? scientist.
3. Yes, I did. See (1) and (2) above.
4. You used the word 'consensus' in your original post. I merely responded to that attribution you made, and pointed out it is false.
5. 'Reputable scientist' ? 'Reputable climate scientist.' It would be like saying that you'd let your excellent dermatologist (doctor) do to you what your excellent heart surgeon (also doctor) does. Btw, the use of something like a Wikipedia page is lazy, but the use of a highly politicized one is downright silly and does not make your case. I never once used the term "deniers". And, I gave you the example of Lindzen in that list, and you have not taken me up on it.
6. Again, you're the one using the word 'consensus' (although I see you qualified it a bit). Incidentally, I do agree that it's completely irrelevant whether there is consensus on not. As we know from the history of good science.
Why might they be set up differently, or have higher wealth per capita, or have better education? Did that magically, exogenously happen?
Your example of 'English as primary language' is very confusing, and has nothing to do with my point. Are you saying that a majority of the people within individual majority-Christian countries are (e.g., everything from Sweden to France to Brazil to The Philippines) are English speaking?
(Add: Got to go now. May continue later).
Couldn't agree more. I think that the far Right in the US has a serious problem with this because it upsets many deeply-held, faith-based precepts.
Incidentally, I think the Left also exhibits dumbness vis-a-vis science, especially when it comes to GMOs, nuclear power, and vaccines.
I agree science blindless, or using science as needed happens on the left and the right, that's why I'm a centrist (AKA Liberal in Canada). I believe we should be using GMO, nuclear, accept global warming and vaccines, some of these need more scrutiny than others to make sure they don't also cause harm. What I oppose is absolute idiological senseless opposition like saying nuclear is somewhat non-natural... WTH.. We wouldn't even exist without nuclear energy (fusion or fission).
I think that pipelines should be built which much scrutiny (a lot of regulation) because the alternatives right now are worse (my father's home town of Mégantic was destroyed by the a oil train derailment) and I don't believe shipping oil from the middle east or Africa (with all geo-political implications) is better than getting slightly dirtier oil coming from next door. That's the kind of pragmatism I don't think much people left or right can do. I'm even wary of even telling people I'm for the pipeline because most of them think that this is a blanket stamp on whatever oil/drilling state sponsored subsidy they dreamt about!! When, my approval is very narrow and depends very much on regulation and implementation.
The left tends to have a frankeinstein anti-government view of science (comes from a bohemian influence and the fact that industrialization was used to hurt workers) (science is seen as unnatural (sic) and can hurt the collectivity in that view), while the right selectively picks and chooses which science it deems to support (for religious reasons and when it seems to run counter to entrenched businesses or attitudes) (science runs afoul of individual rights).
In some case, like anti-vaccination, anti-science people on the right and left sort of coalesce into one, which argument is used depends on the community and country.
The reasons are innumerable. The pitfall I'm trying to avoid is a post hoc logical fallacy.
I was using another example where one might have an anecdotal experiences which they then attribute to English as the primary language even though it may unrelated. My experiences tell me that religious belief (or lack thereof) doesn't result in a person's capacity for being compassionate or tolerant of others. I personally find the "teachings" of Jesus to be excellent, just as I find philosophical musings of Ecclesiastes to be excellent, but I am neither Christian or Jewish, respectively. I'm also not an atheist as, by definition, it would mean believing in something I can't begin to prove.
A church that collects money and occupies a physical presence on taxable property is not the same as a religion. You can practice your religion almost anywhere in private and many places in public and none of that ability to practice the religion is impeded by taxation.
I'm against all taxes, but if taxes are levied, churches should be afforded no special favors. It's a violation of the Establishment Clause. I believe the excuse that is used today is that these religious exemptions are part of "tradition", which is a weak argument if I've ever heard of one. The Constitution is in constant jeopardy by incursions from any and all sides and with any and all excuses.
I have never heard of the excuse of "tradition." I think you are presenting a straw man argument. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to tax a church is the right to ban it, which is a violation of the establishment clause. How would you feel about taxing the Democratic Party on the contributions it receives? And if it does not pay those taxes, then it is not allowed to meet or vote or publish ads or have any other rights?
Income tax?
An income tax on churches would have the same effect and be just as illegal as an income tax on political parties. Are you advocating that the Democrats should be forced to pay an income tax on their contributions?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to tax a church is the right to ban it, which is a violation of the establishment clause.
Property taxes is a different matter altogether. Churches should pay property taxes just like other property owners. Just my opinion.
An income tax on churches would have the same effect and be just as illegal as an income tax on political parties. Are you advocating that the Democrats should be forced to pay an income tax on their contributions?
Most mega churches these days are 503 1C not for profit corporations.
Don't you understand?! Tim Cook's life goal is to make every guy choose to be gay so he can have butt sex with them¡
And you say I'm not listening. That comment is almost as bad as calling someone racist or a bigot in an attempt to delegitimize their opinion on this topic. That's what happens in these threads, when someone can't truly defend their argument or they try to put you out of the debate the racist and bigot comments start flying. I assume your comment was sarcasm but just read through this thread racist and bigot start to come up more and more as the posts move on.
Like I said in a previous posts it always strikes me as interesting when a group wants to preach tolerance yet are the ones that throw the biggest stones. By the way thank you for the link to the page with Tim Cooks message I have never seen that before and I stand corrected.
I started to post in this thread because I felt it might not be a good idea for Tim Cook to be such a vocal activist when he is the CEO of Apple because that can come across as him trying to push his agenda using the power of Apple. I'm also not sure why people are so upset with the word agenda.
I'm also not sure why Apple or Cook need to keep pointing out how diverse they are, when running a company it should be really simple the best person get the job. While liberals love this does this mean the best person isn't getting the job so Apple can tout diversity? No one should be discriminated against on the flip side no one should be given a job to meet a quota.
What's truly sad and pathetic even with all this self promotion Apple still gets attacked for trying to make diverse Emojis. Too many people are looking for a reason to be offended.
One last note while it's great to have a page about Inclusion inspires innovation lets take a look at this page.
https://www.apple.com/pr/bios/
Fifteen executive profiles. Twelve males, three females only one being african american. Diversity appears to end at a certain level.
Property taxes is a different matter altogether. Churches should pay property taxes just like other property owners. Just my opinion.
Where I live, I'm about a mile from a shoreline. Along that shoreline are some of the most beautiful homes, huge, old mansions with gargantuan properties. Well, the ones that are still there, anyways -- over the past 20-25 years, a lot of those properties were split up and replaced with stupid-looking McMansions that have about as much individuality as ... well, something with no individuality.
Anyways ... getting back to my point ... along that shoreline is a Catholic church. The amount of property it takes up is immense. For decades it has really PISSED ME OFF that they don't have to pay property taxes. They own the property. They should pay taxes on it just like anyone else would.
Property taxes is a different matter altogether. Churches should pay property taxes just like other property owners. Just my opinion.
How are they different? In fact, they are worse. Besides being terribly regressive, telling people that they cannot meet in their own building to worship unless they pay a tax is a gross violation of the establishment clause. Basically it is saying we only want rich churches around here. You po' people can go meet in another town.
If I did, I'm sure I had good reason.
Almsot as bad? Almost?! Considering I used sarcasm and hyperbole make a joke I would assume, from your PoV, that it would be a lot worse.
So when one reveals an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of others that calls for their civil rights to be squashed I can't use the term bigot to describe them? That is the very definition of the term.
If you want to believe that homosexuality is a choice, and not a product of nature, that can be cured with counseling and religion, you have that write, and I support you in that right to be a homophobic bigot, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call you out for what you are… as I have that right.
And? What is the most successful combination of diversity for Apple execs? Should Cook fire everyone so that the sex, genders and skin colours match up to some Cupertino, California, United States, North America, Western Hemisphere, or Earth average? How about instead of "putting lipstick on a pig" by covering up the fact that the various people are less likely to have their aptitude recognized for these positions with forced inclusions at the expense of the company, that Apple works from the bottom up to create change that allows everyone to be given a more even playing field… exactly like they are doing. But this isn't an overnight change and can't be done by Apple along. We, as a society, have to stop being homophobic, have to stop be misogynistic, have to stop thinking our religion and skin colour is the only that matters so we can get the hardest working people with the most aptitude to help push society forward.
[@]anantksundaram[/@], his comment about Apple executives is another example. Does the fact there as 80% men on Apple's executive team mean that mean are inherently better that business? I don't think so, that are many other cultural reasons at play, and there is no evidence that suggests that women have inferior minds or less leadership potential.
How are they different? In fact, they are worse. Besides being terribly regressive, telling people that they cannot meet in their own building to worship unless they pay a tax is a gross violation of the establishment clause. Basically it is saying we only want rich churches around here. You po' people can go meet in another town.
That is not the way it works. A new congregation usually start out as a home study group. You pool your resources and buy some land and build a church if that is what God calls you to do. But you should pay property taxes, just like the homeowner did where your church was founded.
Not at all. I'm saying the income tax is a major assault on personal liberty and you'll go to jail if you don't pay it.
Much like "child support" payments which are basically a fee than men have to pay to women in order to be able to see their children after divorce.
There are all kinds of fees imposed by government restricting ones right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The argument is always the same: it's to help children/the poor/make sure gays aren't discriminated/protect the environment!
And the counter argument is always the same: the vast majority of people love their children/tolerate whatever/care about the environment and will do whatever they can with the resources they have, even collectively and community-based and b) the money usually doesn't get used for the reasons those taking it from you at gunpoint say it's going to be used, making all socialist schemes a sham and a hustle.
For example I pay child support for one of my children and receive for the other (two moms). But it's stupid because they're going to be clothed and fed and educated regardless of what some old impotent fool in a courtroom says. If a parent neglected their child that's child abuse and a crime. We don't need a multi billion dollar apparatus of courts, lawyers and feminists/leftoids to supposedly FORCE people to care for their kids as a pretense when it's actually a gender based wealth transfer at gunpoint. I'm lucky to be one of about 7% of males who actually receives CS, but that's VOLUNTARY on the part of her mother. It's unlikely any court in the Western Hemisphere would support it.
EDIT: to be clear I don't take cash from the mother. But she pays for a lot of things my daughter needs DIRECTLY and I'm the primary care parent due to circumstances.