On 10/15/2011 9:54 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 15/10/2011 5:40 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Because you're thinking it's part of a rational, logical argument,
>> rather than the financial equivalent of screaming "you're not
>> patriotic!!1!"
>>
>
> That reminds me. I was travelling home from the States at the beginning
> of July. One of our security guards said, “At least you will get to
> spend the holiday at home.” I had to remind him that we don’t actually
> celebrate America’s Independence Day in Britain,
>
>
>>
>> Again, people who fall for this are the same people who aren't too
>> bright. They also think there's a car engine that runs on water that the
>> oil companies are buying the patents to and hiding, not even realizing
>> that if it's patented it's already public knowledge.
>
> There is/was a car engine that runs on water. The principle was that
> water was sprayed into the cylinder just after the spark to increase the
> efficiency of the combustion force. Why it was not developed I can’t
> say. (Where is Scott when you need him?)
>
No no no. They bought off the guy that made it, then bribed the patent 
office, with the help of aliens, and the FDA, under the control of the 
Pentagon, to alter to patent, or substitute a different one, so no one 
could *ever* create one. Honest, my shoe told me so. Not my left one 
though, that one always lies!

lol

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> This is simple. The logic is that a) they are going to hell, just look 
> at how much "worse" their economies are, b) just look at all these ( 
> entirely made up) examples of bad laws, and evil things happening in 
> them, c) denial that anything good is happening in those places, and d) 
> an even **bigger** total, and complete, denial that Christians are not 
> the majority religion in the world, or that any place with a lot of 
> churches can "possibly" be non-religious.

  The irony is that most European countries, including the nordic ones,
are technically speaking theocracies. That's because their governments
recognize and endorse an official state church which gets significant
privileges over all other denominations and religions. Their constitutions
do not forbid the governments from endorsing a particular religion (because
they do).

  In contrast, the US is technically speaking a secular government because
its constitution forbids the government from endorsing a particular
religion.

  Yet something like 85% of people in the nordic countries are secular
(and the governments are largely secular), while something like 95% of
people in the US is Christian.

  Life is stranger than fiction.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16-10-2011 15:30, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> This is simple. The logic is that a) they are going to hell, just look
>> at how much "worse" their economies are, b) just look at all these (
>> entirely made up) examples of bad laws, and evil things happening in
>> them, c) denial that anything good is happening in those places, and d)
>> an even **bigger** total, and complete, denial that Christians are not
>> the majority religion in the world, or that any place with a lot of
>> churches can "possibly" be non-religious.
>
>    The irony is that most European countries, including the nordic ones,
> are technically speaking theocracies.

To be a theocracy the church(es) should also control legislation and 
provide or choose the politicians. The vatican is in Europe the only 
country where that is the case. You could make a case for England, but I 
don't think you can win that argument.

> That's because their governments
> recognize and endorse an official state church which gets significant
> privileges over all other denominations and religions. Their constitutions
> do not forbid the governments from endorsing a particular religion (because
> they do).

In the Netherlands we have sort of a state religion, in the sense that 
our Queen is from a particular church. But all religions that were 
present in the beginning of the 20th centuries all are treated the same. 
Yes they have privileges, but giving a church tax breaks does not make 
the country a theocracy. Because of the connection between the RC church 
and the Vatican (or for some other reason, IANAH), the RC church was 
allowed to have it's own internal legislation that was respected by the 
Dutch authorities. That is of course a bit less acceptable these days 
because the RC church appears to be ethically rotten to the bone. I am 
not aware that the protestant churches had the same privileges even 
though our Queen is a protestant. Anyway the influence of the church is 
ATM almost completely limited to within the walls of the church.

>    In contrast, the US is technically speaking a secular government because
> its constitution forbids the government from endorsing a particular
> religion.
>
>    Yet something like 85% of people in the nordic countries are secular
> (and the governments are largely secular), while something like 95% of
> people in the US is Christian.

can you give a reference for those numbers?


>    Life is stranger than fiction.

but some life is more equal than others


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> In the Netherlands we have sort of a state religion, in the sense that 
> our Queen is from a particular church. But all religions that were 
> present in the beginning of the 20th centuries all are treated the same. 
> Yes they have privileges, but giving a church tax breaks does not make 
> the country a theocracy.

  I don't know how it is in Netherlands, but in Finland there's an official
state church (from the Lutheran denomination) that has official special
privileges, and special legislature governing it. No other denomination nor
religion has the same status.

  It's the same in Sweden. Britain naturally also has an official state
church (which has even larger power, as they coronate the country's
king/queen, among other things). I don't know about other European
countries, but AFAIK it's pretty common in most of them.

  In fact, the US is the only western country I know that has no official
state church. I don't know what the technically official status of countries
like Canada and Australia is. (Ok, Australia isn't exactly "western", but
I'm using the colloquial meaning of the word here.)

> >    Yet something like 85% of people in the nordic countries are secular
> > (and the governments are largely secular), while something like 95% of
> > people in the US is Christian.

> can you give a reference for those numbers?

  Nope, just repeating what I have heard from sources I consider decently
reliable. The exact numbers are probably slightly different from those,
but are probably not very far from them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16-10-2011 17:36, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> In the Netherlands we have sort of a state religion, in the sense that
>> our Queen is from a particular church. But all religions that were
>> present in the beginning of the 20th centuries all are treated the same.
>> Yes they have privileges, but giving a church tax breaks does not make
>> the country a theocracy.
>
>    I don't know how it is in Netherlands, but in Finland there's an official
> state church (from the Lutheran denomination) that has official special
> privileges, and special legislature governing it. No other denomination nor
> religion has the same status.

But is the church consulted during the law making process? If not it is 
still not a theocracy. Theocracy means that God and its representatives 
are *ruling*.

>    It's the same in Sweden. Britain naturally also has an official state
> church (which has even larger power, as they coronate the country's
> king/queen, among other things). I don't know about other European
> countries, but AFAIK it's pretty common in most of them.
>
>    In fact, the US is the only western country I know that has no official
> state church. I don't know what the technically official status of countries
> like Canada and Australia is. (Ok, Australia isn't exactly "western", but
> I'm using the colloquial meaning of the word here.)
>
>>>     Yet something like 85% of people in the nordic countries are secular
>>> (and the governments are largely secular), while something like 95% of
>>> people in the US is Christian.
>
>> can you give a reference for those numbers?
>
>    Nope, just repeating what I have heard from sources I consider decently
> reliable. The exact numbers are probably slightly different from those,
> but are probably not very far from them.

WIYF
61% secular for the Netherlands and according to W that is one of the 
highest values in Europe. For Finland I can not find a single value but 
the first line in an article about religion in Finland starts with: 
"Most people in Finland are at least nominally members of a Christian 
church,..."
76% Christian in the states according to W. I'll leave it to you to 
judge if your numbers are "probably not very far from them"


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/10/2011 4:36 PM, Warp wrote:
> Britain naturally also has an official state
> church (which has even larger power, as they coronate the country's
> king/queen, among other things).

Point of Order, Mr Chairman!
England has a state church, the Church of England. The Church of 
Scotland, The Kirk, rejected that status and is independent of the crown 
and parliament. The Church in Wales is not an established church. And 
for completeness Northern Island which is not part of Britain does not 
have a state church.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Most people in Finland are at least nominally members of a Christian 
> church,..."

  Membership of the state church says absolutely nothing. The vast majority
of the members of the church are atheists.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Point of Order, Mr Chairman!
> England has a state church, the Church of England. The Church of 
> Scotland, The Kirk, rejected that status and is independent of the crown 
> and parliament. The Church in Wales is not an established church. And 
> for completeness Northern Island which is not part of Britain does not 
> have a state church.

  England, Britain, United Kingdom... It's all so confusing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/10/2011 5:41 PM, Warp wrote:
>    England, Britain, United Kingdom... It's all so confusing...
>

No! (British Isles), United Kingdom, Great Britain, Britain, England, 
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (by population).
I understand that it is confusing but you can think of it this way.
There are the four countries.
Britain is the land that the Romans ruled. It includes England, Wales 
and the southern part of Scotland. It was known as Britannia in those days.
Great Britain came into being with the Acts of Union 1707 when Scotland 
joined with England and Wales in having the same parliament. (England 
and Wales, or at least parts of Wales have had the same laws since the 
11th century and the whole of Wales since the 16th century)
There used to be a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but that 
went the way of all grass when the Irish took their ball home.
Got it?


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

He got it mostly right.

As for the Empire have a look at this children’s programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/clips/p00g1d5l

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 6:30 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> This is simple. The logic is that a) they are going to hell, just look
>> at how much "worse" their economies are, b) just look at all these (
>> entirely made up) examples of bad laws, and evil things happening in
>> them, c) denial that anything good is happening in those places, and d)
>> an even **bigger** total, and complete, denial that Christians are not
>> the majority religion in the world, or that any place with a lot of
>> churches can "possibly" be non-religious.
>
>    The irony is that most European countries, including the nordic ones,
> are technically speaking theocracies. That's because their governments
> recognize and endorse an official state church which gets significant
> privileges over all other denominations and religions. Their constitutions
> do not forbid the governments from endorsing a particular religion (because
> they do).
>
>    In contrast, the US is technically speaking a secular government because
> its constitution forbids the government from endorsing a particular
> religion.
>
>    Yet something like 85% of people in the nordic countries are secular
> (and the governments are largely secular), while something like 95% of
> people in the US is Christian.
>
>    Life is stranger than fiction.
>
There are some people here that theorize that this is precisely 
"because" of the separation thing. Basically, if one group of complete 
nuts run things, and into the ground enough, then it tend to inoculate 
everyone else against them. If you limit that power, such that the 
problems they create are minor, petty, or only effect small numbers of 
people, the default assumption for most is that **their** crazy assed 
belief system wouldn't do the same thing, if *it* was the one trying to 
pass minor, petty, laws, which only effect a relatively small number of 
*other* people.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 9:06 AM, andrel wrote:
>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>> In the Netherlands we have sort of a state religion, in the sense that
>>> our Queen is from a particular church. But all religions that were
>>> present in the beginning of the 20th centuries all are treated the same.
>>> Yes they have privileges, but giving a church tax breaks does not make
>>> the country a theocracy.
>>
>>    I don't know how it is in Netherlands, but in Finland there's an
>> official
>> state church (from the Lutheran denomination) that has official special
>> privileges, and special legislature governing it. No other
>> denomination nor
>> religion has the same status.
>
> But is the church consulted during the law making process? If not it is
> still not a theocracy. Theocracy means that God and its representatives
> are *ruling*.
Actually, this isn't the right question. The correct question is, "Did, 
at one time, the church have primary control over how laws where 
passed." The answer is yes, and that is why no one lets them bloody to 
it any more. In the US, the answer is, "No, they fought with each other 
over what stupid thing they wanted to have passed, so never got much of 
any where. The result being that every damn one of them, and their 
followers, are *still* convinced that letting one of them dictate the 
law would be a really neato idea."

Post a reply to this message

On 16-10-2011 18:36, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> "Most people in Finland are at least nominally members of a Christian
>> church,..."
>
>    Membership of the state church says absolutely nothing. The vast majority
> of the members of the church are atheists.

I was afraid you would say that. Because you are now comparing only 
regular church going Europeans with all Christians in the US.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/15/2011 18:46, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> that he couldn't possibly be born in the US,

The thing that cracks me up about all that is that the person he was running 
against *actually* wasn't born in the USA.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 6:30, Warp wrote:
> while something like 95% of people in the US is Christian.

I think *that* number is rather high, given that some 15% are atheists and 
some 5% are Jewish, Muslim, etc. (And Mormons get counted as Christians.)

Actually, there ya go:

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Pew Forums have actually been around a long time and are fairly respected as 
a source of statistics, too.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 8:36, Warp wrote:
> (Ok, Australia isn't exactly "western", but
> I'm using the colloquial meaning of the word here.)

I think they're considered "western" because they were colonized by England 
and didn't have their own flag first.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 9:06, andrel wrote:
> 76% Christian in the states according to W.

Plus, it's 76% who *say* they're christian. Then ask how many of them have 
been to church in the last 5 years...  :-)


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 9:41, Warp wrote:
>    England, Britain, United Kingdom... It's all so confusing...

That was extremely informative in a dense and amusing way. Thanks!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 3:33 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 6:30, Warp wrote:
>> while something like 95% of people in the US is Christian.
>
> I think *that* number is rather high, given that some 15% are atheists
> and some 5% are Jewish, Muslim, etc. (And Mormons get counted as
> Christians.)
>
> Actually, there ya go:
>
> http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
>
> Pew Forums have actually been around a long time and are fairly
> respected as a source of statistics, too.
>
Mind, its probably inaccurate, in that its practically a national past 
time in the US to deny being agnostic, or even atheist, because you 
don't want he neighbors to find out, or you are doing so for the 
"benefit of others". There are even some priests that have admitted as 
much that the only reason they still have a job is because they think 
religion is "useful" to their parishioners, so are afraid of the 
consequence of admitting they don't believe, and quitting the job.

If even mentioning that you might, maybe, be one, wouldn't make you 
instantly unelectable as even a dog catcher here, and there wasn't a 
whole bloody movement dedicated to lying about them, I would bet the 
number of atheists, and agnostics, was *well* over 15%, but, since I 
have no idea how many it really would be, I think I will stay out of the 
pot, when it comes to exact numbers. It might be depressingly less than 
I would like, or so bloody large that no one would believe the results.

I do know that a *lot* of the "Christians" here are, I suppose, what you 
might call "Atheist Christian", they are pretty sure the Bible is mostly 
bull, that Jesus wasn't divine, and that god isn't out there, probably, 
but they still "believe in" the idea that Jesus came up with some 
amazingly great way of thinking about the world, and acting towards 
others, that no one else ever did. They are also, usually, completely 
clueless as to how factually wrong that is.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 6:30, Warp wrote:
> > while something like 95% of people in the US is Christian.

> I think *that* number is rather high, given that some 15% are atheists and 
> some 5% are Jewish, Muslim, etc. (And Mormons get counted as Christians.)

> Actually, there ya go:

> http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

> Pew Forums have actually been around a long time and are fairly respected as 
> a source of statistics, too.

  What? You don't consider Fox News to be a reliable source of information?-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzVxHF8T0Hk

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/10/2011 11:29 PM, Darren New wrote:

> The thing that cracks me up about all that is that the person he was
> running against *actually* wasn't born in the USA.

My lolrus!

Post a reply to this message

On 17/10/2011 03:48 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Mind, its probably inaccurate, in that its practically a national past
> time in the US to deny being agnostic, or even atheist, because you
> don't want he neighbors to find out

Is it true that if people find out you don't believe in God, you will 
*actually* be brutally murdered in your sleep? Or is that an exaggeration?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/15/2011 10:13 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> What I /have/ noticed about the USA is that they tend to assert that
> their way of life is the only /correct/ one. Like, the way they live is
> the best way, and the rest of the world just hasn't learned how to be as
> awesome as them yet. Whereas in Europe, each country has roughly similar
> laws and so forth, but there are several areas of fairly drastic
> difference. And then there's culture and so forth. And overall, nobody
> seems to be sitting there saying "we're the best in Europe, and we pitty
> all those other countries who haven't learned how to be like us yet".

Yep. There are definitely people who think that way. If a new concept 
comes around, and we haven't done that in the past, and it involves 
making life better for people, it immediately gets called Socialism 
and/or Communism. The ones you see are the most vocal, often those most 
vocal are also the most insane.

Of course, I take issue with the healthcare bill we passed as it stands, 
now. Essentially, it's written so that everyone *must* get health 
insurance, or be fined. It seems to benefit the insurance companies more 
than it does the people.

As if GB has never said that they are superior? ;)

> Also: The USA is huge. I can't help feeling that somewhere within it,
> there must be some intelligent people. And those people must feel really
> embarrassed that they live in the same country as the morons who make
> America look so bad to the rest of the world with depressing frequency...

I've become numb to it. It doesn't faze me anymore, really. I just let 
them demonstrate beyond all doubt their ignorance ;)

> (I remember when the London riots where happening. And then they started
> happening all over the country. I felt ashemed to be British that day.)
>


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> What I /have/ noticed about the USA is that they tend to assert that
>> their way of life is the only /correct/ one.
>
> Yep. There are definitely people who think that way.

There's probably people like that everywhere. It's just that, for 
whatever reason, this seems to be more prominent in the USA.

[I deliberately use the term "USA" rather than "America" because 
strictly speaking the latter is two entire continents comprising 
multiple countries... I believe the Arrogant Worms make a lengthy song 
about this exact matter...]

> If a new concept
> comes around, and we haven't done that in the past, and it involves
> making life better for people, it immediately gets called Socialism
> and/or Communism.

Yeah. Because Communism is completely evil, right? RIGHT??

Um... I still haven't figured out *why* it's evil, but apparently it is.

> The ones you see are the most vocal, often those most
> vocal are also the most insane.

You *do* seem to have the most insane people. Just saying... ;-)

> Of course, I take issue with the healthcare bill we passed as it stands,
> now. Essentially, it's written so that everyone *must* get health
> insurance, or be fined. It seems to benefit the insurance companies more
> than it does the people.

That does sound kind of defective, actually.

Of course, saying that a specific formulation of something is suboptimal 
is different than saying that anyone who's poor should just be left to 
die, and to do otherwise is to oppose God's will...

> As if GB has never said that they are superior? ;)

At some time, we actually *did* rule half the world. For real. :-P

But yeah, these days, aside from a few people who are like "all them 
niggers should **** off back to their own country", most people in 
Britain don't walk around thinking they're better than the rest of the 
world, or even just the rest of Europe.

>> Also: The USA is huge. I can't help feeling that somewhere within it,
>> there must be some intelligent people. And those people must feel really
>> embarrassed that they live in the same country as the morons who make
>> America look so bad to the rest of the world with depressing frequency...
>
> I've become numb to it. It doesn't faze me anymore, really. I just let
> them demonstrate beyond all doubt their ignorance ;)

You realise that a lot of people think your entire country is filled 
with morons and crazy people, right?

I mean, damn, I have no idea what people who aren't British think about 
Britain - probably that we all eat fish & chips and drink beer all day 
or something - but AFAIK, they don't think we're crazy. At least, I hope 
not. o_O

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 7:14, Invisible wrote:
> Um... I still haven't figured out *why* it's evil, but apparently it is.

When I was growing up, communism and fascism and socialism were economic 
policies. Now they're forms of government. At least if you believe a 
dictionary from the '60s and a dictionary from the 2000's.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 7:03 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 10/15/2011 10:13 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> What I /have/ noticed about the USA is that they tend to assert that
>> their way of life is the only /correct/ one. Like, the way they live is
>> the best way, and the rest of the world just hasn't learned how to be as
>> awesome as them yet. Whereas in Europe, each country has roughly similar
>> laws and so forth, but there are several areas of fairly drastic
>> difference. And then there's culture and so forth. And overall, nobody
>> seems to be sitting there saying "we're the best in Europe, and we pitty
>> all those other countries who haven't learned how to be like us yet".
>
> Yep. There are definitely people who think that way. If a new concept
> comes around, and we haven't done that in the past, and it involves
> making life better for people, it immediately gets called Socialism
> and/or Communism. The ones you see are the most vocal, often those most
> vocal are also the most insane.
>
> Of course, I take issue with the healthcare bill we passed as it stands,
> now. Essentially, it's written so that everyone *must* get health
> insurance, or be fined. It seems to benefit the insurance companies more
> than it does the people.
>
> As if GB has never said that they are superior? ;)
>
Since the original intent had been to set up a separate system to get 
it, so there was competition, but without that.. Still, the principle 
idea of making it so *everyone* has to buy into some isn't to help the 
insurance companies, so much as it is to stop the government having to 
pay out money to help people that didn't buy any, and maybe get them to 
see a doctor "before" it costs 50 times as much to treat them. But, 
yeah, so long as the insurance industry is the "only" source, and they 
can all sit around, together, at a table and decide how to screw 
everyone the next year, it only fixes half the problem.

Its telling though that the other side doesn't even think we need to fix 
*any* problem, except to maybe just not use government money at all, 
ever, for anyone, while still letting the insurance industry run rampant 
over the populous.

Recent law they are trying to pass - Protection for Catholic hospitals, 
which are sadly a large percentage of them, to not merely deny help to 
women on the verge of death, due to pregnancy complications, but to also 
"deny them the right to be transferred to some place where they can be 
treated". The theory being that, somehow, those women are, I don't know 
what the fuck, maybe bribing the Catholic doctors to "fake" illness, or 
causing it themselves, in some proxy to get shipped to another hospital, 
to receive abortions? I mean WTF? But, apparently, this is *way* more 
important than taking jobs seriously, or creating legislation about 
*anything* other than bullshit like this.

>> Also: The USA is huge. I can't help feeling that somewhere within it,
>> there must be some intelligent people. And those people must feel really
>> embarrassed that they live in the same country as the morons who make
>> America look so bad to the rest of the world with depressing frequency...
>
> I've become numb to it. It doesn't faze me anymore, really. I just let
> them demonstrate beyond all doubt their ignorance ;)
>
Unfortunately, one of the things such nutcases count on is the rest of 
us becoming "numb to it" and not bloody doing a damn thing about it. 
Scares the shit out of them when people do silly things like you know, 
vote, or march. That being why they are trying damn hard, where ever 
they can, to make both as hard as bloody possible for those of us that 
might actually have gotten, finally, pissed off enough to do either.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 1:20 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 17/10/2011 03:48 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Mind, its probably inaccurate, in that its practically a national past
>> time in the US to deny being agnostic, or even atheist, because you
>> don't want he neighbors to find out
>
> Is it true that if people find out you don't believe in God, you will
> *actually* be brutally murdered in your sleep? Or is that an exaggeration?
Depends, which state did you hear it happening in?

Mind, that is an exaggeration of the truth, but its not that damn 
dissimilar to the reality in some places.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Recent law they are trying to pass - Protection for Catholic hospitals, 
> which are sadly a large percentage of them, to not merely deny help to 
> women on the verge of death, due to pregnancy complications, but to also 
> "deny them the right to be transferred to some place where they can be 
> treated". The theory being that, somehow, those women are, I don't know 
> what the fuck, maybe bribing the Catholic doctors to "fake" illness, or 
> causing it themselves, in some proxy to get shipped to another hospital, 
> to receive abortions? I mean WTF? But, apparently, this is *way* more 
> important than taking jobs seriously, or creating legislation about 
> *anything* other than bullshit like this.

  I hear that in some state they are trying to redefine the legal meaning
of "rape" in such a way that it's not grounds for abortion anymore. This
not to talk about that law proposal that women seeking abortion must be
subjected to a mandatory and extensive guilt-trip by the doctor (among
other things, the doctor must make her listen to the heartbeat of the
fetus, give a long lecture about the sanctity of life, and whatnot).

  I don't really get it. Rather than these right-wing nutjobs jumping
through incredibly ridiculous hoops to make abortion illegal in practice,
why they don't simply make it illegal, period? That's what they want. Why
are they engaging in these ridiculous legal acrobatics? (Not that I would
endorse them to do that, I'm just honestly wondering. Is it some kind of
federal law that they cannot override or something?)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 7:03, Mike Raiford wrote:
> As if GB has never said that they are superior? ;)

Actually, I spent several minutes trying to figure out which George Bush you 
were talking about here.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 12:19, Warp wrote:
> why they don't simply make it illegal, period?

They tried. The supreme court decided that abortions in the first 3 months 
are so are the private business of the woman and her doctor, so you can't 
make a federal law against it. (That's the whole "Roe vs Wade" court case.)

Changing that federal law would take some 66% of the senators and 75% of the 
states agreeing to it.

> federal law that they cannot override or something?)

Yes. Read about "Roe vs Wade", which is the court case that most broadly 
covers this particular topic.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 17-10-2011 16:14, Invisible wrote:
>>> What I /have/ noticed about the USA is that they tend to assert that
>>> their way of life is the only /correct/ one.
>>
>> Yep. There are definitely people who think that way.
>
> There's probably people like that everywhere. It's just that, for
> whatever reason, this seems to be more prominent in the USA.
>
> [I deliberately use the term "USA" rather than "America" because
> strictly speaking the latter is two entire continents comprising
> multiple countries... I believe the Arrogant Worms make a lengthy song
> about this exact matter...]
>
>> If a new concept
>> comes around, and we haven't done that in the past, and it involves
>> making life better for people, it immediately gets called Socialism
>> and/or Communism.
>
> Yeah. Because Communism is completely evil, right? RIGHT??
>
> Um... I still haven't figured out *why* it's evil, but apparently it is.

Because the leaders of the communist revolution did not respect the 
properties and privileges of the rich. Besides they also did not think 
rich politically dominant churches were a good idea, hence it was 
written in the bible that the communists were evil.

OK in most cases the communists turned out to be evil, but when the 
propaganda began they had no way of knowing that. Besides they were evil 
in almost the same way as capitalists. Who was more evil: Stalin or 
Hitler, Brezhnev or Videla, Batista or Castro? And when? When they were 
in power or only in hindsight?

Post a reply to this message

On 17-10-2011 21:24, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 7:03, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> As if GB has never said that they are superior? ;)
>
> Actually, I spent several minutes trying to figure out which George Bush
> you were talking about here.

And, which one was it?


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 12:19, Warp wrote:
> > why they don't simply make it illegal, period?

> They tried. The supreme court decided that abortions in the first 3 months 
> are so are the private business of the woman and her doctor, so you can't 
> make a federal law against it. (That's the whole "Roe vs Wade" court case.)

> Changing that federal law would take some 66% of the senators and 75% of the 
> states agreeing to it.

  So instead they are trying to make it illegal de-facto, even though
*technically* it's still legal de-jure?

  Shouldn't there be a federal law against states trying to circumvent
federal laws?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 13:07, Warp wrote:
>    So instead they are trying to make it illegal de-facto, even though
> *technically* it's still legal de-jure?

Yes, basically. And interestingly enough, politicians all get asked about 
this, in spite of the fact that everyone knows it can't really be changed 
without a major upheaval of power.

>    Shouldn't there be a federal law against states trying to circumvent
> federal laws?

Every law can be circumvented somehow. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

>> Is it true that if people find out you don't believe in God, you will
>> *actually* be brutally murdered in your sleep? Or is that an
>> exaggeration?

> Depends, which state did you hear it happening in?
>
> Mind, that is an exaggeration of the truth, but its not that damn
> dissimilar to the reality in some places.

OK, *so* glad I decided not to take that trip to America now... o_O

Post a reply to this message

On 10/18/2011 0:57, Invisible wrote:
>>> Is it true that if people find out you don't believe in God, you will
>>> *actually* be brutally murdered in your sleep? Or is that an
>>> exaggeration?
>
>> Depends, which state did you hear it happening in?
>>
>> Mind, that is an exaggeration of the truth, but its not that damn
>> dissimilar to the reality in some places.
>
> OK, *so* glad I decided not to take that trip to America now... o_O

Actually, no, nobody actually gets murdered in their sleep for being 
atheists. You get nasty looks from neighbors, and teachers give your kids 
bad grades, and your house might even get TPed, but even that is very rare 
and limited to small towns where everyone is inbred anyway.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

>> OK, *so* glad I decided not to take that trip to America now... o_O
>
> Actually, no, nobody actually gets murdered in their sleep for being
> atheists. You get nasty looks from neighbors, and teachers give your
> kids bad grades, and your house might even get TPed

...so it's like living in England if you happen to be Asian?

> but even that is
> very rare and limited to small towns where everyone is inbred anyway.

"Small towns where everyone is inbred anyway" is TRWTF. o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > but even that is
> > very rare and limited to small towns where everyone is inbred anyway.

> "Small towns where everyone is inbred anyway" is TRWTF. o_O

  Ever seen the movie Deliverance? Just like there. (If you haven't seen
it, I highly recommend it.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 12:19 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> Recent law they are trying to pass - Protection for Catholic hospitals,
>> which are sadly a large percentage of them, to not merely deny help to
>> women on the verge of death, due to pregnancy complications, but to also
>> "deny them the right to be transferred to some place where they can be
>> treated". The theory being that, somehow, those women are, I don't know
>> what the fuck, maybe bribing the Catholic doctors to "fake" illness, or
>> causing it themselves, in some proxy to get shipped to another hospital,
>> to receive abortions? I mean WTF? But, apparently, this is *way* more
>> important than taking jobs seriously, or creating legislation about
>> *anything* other than bullshit like this.
>
>    I hear that in some state they are trying to redefine the legal meaning
> of "rape" in such a way that it's not grounds for abortion anymore. This
> not to talk about that law proposal that women seeking abortion must be
> subjected to a mandatory and extensive guilt-trip by the doctor (among
> other things, the doctor must make her listen to the heartbeat of the
> fetus, give a long lecture about the sanctity of life, and whatnot).
>
>    I don't really get it. Rather than these right-wing nutjobs jumping
> through incredibly ridiculous hoops to make abortion illegal in practice,
> why they don't simply make it illegal, period? That's what they want. Why
> are they engaging in these ridiculous legal acrobatics? (Not that I would
> endorse them to do that, I'm just honestly wondering. Is it some kind of
> federal law that they cannot override or something?)
>
Because, 90% of the people in the country wouldn't stand for the other 
10% making it illegal, and not just because:

1. The number of cases where higher when it was illegal.
2. The number of cases of teen pregnancies and abortions is far higher, 
in the places that these wackos come from (even if they have to go out 
of state to find services) than all the "liberal" places, which teach 
real sex education, don't have laws letting pharmacists opt out of 
selling birth control, etc.
3. Short of overturning decades of legal precedent, including the 
original Roe vs. Wade, they simply ***can't legally ban it***.

So, their tactic is the same as everything else they do, including 
sneaking creationism into classrooms, and other crap they also want. 
Find loopholes, lie, make it harder to stop their own agenda, lie, find 
way to circumvent people's freedoms, lie some more, and so on.

Its a gorilla war, being fought by fanatics, lunatics, and idiots, 
against the rest of the population, on some insane theory that every 
single damn thing that ever goes wrong in the US has **nothing** to do 
with the economy, or laws, or anything else that is fucked up. No, 
everything *wrong* is caused by gay rights, abortion, and daring to 
state that sex is something you can't scare/lie them into avoiding, 
until marriage. They probably literally, in some cases, *do* think that 
women are either faking their life threatening conditions, during 
difficult births, or that somehow those things are a "result of unwed 
sex, or promiscuity".

They simply cannot, without violating prior law, or the constitution, 
impose these rules on the rest of the country. This means that all they 
have is loopholes, lies, and money, to try to force such things through 
*at all*.

Sadly, in some cases, they end up being effective, like how Arizona, 
where I live, can't legally "not" teach sex ed at all, but *is* required 
to "emphasize stupid, religiously motivated, bullshit, which doesn't 
work, i.e. abstinence."

Post a reply to this message

On 10/18/2011 8:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/18/2011 0:57, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Is it true that if people find out you don't believe in God, you will
>>>> *actually* be brutally murdered in your sleep? Or is that an
>>>> exaggeration?
>>
>>> Depends, which state did you hear it happening in?
>>>
>>> Mind, that is an exaggeration of the truth, but its not that damn
>>> dissimilar to the reality in some places.
>>
>> OK, *so* glad I decided not to take that trip to America now... o_O
>
> Actually, no, nobody actually gets murdered in their sleep for being
> atheists. You get nasty looks from neighbors, and teachers give your
> kids bad grades, and your house might even get TPed, but even that is
> very rare and limited to small towns where everyone is inbred anyway.
>
There have been a "few" cases, someone dead by the road, a few days 
after raising a stink about something being done in a town meeting, or 
government event, that was purely sectarian. Whole families having to 
move, because while no one had died *yet* it was fairly obvious that 
staying was likely to end up with a corpse, even if it wasn't entirely 
clear if one of the family would be on the slab, or some idiot that went 
one step farther over the edge, and tried to rape/beat up one of them 
was there instead... They are not common, but they do happen, as much as 
we actually hear about it, in some parts of the south.

For the most part though, they know they are a small minority, they have 
a very insane idea about what is needed to "solve" the countries 
problems (in that it involves pretty much violating the rights of the 
other 99.9% of the US), a lot of it is small time BS, by people that 
wouldn't, themselves, lift of finger to hurt anyone, but never the less 
are *greatly* offended when someone suggests their sectarian behaviors, 
and even some ordinances/laws they have locally, are illegal under the 
US constitution, etc. The biggest problem is that the truly crazy are 
able to listen to the ranting, whining, idiocy, of such people, over the 
net, and you get the, "No one among the Christians For a Theocratic 
Constitution ***actually*** said to shoot at X person, its purely 
coincidence that we hinted at it for months over the local radio, and 
the internet, during which the person that did it happened to a) listen 
to the radio, and read our website!". I personally, in the case of some 
of the "pro-life" movement, and some others, this shouldn't be a valid 
defense of their actions. How often do you hear from "some" of the 
middle eastern wackos that they, "Talk about the west, and what someone 
should do about it, or blow up, or shoot, but they never *ordered*, or 
*payed* anyone to do so, personally!"? Too damn many of them. But, its 
the same defense by radical pro-life sites, to why its not their fault 
that certain clinics get fire bombed, or doctors shot and killed.

And, its the same "defense" from the radical, "Anti-everything that 
isn't Evangelical, often Biblical Literalist, Christian". Any 
inexplicable, oddly not well investigated, and, as far as we know, 
without looking at every local paper in the region, rare, case, is 
completely unrelated, according to these sorts of groups. After all, 
they never ordered, or paid, anyone to do it.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/10/2011 10:47 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> There have been a "few" cases, someone dead by the road, a few days
> after raising a stink about something being done in a town meeting, or
> government event, that was purely sectarian. Whole families having to
> move, because while no one had died *yet* it was fairly obvious that
> staying was likely to end up with a corpse, even if it wasn't entirely
> clear if one of the family would be on the slab, or some idiot that went
> one step farther over the edge, and tried to rape/beat up one of them
> was there instead... They are not common, but they do happen, as much as
> we actually hear about it, in some parts of the south.
>
> For the most part though, they know they are a small minority, they have
> a very insane idea about what is needed to "solve" the countries
> problems (in that it involves pretty much violating the rights of the
> other 99.9% of the US), a lot of it is small time BS, by people that
> wouldn't, themselves, lift of finger to hurt anyone, but never the less
> are *greatly* offended when someone suggests their sectarian behaviors,
> and even some ordinances/laws they have locally, are illegal under the
> US constitution, etc. The biggest problem is that the truly crazy are
> able to listen to the ranting, whining, idiocy, of such people, over the
> net, and you get the, "No one among the Christians For a Theocratic
> Constitution ***actually*** said to shoot at X person, its purely
> coincidence that we hinted at it for months over the local radio, and
> the internet, during which the person that did it happened to a) listen
> to the radio, and read our website!". I personally, in the case of some
> of the "pro-life" movement, and some others, this shouldn't be a valid
> defense of their actions. How often do you hear from "some" of the
> middle eastern wackos that they, "Talk about the west, and what someone
> should do about it, or blow up, or shoot, but they never *ordered*, or
> *payed* anyone to do so, personally!"? Too damn many of them. But, its
> the same defense by radical pro-life sites, to why its not their fault
> that certain clinics get fire bombed, or doctors shot and killed.
>
> And, its the same "defense" from the radical, "Anti-everything that
> isn't Evangelical, often Biblical Literalist, Christian". Any
> inexplicable, oddly not well investigated, and, as far as we know,
> without looking at every local paper in the region, rare, case, is
> completely unrelated, according to these sorts of groups. After all,
> they never ordered, or paid, anyone to do it.

You make America sound like how Europe was four centuries ago.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:15:43 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> You make America sound like how Europe was four centuries ago.

Well, it's a diverse country....so it's hard to make a broad sweeping 
generalisation like that.

Some places it's fine to be an atheist, others not so much.  I'm in Utah 
and am an atheist, but I don't advertise it so much (though most of my 
friends here wouldn't particularly care, whether they're LDS or not).

But I think I'd avoid making it known while in places like rural areas in 
the southeast.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/19/2011 12:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:15:43 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> You make America sound like how Europe was four centuries ago.
>
> Well, it's a diverse country....so it's hard to make a broad sweeping
> generalisation like that.
>
> Some places it's fine to be an atheist, others not so much.  I'm in Utah
> and am an atheist, but I don't advertise it so much (though most of my
> friends here wouldn't particularly care, whether they're LDS or not).
>
> But I think I'd avoid making it known while in places like rural areas in
> the southeast.
>
> Jim
Pharyngula has been running stuff recently from people on "Why I am an 
atheist". One of the recent entries is from someone in Mississippi. 
Doesn't say that its "dangerous" per-say to be one, but definitely 
damned inconvenient, if they ever came out and said so. I would argue 
that there are probably a "few" places in some of those states where 
"inconvenient" goes a bit beyond just not having anyone at all listen to 
anything you ever say, or the like. There are some real nuts in this 
country, more so even than the people running for office, and, pretty 
much by definition, such people are scared to death of being alone, so 
they tend to congregate all in one place. This means either clubs (if in 
larger cities), but little opportunity to really hurt anyone, or, 
possibly, whole bloody towns, in places where the "law" is one of their 
own members.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/19/why-i-am-an-atheist-lucretius-of-mississippi/

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:33:26 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Pharyngula has been running stuff recently from people on "Why I am an
> atheist". One of the recent entries is from someone in Mississippi.
> Doesn't say that its "dangerous" per-say to be one, but definitely
> damned inconvenient, if they ever came out and said so. I would argue
> that there are probably a "few" places in some of those states where
> "inconvenient" goes a bit beyond just not having anyone at all listen to
> anything you ever say, or the like. There are some real nuts in this
> country, more so even than the people running for office, and, pretty
> much by definition, such people are scared to death of being alone, so
> they tend to congregate all in one place. This means either clubs (if in
> larger cities), but little opportunity to really hurt anyone, or,
> possibly, whole bloody towns, in places where the "law" is one of their
> own members.

Absolutely - it's hard to even generalise about a region or even a small 
town.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 9:14 AM, Invisible wrote:

> But yeah, these days, aside from a few people who are like "all them
> niggers should **** off back to their own country", most people in
> Britain don't walk around thinking they're better than the rest of the
> world, or even just the rest of Europe.

Oooh, that's a big no-no here in the USA, I didn't think that word was 
used outside of our country... But I guess it is.

>
> You realise that a lot of people think your entire country is filled
> with morons and crazy people, right?
>

Yeah, I'm completely aware of it, and understand the perception.

> I mean, damn, I have no idea what people who aren't British think about
> Britain - probably that we all eat fish & chips and drink beer all day
> or something - but AFAIK, they don't think we're crazy. At least, I hope
> not. o_O

Nope... I don't see Britain as crazy. Nor do I see them as eating fish 
and chips. But ... the beer.... well, your pints are bigger than our 
pints-- and you have real beer as opposed to this watery stuff that 
sells in droves over here.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 2:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 7:03, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> As if GB has never said that they are superior? ;)
>
> Actually, I spent several minutes trying to figure out which George Bush
> you were talking about here.
>

Neh.. That would either be W or GHWB. :)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 20/10/2011 3:07 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 9:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
>> But yeah, these days, aside from a few people who are like "all them
>> niggers should **** off back to their own country", most people in
>> Britain don't walk around thinking they're better than the rest of the
>> world, or even just the rest of Europe.
>
> Oooh, that's a big no-no here in the USA, I didn't think that word was 
> used outside of our country... But I guess it is. 

It is a big no-no here too.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10/20/2011 7:23 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/10/2011 3:07 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> On 10/17/2011 9:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> But yeah, these days, aside from a few people who are like "all them
>>> niggers should **** off back to their own country", most people in
>>> Britain don't walk around thinking they're better than the rest of the
>>> world, or even just the rest of Europe.
>>
>> Oooh, that's a big no-no here in the USA, I didn't think that word was
>> used outside of our country... But I guess it is.
>
> It is a big no-no here too.
>
Interesting question though, is it a no-no for everyone, or do you have 
things like The Boondocks, over there too, and other black 
entertainment, where the black people use it all the time, but white 
people are never supposed to?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/19/2011 6:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:33:26 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Pharyngula has been running stuff recently from people on "Why I am an
>> atheist". One of the recent entries is from someone in Mississippi.
>> Doesn't say that its "dangerous" per-say to be one, but definitely
>> damned inconvenient, if they ever came out and said so. I would argue
>> that there are probably a "few" places in some of those states where
>> "inconvenient" goes a bit beyond just not having anyone at all listen to
>> anything you ever say, or the like. There are some real nuts in this
>> country, more so even than the people running for office, and, pretty
>> much by definition, such people are scared to death of being alone, so
>> they tend to congregate all in one place. This means either clubs (if in
>> larger cities), but little opportunity to really hurt anyone, or,
>> possibly, whole bloody towns, in places where the "law" is one of their
>> own members.
>
> Absolutely - it's hard to even generalise about a region or even a small
> town.
>
> Jim
Except that for such towns to exist, you kind of need a lot of other 
towns around them, and a state, which doesn't precisely condone such 
things, but does turn a blind eye to them, because of a general sense 
that, "Those buggers might go a wee bit too far, but in general, the 
sentiment is right."

Post a reply to this message

On 20/10/2011 11:41 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>> It is a big no-no here too.
>>
> Interesting question though, is it a no-no for everyone, or do you 
> have things like The Boondocks, over there too, and other black 
> entertainment, where the black people use it all the time, but white 
> people are never supposed to? 
I can't answer that question so I'll answer another one. ;-)

It is not as taboo here as it is in the US, I think. You could say “That 
racist B called Joseph a nigger.” Or you could use it in a quote as in 
the line from Blazing Saddles. “Don’t move or I’ll shoot the…” The word 
has not been used in polite society since the 60’s I would say.

As for young people copying Gansta talk, they might but I’ve little 
experience of it and as I don’t watch much TV I can’t help there.



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> But yeah, these days, aside from a few people who are like "all them
>>> niggers should **** off back to their own country", most people in
>>> Britain don't walk around thinking they're better than the rest of the
>>> world, or even just the rest of Europe.
>>
>> Oooh, that's a big no-no here in the USA, I didn't think that word was
>> used outside of our country... But I guess it is.
>
> It is a big no-no here too.

I think it's a no-no everywhere. But there's always a few arrogant 
self-righteous morons who think they're better than everyone else.

Post a reply to this message