Question...

[windmill]

Last time I got in a religious discussion was after I honestly answered a Christians question about my faith. "Twas a terrible discussion with a terrible person. It changed my perspective on religion and faith.
I used to think faith and religion were good things. Now I know that they can be good, heck they can be wonderfull things....but they can also be terrible, destructive things. A person that uses religion as a reference for life is a good person, a person that uses religion as a step-by-step guide to govern most if not all aspects of their life is dangerous.
Basically, those that have faith, but not so much faith it over-rides common sense are good, normal people. Those that have so much faith it takes over their life and contradicts their common sense are psychotic and dangerous.

 

[dogstar]

Windmill, so far the topic has not been strickly about religion....and Im not saying you can"t bring it up or turn it more to directly on religion , but its been more about the Governments role or powers relateing to the Constitution and Bill of rights in regaurds to religion...
I have no problem with people haveing their veiws about religion per say or even discussing it with you....I know there are terrible people in all religions IMO and most of them are the ones that show their terribleness not only to us but to God as well....
The thread has been a civil one so far on the subject and I will aways try my best to be civil and not let someone ruffle me in to being nasty....Although I see it turning more to a political rant soon...which Im so tired of hearing, but I know how the ranters work....
Phixer....The SF school district has a equal rights policy and the military does not....so they claimed an conflict with useing tax money from the school district that was about 1 million of the 1.5 used each year to run the program....not sure why your bringing up charities in relation to that....

 

[phixer]

Dogstar I think your confusing equal rights with qualification and competence. If someone is not qualified to do a certain job refusing them that job based on qualification is not discrimination or an equal rights violation. The military has one of the best EO programs in existance. Certain traits are not compatible with military service or any occupation for that matter, thats not discrimination, its choosing the best qualified. Would it be discriminatory to deny a blind man the job of a pilot?
Can you cite an example for clairification? Considering that SF is the most liberal city in the US it would be easy to say that anyone that dosent agree with thier agenda is discriminatory or any one of the other terms popular today. Maybe its the SF school district who isnt practicing equal rights.
Charities, I found it interesting that in liberal SF the donations to charitible organizations were substantially less than conservative Sioux Falls SD. Typically liberals favor government providing more social assistance which = more taxes. They would rather pay higher taxes for more government programs than give directly. The though process of this city is skewed, mainly because their policies are so far removed from the thinking of the rest of the country.

 

[dogstar]

They discrimonate against gays....and thats was what the school board said was one of the issues.......you may not think a gay guy or girl with 20/20 eye site can pilot a plane...IDK, or may consider that a certain trait thats not compatible with military service, again, IDK...and you may not even think it is discrimonation and its not me thats said it...the school board said that those are some of the reasons they were banning the rotc....
I only stated it to respond to Mr.'s statement that it was because of nancy and that they didn't like the military..( acually the vote was 4 - 2 )
Care to comment on the topic of the thread or is it just going to get into a lableing contest now ???

 

[ruaround]

check this out...
"Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire
Decision to Take Oath on Koran Sparks Controversy
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON (Dec. 1) -- The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator. In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.
"He should not be allowed to do so," Prager wrote, "not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture."
He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should swear on a Christian Bible -- which "America holds as its holiest book. … If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere. Many who posted comments called the United States a Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to gain too much influence. Others wrote about the separation of church and state and said the Constitution protects all religions.
Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."
Colling said Ellison's office has received hundreds of "very bigoted and racist" e-mails and phone calls since Prager's column appeared. "The vast majority said, 'You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,' " Colling said.
"Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his" violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.
"They can bring in whatever they want," says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.
Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected official has "demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon." But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997.
Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be reached for comment."

 

[windmill]

I wouldn't have one problem with that as long as the book he swore upon didn't condone violence. The Koran explicitly states to "chop off the heads and hands of non-believers (non-muslims)"
I wouldn't want him swearing into an important public office on a document promoting murder, especially murder of everyone not being muslim.

 

[schneidts]

I say good for him. Why shouldn't he swear on his religion's holy book? Prager's Mormon arguement isn't valid, since Mormon's still follow the scriptures of the Holy Bible. It's like saying no Protestant has asked to swear on a copy of the Apostle's Creed.

 

[phixer]

Dog* lets seperate some of the facts from interjections of opinion first before someone is tricked into beliving what you said to be truthful.
The current policy is dont ask, dont tell. Thats not discrimination because ones sexual orientation has no bearing on the job they do unless it becomes disruptive to good order and discipline.
Thats why questions of sexual orientation are no longer asked. Who really cares or needs to know? Your example of the pilot is a good one. However violation of this policy creates disruption to good order and discipline in other areas. Which locker room and shower would be used? Which berthing space? How familiar are you with sleeping quarters on a Sub? This creates and situation that quickly effects other areas and degrades mission accomplishment.
If the school board wants to label it as discrimination they are simply hiding behind another catch phrase that they think will justify imposing their beliefs on others who are already enrolled in the program and who obviously feel differently. SF is far removed from the rest of the country in many schools of thought.

 

[nigerbang]

wow I am really intrested in this thread for 2 reasons..
1) It hasnt yet became Nasty and Name Calling
2) There are intresting points coming from everywhere..
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

 

[dogstar]

Phixer....answer me this question....
does the same thing happen to a hetrosexual if his/her sexuality is discovered as if a homosexual's was ??....I have not heard of any hetrosexual getting discharged because someone told or found out.......camouflage it any way you wish, its still unequal treatment and discriminates.......
The way I see order being disrubted would be by some prejudice redneck, bigot wanting to make it so....and of course he would get the promotion I quess...
PS... "" seperate some of the facts from interjections of opinion first before someone is tricked into beliving what you said to be truthful. ""
I have not said that the policy is a good or bad one, im not the one defending or attacking the polocy......Im just clearing up the comments posted for the truth....what have I said thats not true?? .....it is discrimination....it may be needed in the military or it may not, wether it is or not I have not said..

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
...The way I see order being disrubted would be by some prejudice redneck, bigot wanting to make it so....and of course he would get the promotion I quess.....
You all have done well at keeping it civil until now... please keep it under control. You've brought politics, religion, and now sexual preferences into the thread.
Keep a tight rein all...

 

[dogstar]

1journeyman, please explain...
That was not directed at anyone......that was to describe a certain type of stereotypical people that we all know exist........and IMO, should not be defended.
The exact type of person that should and needs to be mentioned if discussing the topic honestly is to be continued.
PS, are you saying that I brought the topics into the thread ?

 

[1journeyman]

As I said Dog, you've all done well so far.
My concern is that once you start pointing out "stereotypes" it will descend rapidly into anarchy.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman

As I said Dog, you've all done well so far.
My concern is that once you start pointing out "stereotypes" it will descend rapidly into anarchy.
Cool, I will admit that perhaps the R word may be over the top, deleat if you want to....
Its a possibility that the thread may go that way, I hope not...I know many with theses types of topics do...
I do like them myself when kept civil and I apologize for tilting the Mod meter there....really not my style but one of my feathers may have got ruffled...

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
Phixer....answer me this question....
does the same thing happen to a hetrosexual if his/her sexuality is discovered as if a homosexual's was ??....I have not heard of any hetrosexual getting discharged because someone told or found out.......camouflage it any way you wish, its still unequal treatment and discriminates.......
The way I see order being disrubted would be by some prejudice redneck, bigot wanting to make it so....and of course he would get the promotion I quess...
PS... "" seperate some of the facts from interjections of opinion first before someone is tricked into beliving what you said to be truthful. ""
I have not said that the policy is a good or bad one, im not the one defending or attacking the polocy......Im just clearing up the comments posted for the truth....what have I said thats not true?? .....it is discrimination....it may be needed in the military or it may not, wether it is or not I have not said..

Sure, I would be glad to answer you, but first Id like to know if you've ever served in a combat unit so that I can cite some examples you might be able to relate to on how it deteriorates unit integrity?

 

[jovial]

I have to agree with Phixer on this one, I work with a lot of guys, myself included who would feel uncomfortable knowing another of the same gender is checking me out in the wrong way. It would be especially difficult to stay focused in a combat situation. I can live with another label? dosent really mean anything.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Phixer
Sure, I would be glad to answer you, but first Id like to know if you've ever served in a combat unit so that I can cite some examples you might be able to relate to on how it deteriorates unit integrity?
Why ?
I have already said that Im not challenging whether the policy is a good one or a bad one....Is it because you feel that one's military service or lack of, somehow has something to do with their right in voiceing the truth or not ? No. I have not served in a combat unit in the military....so, how does that change the truth....
Now, try to understand. I am now defending '' my intergity ''. You have IMO, basically said that something I have said is not true...If you would piont that out, then I will look at it again....and if that was not your intent then I apologize.
Even the law it's self ( U.S.C. Title 10,. 654 ) from Congress goes on and on explaining why they are makeing the rule before even getting to it....same examples that you may piont out....and I will even state that the Constitution even allows the military to limit and restrict the rights of military personel as they see necessary and Congress agrees. I even agree to a point that the policy may be needed. But I as you are trying to point out, I dont truely feel qualified to know. I can understand your's and Jovial's piont as to the possibilities. Im not saying that I agree, but thats not the piont is it ?
My piont is that it either does or does not discriminate against homosexual's sexual oriantations regaurdless of the reasoning. And that this was the SF school boards feelings as to the ROTC and how this got us to here. Now you may have a different understanding of what discrimination is than what they or I do...IDK. If so, then theres nothing more to discuss.
You may answer my earlier questions or not. Either way, I will let you have the last word as far as the discussion with me regaurding this policy....if you choose to.
Unless some how it becomes a religious reasoning with the policy as in keeping with the topic of the thread.....or becomes a new thread.

 

[mr. guitar]

Hey y'all. Sorry, I haven't been postin' lately I've been extremely busy with school. Yesterday I was doin' homework from 3pm-9pm non-stop!!!!! Now that sucks. hahahaha. Oh well, I got it all done. Dogstar...I like the comment you made about the Constitution and the military. Seems to me like everything has taken a wrong turn. What happened here? We were discussing ROTC then it turned into the military and now what? So...let me try to go a different way. Should saying the Pledge be a requirement for every person in the United States to say....including "Under God" ?

 

[sign guy]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
What rights do you feel as a Christian, you dont have ?
It's not so much the rights that I dont have as it's Christians are constently made fun of. I don't run around saying other people god name in vane

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guitar
Hey y'all. Sorry, I haven't been postin' lately I've been extremely busy with school. Yesterday I was doin' homework from 3pm-9pm non-stop!!!!! Now that sucks. hahahaha. Oh well, I got it all done. Dogstar...I like the comment you made about the Constitution and the military. Seems to me like everything has taken a wrong turn. What happened here? We were discussing ROTC then it turned into the military and now what? So...let me try to go a different way. Should saying the Pledge be a requirement for every person in the United States to say....including "Under God" ?
I have already commented on the '' under God '' issue.
You can not make patriots by forceing people to say pledges....