Battlezone Forums

First, GSH, should you feel willing to take this down at the moment, I will understand.

Secondly...

We all enjoyed Interesting article thread v.1, but the second installment got train wrecked by a particualy nasty version of one of teh many arguments had in the original thread. I would very much enjoy for a thread like this to exist, but for all of us, let us remember to think and post sensibly about the discussion/article. I will not say (type) names, but we all have to be a little more open to actually READING some one elses posts and responding rationally to them in whatever circumstances. I will monitor this thread a little more closely myself jsut to see that things are kept in realtive check.

And just to post something we can all agree on:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review ... -tv-391316

This is not a new article, but it is an interesting theory.

Dark Matter Is an Illusion, New Antigravity Theory Says

TnT wrote:This is not a new article, but it is an interesting theory.

Dark Matter Is an Illusion, New Antigravity Theory Says

Interesting.

I've long held a theory that there is a form of matter that exerts "negative gravity" - all other fundamental forces can both attract and repel, but gravity only attracts. I find this extremely odd and think it possible that there may be some aspect of particles that we have not discovered yet that defines their "gravitational polarity".

Seems like a better concept than "dark matter". Bit concerned that my hover tank may actually be powered by antimatter though.
Wonder if there is anti-light too? Can't think of a good use for a torch that makes things dark right now but I'm sure there must be some.

I'm assuming this judge conveniently forgot that freedom from religion exists. Separation principle, and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment... Society has a thing for people who've committed crimes that don't qualify jail time: its called community service.

This Judge, fire him.

Oh wow, what?

If he is a Christian I would say this is no big deal. Its very unpleasant unintentionally causing other peoples deaths. If he does not consider himself to be a Christian, then I guess he can complain, I'm guessing he won't though. Nice to see the Law showing some forgiveness for once.

Eventhough I'm very strongly against state/law mixing up with religion and even believe this judge should be fired for this 'punishment' he gives, it doesnt seem a particularly bad decision. The 'kid' (still cant understand why they allow 16 year old 'children' to drive cars..) is a lot better of this way, I do hope he has a lot of sleepless nights as I believe thats the best punishment anyone can get for their actions.

the reason many of the people who left Great Britain at the time was due to religious persecution by the state-run Church of England. if you chose to worship other than the way they decreed, you could be thrown in jail, fined, etc., so people had to worship in secret.

like it or not, this country was founded as a Christian nation. the intent of the first amendment is to guarantee an individual's right to worship - or not worship - at any Christian church an individual chooses.

*stands back and watches Zeno's head explode*

since then, other religions and sects have come into vogue, so it now applies to them as well.

the main point is that we all are guaranteed the right to make - and live - by our own choices (as long as those choices don't hurt another person or property)

if the judge had told the kid that he had to attend a church of the judge's choosing, i'd demand that the judge be removed, too, but the church the kid is attending is the kid's own church, the church of his own choosing, so no harm, no foul.

Red Devil wrote:the reason many of the people who left Great Britain at the time was due to religious persecution by the state-run Church of England. if you chose to worship other than the way they decreed, you could be thrown in jail, fined, etc., so people had to worship in secret.

Fail to find relevant modern equivalent, look hundreds of years in the past.

Red Devil wrote: like it or not, this country was founded as a Christian nation. the intent of the first amendment is to guarantee an individual's right to worship - or not worship - at any Christian church an individual chooses.

Nowhere does the Constitution appeal to a deity of any religion. In fact, the only mention of it is in the date; "Year of our Lord one thousand, seven hundred and eighty seven", in which "Year of our Lord" is simply an English translation of Anno Domini.

The First Amendment was drafted as a "wall of separation between religion and state" - it further protected the religious freedoms already defined by the Constitution. And then there's the Madison quote "Strongly guarded is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States".

The US constitution allows - and has always allowed - the freedom of practice of both religion and irreligion. That by extension makes indoctrination and restriction like that applied by the judge up there illegal under not only the Constitution itself, but under the First Amendment as well.

Red Devil wrote: if the judge had told the kid that he had to attend a church of the judge's choosing, i'd demand that the judge be removed, too, but the church the kid is attending is the kid's own church, the church of his own choosing, so no harm, no foul.

And what if the kid's not Christian? Should he still be forced to attend a church? If I were told I had to attend a church I'd tell the judge where he can stick it and take contempt of court instead. This isn't a religious or political argument; it's principle. You can't force somebody into religion. It's unethical and immoral.

yes, that is why i said, "at the time"...

if the kid is not attending any church, then it is not, "a church of his own choosing". he sent the kid to "the kid's own church".

the kid can also choose not to comply and then go to jail.

basically, "beaten and criminalized in jail or go to church, your choice, kiddo."

Turkey Tip #1:

to prevent the breast from drying out and to have a perfectly-done turkey, start roasting it breast side down, then flip it every hour or so.

yummmm!

Zenophas wrote:I'm assuming this judge conveniently forgot that freedom from religion exists. Separation principle, and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment... Society has a thing for people who've committed crimes that don't qualify jail time: its called community service.

This Judge, fire him.

Wow, a case where someone makes a point about religion and law that is correct. Bravo Zeno, glad to see a post that isn't just another "separate the church and state, its in the constitution, herp-a-derp". You have it so right, the state can't demand that anyone do anything for or against a religion (unless of course the action is against established law).

Now if we could just properly call Atheism a religion, 'cause it is, we can stop all this improper bull-crap once and for all. The constitution does not have separation of church and state in it, however, what it does have in it does not allow the judge to compel anyone to religious service. *Though* religious service is allowed to count as community service, it cannot be specifically compelled. Also, attending church isn't really 'service'.

Also, we might need to ban RD from posting here because it is just going to get all these topics locked.

Red Devil wrote:if the kid is not attending any church, then it is not, "a church of his own choosing". he sent the kid to "the kid's own church".

That doesn't excuse it; it's still illegal under both the Constitution and the First Amendment, and also still morally and ethically wrong.

Added to which, the fact that it is "the kid's own church" doesn't mean he's actually an attendee. For instance, I live about a quarter-mile from a church. Every other member of my family attends. I do not. It is still "my church", despite the fact that I am not a part of it and do not follow its religion.

Nielk1 wrote: Also, we might need to ban RD from posting here because it is just going to get all these topics locked.

how is it illegal in the Constitution and First Amendment?

semantics

in other news:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/florida-r ... acare.html

full-time employees will be converted to part-time employees with *no* benefits...

i reckon that this way, osama can brag that he's reduced unemployment...