Back to the lawsuit, the local Minnesota news (which is also part of the suit) says that the judge ruled that these states had standing because of loss business due to the affected immigrants not being able to participate in, in particular attending the state’s universities and colleges. The state is losing revenue due to the ban, so it has standing.
it is a stupid suggestion.
and since the first signs of the modern homo sapiens behavior comes with the first signs of the kinds of practices that are religious, like the burials, the idea of a certain kind of athiest that they can abolish religion is like the communists who thought they could create the New Communist man.
I think raising a straw man is more stupid, but that is not just me.
Nowhere do I say that removing religion should be done by force or the enforcement made by a police state. Education was the point here. So call off your dogs, OK?
Just because I think being in a tribe of the reflexively and perpetually outraged and offended is counterproductive doesn’t necessitate you being a mean potty mouth.
Abolish religion? Why? Blindly accept every group’s particular religious belief? No.
Nothing says “wanker” more than complaining about being insulted in the Pit. Save the pedantic bullshit for some other forum, dipshit.
Do you need a safe space and a warm blanket?
Abolish religion? No
Blindly accept every group’s particular religious beliefs? No
Let those beliefs become the law of the land for everyone else?
Aw HELL NO.
Actually, I have more respect (but still not much) for the guy who is honest enough to simply say “I hate YOU” - without all the qualifiers and excuses.
I said not one thing about the use of force or a police state.
I said the concept is as stupid and as unrealistic as the Soviet New Man idea. no mention was made of how you wish to do it, it is a stupid idea.
the history of the evolution of the human shows intertwining with the religion and the religious behaviors.
It is the magical thinking and the self deception not very different from what you criticize in the believers.
and no, I am not even religious really, so this reaction is not because of my beliefs
Not being smart enough to lie about something like that doesn’t really earn my respect.
I’m aware of at least some of them. But a lot of is Muslim-on-Muslim violence, or Sunni-on-Shi’i, following a period of Saudi funding of Muslim “fundamentalist” missionaries around the world. Historically, Islam has not typically been so monstrous. The Saudi-funded extreme conformist version has borne this bitter fruit.
But as the child of Christians, let me tell you that Christians can also be scary and violent. I remember the stories coming out of the breakup of Yugoslavia. It appeared to be Orthodox Christians who committed the greatest atrocities, and Muslims who committed the least, with Roman Catholic militants somewhere in between. In Central African Republic today, it’s the* Christians *who are accused of cannibalizing their enemies. And Muslims will point to attacks committed by Armenians in the establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as a sign that the Christians are the bad guys.
I’m sure someone who knows more about it can tell of violent worshipers of Shiva in your own country, or Buddhist violence in Myanmar.
Right now, one specific kind of Muslim is “the worst.” But that is a kind of Muslim that flows from a nasty, intolerant faction largely based in Saudi Arabia, has expanded on the back of Saudi money, and persecutes other Muslims most of all. Muslims in general are not utter monsters, and non-Muslims are not immune to behaving as monsters.
So, yes, I want to save “Muslims” from “Muslim fundamentalism.” I am disgusted by the anti-Shi’ite atrocities in Pakistan, as I am by Boko Haram, and various other things that are Muslims killing Muslims, as I am disgusted by Christians and Muslims killing each other.
Such anger! And where is the complaint. I’m merely commenting on your potty mouth. It’s unbecoming.
Don’t we all?
The guys that did “Whiter Shade of Pale?”
Any idea when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will render their decision?
:rolleyes:
Well so much for the enlightenment and science that eventually gave us even the computer you are replying with. What took place was essentially that secular forces eventually were strong enough to tell the religious ruling the cities to stop killing “witches” like they did at Salem.
Education and new knowledge made a big difference even though many have tried their best to convince others that that was not the case. Personally, I would had liked to read that they executed just the idiots that ordered the killings of those falsely accused in Salem and many other places, but I’m a realist. Most of the organizers did not suffer more than just shame for the rest of their lives (but I would bet that in their churches they later died of old age convinced that they did good). Most in America decided that religious behaviors would stay anyhow, just not the ones that demanded a lack of independent due process. For the faithful, even in places were they lost much of their power, there are still a lot of good deeds (like charity) and bad deeds (live voting for Trump) that they can do to remain relevant for ages.
What I see still is a good number of religious Americans (but with secular leanings) that are not afraid to know that while religion lost its best argument when they were no longer allowed to burn people, they also know too that secular organizations will not hunt them as they did when the “people of faith” hunted others.
So again, I’m not talking about the removal of religion, just taking away their power to hurt the ones that do not believe like them. You are still in straw man mode. Drop it.
I am curious too.
"
Majorities in all but two of the 10 countries polled supported a ban, ranging from 71 percent in Poland, to 53 percent in Germany, 47 percent in the United Kingdom and 41 percent in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32 percent."
Humble request to opposers. Please maintain dignity while opposing. Please do not accuse everyone to be a bigot or racist otherwise you come across as intolerant/unstable/dishonest people. thanks.
Ran out of edit so I will add that: By mentioning the communists, clearly the ones from soviet Russia, you did say it. It would be the height of ignorance to not take into account the history that shows that the Soviets not only resorted to killings, but also police state tactics against many religions as part of their efforts to create a “New Man”.
I thought the Court said or implied it would be by the end of the week.
I will do it, and add “idiot” to the items guys like you deserve. I already do know that many times polls like that one are only pointing at prohibiting terrorists from coming into other nations, something that all do agree.
Unfortunately yahoos like you do willfully ignore that in the USA even the ones reporting the news miss a lot of nuance. While most indeed would like to ban any non vetted people to come from the failed nations the whole truth is that most Americans still do want to see refugees and already vetted people from those failed nations to come to the USA.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=16379
Yep, all that shows why the executive order has been challenged, Trump and other idiots (as a former diplomat had to say it un-diplomatically recently in an interview) are in reality harming a lot of humanitarian efforts and moves to deal with terrorism with such a wide net of an EO.