When you have a Muslim

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Oh! Wow! Mor spellig errorz u kan ketch! Ain't yoo smert! I wanna growe upp lik u!


On post 176 I did not claim the killings didn't exist, nor did I defend them. I asked a question about bodies that were already dead. YOU FAIL.

On post 188 I did not defend anyne else's posts, I chastized you for not answering the question and not sticking to the point. Just like this responce of yours! YOU FAIL AGAIN!

0 for 2. Try again, though you may want to actually read the questions this time.

--Where did I say atheism is not a religion?
--Where did I say Papa Joe, Pol Pot, etc., were good guys?

This is your second try coming up. Let's see if you can do better than you did the first time (I know that's a very low bar I'm setting for you, but you have demonstrated you're a low achieving type of guy/gal).

At post 176 you attempt to defend Mao’s cadre's actions:
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305034&postcount=176
At post 188 your remarks were an obvious endorsement of CBJ7’s posts at 185 & 187.
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305483&postcount=188

.

[LovingKayla]

Y'all know what's REALLY funny? Step away from this thread for 2 days and then come back and read it. It is HILARIOUS. Baked is even better (I mean brownies have to be eaten ya know.)

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Y'all know what's REALLY funny? Step away from this thread for 2 days and then come back and read it. It is HILARIOUS. Baked is even better (I mean brownies have to be eaten ya know.)

Reading the silliness on this board would not be the first activity on my list of things to do after indulging in some of Alice B Toklas's special recipe. Maybe combining it with Dark Side of the Moon might help.

[LovingKayla]

Come sit by me baby. *pat pat pat* I got space riiiiight here.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Y'all know what's REALLY funny? Step away from this thread for 2 days and then come back and read it. It is HILARIOUS. Baked is even better (I mean brownies have to be eaten ya know.)

yeah, I know.

[undercover1]

IBHankering

Obviously your not a student of history. Appreciate your childish rants and name calling. Your maturity shows...or lack thereof.

[essence]

I've just read that court judgement on atheism. It's actually quite funny, and gives a context for IB's musings.

Actually, I think Reed and IB must be linked at the hip.

Here are some vignettes from the judgement:

Oddly, Reed at his deposition refused to indicate what if any religious affiliation or beliefs (or nonbeliefs) he has; refused even to deny that he might be a Gideon!

which hold that religious freedom includes the freedom to reject religion—"religion" includes antipathy to religion. And so an atheist (which Reed may or may not be) cannot be fired because his employer dislikes atheists. If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.

But there is no indication that Reed was fired because of his religious beliefs, identity, or observances or because of his aversion to religion, to Christianity, or to the Gideons, whatever the case may be (remember that we don't know anything about his religion or lack of religion).

The manager must have been indifferent to Reed's religious views, because Reed never expressed them to the manager; to this day we do not know what his religion is, as he refused to say at his deposition. It is difficult to see how an employer can be charged with discrimination on the basis of an employee's religion when he doesn't know the employee's religion (or lack thereof, which, as we have noted, is in the eyes of the law a form of religion),

Reed has utterly failed to make a prima facie case of intentional religious discrimination. But he has another string to his bow. Besides forbidding intentional discrimination, Title VII requires an employer to try to accommodate the religious needs of its employees, that is, to try to adjust the requirements of the job so that the employee can remain employed without giving up the practice of his religion, provided the adjustment would not work an undue hardship on the employer.

And again for these purposes hostility to religion counts as a form of religion. So if attending a meeting at which Gideons might pray or read from the Bible would offend Reed's religious or antireligious sensibilities, he might be entitled to an accommodation.

There is a line, indistinct but important, between an employee who seeks an accommodation to his religious faith and an employee who asserts as Reed did an unqualified right to disobey orders that he deems inconsistent with his faith though he refuses to indicate at what points that faith intersects the requirements of his job. Today he storms out of a meeting with the Gideons; tomorrow he may refuse to place their Bibles in the rooms; the day after that he may announce that he will not come to work on the day when the Gideons visit. Reed failed to give any indication of what future occurrences at the Holiday Inn would impel him to make a scene embarrassing to the manager and potentially injurious to the employer.

But the district judge's basis for imposing the sanctions he did on Reed was different; it was that in the past 15 years Reed had worked for 25 different employers, often (as in this case) for a month or less, and had filed 13 employment discrimination suits in the federal district court in Milwaukee. He had won a partial victory in one of the suits but had lost all the rest, some of them through abandonment. The judge inferred that Reed is engaged in a pattern of extortion, working for an employer just long enough to obtain a pretext for suing him.

There is indeed something amiss in Reed's employment and litigation history, though extortion doesn't seem the word for it. Were he engaged in extortion he would have dropped his suits in exchange for nuisance-suit settlements. So far as appears, his 15-year campaign of "extortion" hasn't yielded him a penny, except in his one victory, where he obtained damages in a trial and not by way of a settlement, nuisance or otherwise. It seems more likely that he has a psychological problem than that he has been committing extortion for the last 15 years with nothing to show for it.

The fact that the previous suits were the result of an unbalanced mind rather than an extortionate one would be no defense. Yet, odd as it may seem, none of Reed's previous cases has been adjudged frivolous. Nor did the district judge find that any of them had been frivolous. The sanctions order thus appears to rest on nothing more solid than the judge's speculation that Reed is an extortionist.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by essence

I've just read that court judgement on atheism. It's actually quite funny, and gives a context for IB's musings.

Actually, I think Reed and IB must be linked at the hip.

Here are some vignettes from the judgement:

Essence, while you might 'imagine' your flights of fantasy are relevant, they aren't. U.S. courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) have defined 'atheism' as a religion. Despite your attempt to deflect, here is the only vignette that is relevant:

"If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion."
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/330/931/565138/

Originally Posted by undercover1

IBHankering

Obviously your not a student of history. Appreciate your childish rants and name calling. Your maturity shows...or lack thereof.

So the man who states he has no beliefs states his beliefs. Since he adamantly insists he has no beliefs, the truly honorable and respectful thing to do would be to accept the nullity of his beliefs -- in all matters.

Originally Posted by CB7

yeah, I know.

Keep on fooling yourself, CBJ7.

[essence]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Essence, while you might 'imagine' your flights of fantasy are relevant, they aren't. U.S. courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) have defined 'atheism' as a religion. Despite your attempt to deflect, here is the only vignette that is relevant:

"If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion."
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/330/931/565138/

So the man who states he has no beliefs states his beliefs. Since he adamantly insists he has no beliefs, the truly honorable and respectful thing to do would be to accept the nullity of his beliefs -- in all matters.

Keep on fooling yourself, CBJ7.

IB, let me try to make this simple. In legal matters, they are discussing the law, the context is the law. The context is not anything else.

So, in legal terms, when discussing the legalities of religious discrimination, then discrimination against somebody because of their atheist beliefs is, in this context, and through legal precedence, religious discrimination. In this context it makes sense.

That is what the legal discussion was about, It was legal. In a legal world and context.

Now, to extend that to say that atheism is commonly, outside of this restricted context, regarded as a religion is to extend an opinion outside of the legal framework in which it was discussed. The legal discussion concerning religious discrimination has no relevance outside that legal arena.

The practice of law is full of peculiarities which make sense in a legal situation but not outside of it.

I am speculating, and not using thr correct US legal terms, but in a legal case of battery or aggravated assault, a frying pan may be regarded as an offensive weapon. That doesn't mean a frying pan IS an offensive weapon.

Got it?

OMG, that was a great piece of analogy.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by essence

IB, let me try to make this simple. In legal matters, they are discussing the law, the context is the law. The context is not anything else.

So, in legal terms, when discussing the legalities of religious discrimination, then discrimination against somebody because of their atheist beliefs is, in this context, and through legal precedence, religious discrimination. In this context it makes sense.

That is what the legal discussion was about, It was legal. In a legal world and context.

Now, to extend that to say that atheism is commonly, outside of this restricted context, regarded as a religion is to extend an opinion outside of the legal framework in which it was discussed. The legal discussion concerning religious discrimination has no relevance outside that legal arena.

The practice of law is full of peculiarities which make sense in a legal situation but not outside of it.

I am speculating, and not using thr correct US legal terms, but in a legal case of battery or aggravated assault, a frying pan may be regarded as an offensive weapon. That doesn't mean a frying pan IS an offensive weapon.

Got it?

OMG, that was a great piece of analogy.

You are wrong when you argue that constitutional law has no impact on U.S. society outside the court room. In the cited court case, to use your analogy, the 'frying pan' WAS ruled an 'offensive weapon' -- nation wide. BTW, there ARE other court cases rendering the same decision.

The only vignette that is relevant:

"If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion."
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/330/931/565138/

[essence]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are wrong when you argue that constitutional law has no impact on U.S. society outside the court room. In the cited court case, to use your analogy, the 'frying pan' WAS ruled an 'offensive weapon' -- nation wide. BTW, there ARE other court cases rendering the same decision.

I give up. Your thoughts do indeed have all the subtlety of being hit round the head with a frying pan.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by essence

I give up. Your thoughts do indeed have all the subtlety of being hit round the head with a frying pan.

And all of you have failed (avoided) to address the fact that atheists have established a church: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

N. Korea’s Kim dynasty, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Ceaușescu were all atheists, and together they killed hundreds of millions of people.

[Old-T]

I B Hardofhearing,

I have been carefully counting as I look at your replies.

You are now 0 for 10. Four more posts, no (even feeble) attempts to answer either question. Try again, though you may want to actually read the questions this time.

--Where did I say atheism is not a religion?
--Where did I say Papa Joe, Pol Pot, etc., were good guys?

Let me give you a hint or two:
--The fact that the S.C. says atheism is a religion does not imply that I said it wasn't
--The fact that Communists killed lits of folks (as have Muslims, Christians, Germans, Africans, Japanese, tall people, short people, and Ancestral Puebloans) doesn't mean I think they are good guys.

I truly believe you are the most closed minded person on here. But keep at it! It's fun watching you use lots of words to not answer the questions. And you look stupider each time you don't--not that you care I'm sure.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I B Hardofhearing,

I have been carefully counting as I look at your replies.

You are now 0 for 10. Four more posts, no (even feeble) attempts to answer either question. Try again, though you may want to actually read the questions this time.

--Where did I say atheism is not a religion?
--Where did I say Papa Joe, Pol Pot, etc., were good guys?

Let me give you a hint or two:
--The fact that the S.C. says atheism is a religion does not imply that I said it wasn't
--The fact that Communists killed lits of folks (as have Muslims, Christians, Germans, Africans, Japanese, tall people, short people, and Ancestral Puebloans) doesn't mean I think they are good guys.

I truly believe you are the most closed minded person on here. But keep at it! It's fun watching you use lots of words to not answer the questions. And you look stupider each time you don't--not that you care I'm sure.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Old-goaT. Those short-buses didn't carry you past the third grade did they? Once again:
At post 176 you attempt to defend Mao’s cadre’s actions:
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305034&postcount=176
At post 188 your remarks were an endorsement of CBJ7’s post at 185 & 187.
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305483&postcount=188

.

[Old-T]

You ARE stubborn, I will give you credit for that. But it does not change the fact that you are still wrong. Since it didn't sink in last time, here is the answer key again:

On post 176 I did not claim the killings didn't exist, nor did I defend them. I asked a question about bodies that were already dead. YOU FAIL. You Lie. No big shock on either count.

On post 188 I did not defend anyne else's posts, I chastized you for not answering the question and not sticking to the point. Just like this responce of yours! YOU FAIL AGAIN! You Lie again. And no one is surprised about either.

0 for 12. Run, Forest, run! It really is getting comical to watch you. You remind me of Charlie Brown kicking the football. Ask a simple question, IB mutters something irrational. Point out that he missed the boat, he insists he didn't. Point out chapter and verse (as above with his erronious interpretations of posts 176 & 188) and watch him spin in circles chasing his tail and accusing you, me, and almost everyone of hating Christians when I never said any such thing. Only in your mind IB, only in your delusional mind.

--Where did I say atheism is not a religion?
--Where did I say Papa Joe, Pol Pot, etc., were good guys?

HINT: I didn't! (is that one simple enough for you to follow? I guess we'll find out soon.)