United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: High School tennis stars score religious liberty victory in Washington state
Source:
The Daily Sheeple
URL Source: https://www.thedailysheeple.com/hig ... y-victory-in-washington-state/
Published: Aug 31, 2019
Author: Sean Walton
Post Date: 2019-09-01 12:24:22 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 7728
Comments: 185
Siblings Joseph & Joelle Chung Two high school tennis stars scored a religious liberty victory in Washington state after being kicked off the court for their faith. The Chung siblings, Joseph, 15, and Joelle, 17, both Seventh-day Adventists, a Protestant denomination that observes Sabbath on Saturday as recorded in the Bible, sued the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) earlier this month after Joelle was disqualified from her final state tennis postseason competition because she doesn’t play on Saturdays. The Chung family, represented by Becket, a religious liberty law firm, filed a motion to withdraw their federal suit on Tuesday after WIAA agreed to add religious observance to its reasons for missing games without being penalized. Paul Chung, Joelle’s father, told “The Ingraham Angle” earlier this month that his daughter, who was undefeated on the court, valued her commitment to God more than tennis. “She was disappointed that she couldn’t help the team but she shouldn’t have to choose between religion and playing tennis,” Chung said. Joe Davis, Becket counsel and attorney for the Chungs, told Fox News Friday “it’s an important win for religious student-athletes in Washington and sets a favorable precedent nationwide.” “It’s common sense that Sabbath observers shouldn’t be excluded from any postseason sports competition at all just because of the hypothetical possibility of a schedule conflict somewhere down the line—and after the rule change, they won’t be.” WIAA denied her family’s request for a religious accommodation last season because WIAA’s previous rules stated that if an athlete could not commit to playing in every level of the tournament, barring injury or illness, they were not allowed to participate at all and would be subject to penalty. WIAA had no exception for sincerely-held religious beliefs. “For the Chung family, keeping the Sabbath holy is a serious commitment,” Becket, a religious liberty law firm, wrote in a complaint filed Aug. 6. The Chungs, both playing for William F. West High School, had conflicts with the WIAA’s state championship schedule, which included a Saturday. While Joelle had to sit out her final postseason play, Joseph, a rising sophomore, was set to have the same fate this year before the rule change. “We’re hopeful that the WIAA will take the next step and eliminate the schedule conflicts altogether, as the law requires,” Davis added. Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
She was disappointed that she couldn’t help the team I can't get behind this. If she is part of a team that is counting on her, she should fulfill her obligations. Other athletes are counting on her participation. It is not fair to them. I realize she is Seven Day Adventist, but if Sabbath worship is that important she should withdraw from the team. And...she sued the WIAA costing them money to defend themselves! I worship on Sunday. If my church has athletes that need to play on Sunday then they need to go and play. Church will still be there when they finish the season. Not to mention, I work seven days a week...and God blesses me mightily.
Other athletes are counting on her participation. It is not fair to them. I realize she is Seven Day Adventist, but if Sabbath worship is that important she should withdraw from the team. Oh, okay. So you would think that's fine for other sabbath-keepers too? Let's rewrite your statement with another group. Other athletes are counting on her participation. It is not fair to them. I realize she is So maybe we should just make some rules that Jews need not apply and Seventh Day Adventists need not apply. And people who think that schools should hold their sports and other events during their own working hours Monday-Friday should not apply. Personally, I don't think they should allow sports and school events on weekends. At all. Let the kids and families have their time free. The same applies to early starts for summer practice for kids' sports.
Other athletes are counting on her participation. It is not fair to them. I realize she is Seven Day Adventist, but if Sabbath worship is that important she should withdraw from the team. Would you say the same things about Eric Liddel?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Sure, why not? Never heard of him before. And don't give a hoot who he was. Apparently a distance runner and missionary, judging by a quick read of the DDG synopis. I assume he was some sort of sabbatarian (that is the official term for those who keep a sabbath even if they can't agree which day of the week is the sabbath). Nope, I don't care who he was and I don't think he is relevant to my wise and well-informed opinions on the policy issue. BTW, did you actually know who this Liddell was or see some documentary about him or what? Given how long ago he died, you either did a search engine hit job to search for such an example or you knew of him before you ever read my post. So, which is it, did you know and care who Liddell was before you read my post or are you just being a search-engine-smartass?
Sure, why not? Never heard of him before. And don't give a hoot who he was. Ever seen the movie Chariots of Fire? He was portrayed in that film - won some Oscars I believe, Best Picture being one. Liddell was born in China to Scottish missionary parents. He attended boarding school near London, spending time when possible with his family in Edinburgh, and afterwards attended the University of Edinburgh. At the 1924 Summer Olympics in Paris, Liddell refused to run in the heats for his favoured 100 metres because they were held on a Sunday. Instead he competed in the 400 metres held on a weekday, a race that he won.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Didn't know who he was until I saw the movie when it came out in 1981. Gee whiz, I thought everyone had at least heard of his story or had seen the movie.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I saw that movie. Most boring movie ever to win best picture. Yawn.
The sabbath is truly on Saturday. I wonder why people changed gods day that he said to remember. I'm included in that.
I wonder why people changed gods day that he said to remember. Blame the Catholics. Catholic Church Admits They Made the Change In the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, we read: In Catholic Christian Instructed, God warned that a blasphemous power would “seek to change times and laws,” and the Catholic Church openly admits doing it, even boasts about it. In a sermon at the Council of Trent in 1562, the Archbishop of Reggia, Caspar del Fossa, claimed that the Catholic Church’s whole authority is based upon the fact that they changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Does this not fulfill the prophecies of Daniel and Paul?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I was aware that the Catholics were involved. It was kind of a rhetorical question. I asked my former pastor one day about it. He said paraphrasing here that it was important to keep the 7 day cycle but not the actual day. I'm just relaying what I was told. Not that I agree with it.
Big deal. Everyone engaged in animal husbandry works seven days a week. Even sabbath-keeping Jews will hire Christians to work on their sabbath. Even the heathen do the same. But what you are really saying is that sabbath-keeping is completely unimportant and completely inconsequential to you when compared to important events like voluntary sports participation related to schools (or church leagues). But the Apostle Paul certainly gave strong warning against pursuing athletics as a worthy Christian pursuit. And that is scripture. And then you need to contend with the Ten Commandments. 2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13Thou shalt not kill. 14Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15Thou shalt not steal. 16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. The first commandment forbids worshiping false gods (other gods, monotheism and Jehovian supremacy). The second commandment forbids the worship of idols or depiction of religious events or ideas as any sort of art. And it goes on about it for three verses, to drive its point home and leave no wiggle room. The third commandment crisply forbids cursing in the name of God or by the name(s) of God. The fourth commandment is about keeping the sabbath. It also goes on at some length - through four verses total - to eliminate all the loopholes and clever dodges of this prohibition. And commandments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (parents, killing, adultery (but not fornication!) stealing, false witness, covetousness) are all completely unimportant if you don't bother to observe the key commandments on monotheism, idols, cursing and keeping the sabbath holy. Maybe we should just toss all these commandments, once and for all. It seems very few Christians have any interest in being inconvenienced by any of them. They are more honored in the observance than in the breach, to use a classic phrase. But didn't Jesus quote nine of the 10 commandments Himself? Including the one on keeping the sabbath? But we can't allow Jesus quoting some musty old scripture ruin the fun of some young people who want to play sporting events in some amateur league. Why, that would be more horrible than crucifying them in public for their faith! So, what we need to do is just accept that keeping any sabbath is just plain stupid and only for the gullible or for cult members or just some dusty old idea that's been hanging around since ancient times and which only serves the interest of the priests (Jewish or Catholic) who find it lucrative and a source of personal power to condition their flocks to accept the necessity of keeping the sabbath (and also to staking a claim to their followers schedule on a sabbath so they can schedule other lucrative or power-seeking over their flocks). Well, unless any of that conflicts with the scheduling of some puny local sports league. Then, heaven be damned, we can just toss out all those commandments and all that scripture as unimportant, no longer relevant, not applicable to Christians, etc. if it happens to be inconvenient to the scheduling of a T-ball game for toddlers. The sabbath isn't important really. It's downright inconvenient when you think about it. Or maybe it's just: my sabbath good, your sabbath bad or inconsequential.
It is. Why won't more churches face up to that? They preach it but they refuse to practice what they actually do preach from their pulpits. Cowards. Hypocrites. And they relinquish much of their power when they allow their day to be taken away for secular purposes. Soon, you won't get certain jobs if you won't work on a sabbath. You won't get a spot on the sports team if you keep the sabbath. You won't get invited to certain social events if you keep the sabbath. All because the churches didn't want to keep the sabbath. In the last 25 years, people are now forced to work Sundays. Christians have to work on Christmas and Easter (Passover). I think most states sell liquor on sabbaths too. Personally, I have always objected to downgrading the sabbath, even for secular people. Close the stores and other other businesses. Make it clear that they will face consequences if they do open and try to conduct business, protect their employees from being exploited by their employers on the sabbath. But then, the churches and synagogues would actually have to care and be willing to put their foot down in order to make keeping the sabbath a standard public policy. We had it until only a few decades back. Now we treat the idea as somehow being so odd. Yet over half of American society does clearly recall when that was exactly what we did. And it was considered a plus, for people to be able to worship, to be able to have family time together when parents weren't working and kids weren't in school.
My wife was fired from work at a steak house she was working at in the 90's for skipping a meeting and going to church in the morning. It was Sunday. Yeah i'm as bad as the rest of you.
I'm with you. I'm all for religious freedom, but when you commit to a team you commit to their rules -- which clearly stated that if an athlete could not commit to playing in every level of the tournament, barring injury or illness, they were not allowed to participate at all and would be subject to penalty. I'm sorry but it really pisses me off reading where people (once again) know the rules, break the rules, then seek redress.
I saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood yesterday. It could take that title away.
I was thinking about seeing that movie. I still might. Maybe you just have a different taste then I do in movies. Or maybe I would agree with you.
I saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood yesterday. It could take that title away. Interesting - I thought you were a big Tarantino fan?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Sabbath breaker!
How dare a Christian or a Jew actually consider the solemn obligations of their religious observance around which revolves the eternal fate of their soul to actually be a higher obligation than playing an optional team sport so they can help The Team get a chance to win some crappy plastic trophy with hastily engraved lettering in a church youth league! Now you want to prevent those faithful and committed Christians (and Jews) from suing their way to victory over the Sabbath. Well, these fine young Adventists intend to win that trophy and still go to heaven to hang out at the bosom of Abraham with Lazarus. The rest of you will be hanging out with the Rich Man in hell, begging them to send Lazarus to warn your brethren not to play team sports on Sundays.
I'm a big Quentin Tarantino fan and have seen all his movies more than once. I was disappointed by this one. Great acting and cinematography, though.
I wonder why people changed gods day that he said to remember. I'm included in that. We didn't change the Sabbath Day...but we did change the day we worship! The precedent is found in Scripture. Note the use of THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK...(emp mine) The "first day of the week" is now called Sunday. At the Resurrection Jesus appeared on a Sunday. The disciples began to assemble, break bread, and listen to preaching on Sunday. Offerings of money were to be made on Sunday. The we see John "in the Spirit" on the "Lord's Day". Christians don't usually call Sunday the Sabbath Day. We call it the Lord's Day.
We don't have to make these rules! The observant Jews do not bother anybody about their day of worship. They just close up go home and observe the Sabbath. They certainly don't sue to close down Gentile sports. So if the Seven Day Adventist demand non-Christains observe Saturday, and the rest of Christians demand non-Christians to observe Sunday...when DO they get to play their college and pro sports? We Christians are choosing to be part of THEIR sports. What gall we have in making demands that they accommodate us! By the way, let's see this chick or any of her fellow Seven Day Adventist start suing the NCAA. She be an instant martyr! lol Here's a thought...if God has given you the ability to hit or catch a ball, or run like crazy...go out and use that talent to be an example for Christ among those non-Christians. I love to see Christian athletes out there on Saturday and Sunday being an example for Christ!
I don't know his story completely but I do note some important differences between him and Joseph & Joelle Chung. Firstly, Liddel took a stand for Sunday observance. He had the majority of Christendom behind him. Second, he took a stand in a different era all together. Back in his day, Christians closed up shop, work stopped and people went to church. It was a big deal! Try to do something like that now and all you are going to do is alienate everybody and/or confuse them. Times have change, for better or worse. Third, I note that he chose an event he COULD run in and won that!
Yay, heathen though I may be, rules are rules.
I'm sorry that she was fired. That is a painful thing no matter how it happens. Did she make any arrangements before hand with management? Was management particularly negative against Christians. Just some questions... Stone, do you observe Sabbath (Saturday) worship? As noted, your wife observes Sunday. Some areas of the country are more Sunday oriented. More businesses close, even non-Christian ones out of respect. In those areas a Christian could miss a business meeting and the management would just factor your absence right in. "Where's so-and-so? Oh, yeah, they went to church."
I do have sympathy for that situation. Maybe the steak houses shouldn't open up so early so their employees can attend services and have some family time. Even waiting to open at 11am would help a lot. This is something that was once taken for granted, that businesses would routinely close on Sunday or would open later. A business should really be up front when hiring employees that they may be required to work on Sundays. I think people would prefer that most businesses close on Sunday. We don't require federal mail service 7 days a week and it doesn't cause much problem to close the post offices on Sundays. The panicked mobs have not rioted for lack of Sunday U.S. mail services.
My point is: at the present time I do not observe Saturday or Sunday. God seems like He's okay with it. He understands that I farm. He understands that Christians play sports on Saturday or Sunday. We are not under the Law! Nobody can keep the Law anyway. Except Christ keeps it for us! There is no Law that says: if you don't go to Church you'll be stoned to death.
They never opened on Sunday morning. It was a one time special meeting. Or perhaps occasionally.
Well, these Adventists differ with you. And they have lawyers apparently.
I would side with your wife if she sued them. There are no special steakhouse emergencies that require Sunday attendance. It sounds like wrongful termination.
You're saying you want to disqualify athletes on the basis of religious practice. It is interesting to see a sabbatarian court case. In 2019. With two Adventist athletes. The Chung family may be on the verge of setting vital legal precedent.
I don't want to, but they knew the rules when they signed up. Let's keep in mind, SHE refused to play. It's not as though the WIAA didn't allow her to play on the basis of her religious practice.
This is how it was when I was a kid. High School football was on Friday nights...only. I was shocked when I found out that high schools in other parts of the country had games on Saturday. I remember this because I photographed high school sports and I thought how nice it would be to photograph a daytime game. Of course, week day games would never work for college and pro. It's not going to happen...well, aside from Monday Night Football and Thursday Night Football.
Maybe you'd be even happier if Christian athletes were free to spend Sunday in worship and demand that society honor their commitment to their lord and savior, Jesus Christ. Wouldn't that be just as good? Wouldn't it be better? But perhaps you prefer instead to insist to young people that their religious practice (unless Muslim or pagan) is completely unimportant compared to playing games that less then 0.1% of them will ever get a full scholarship to play in college, let alone play professionally. Or is it that you just don't like having a sabbath at all and don't want any dusty old bible verse telling you to "remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy", the same way that Jesus Himself kept it holy?
No, the WIAA decided to schedule games to punish the participation of these athletes who the WIAA had cause to know would not participate on their sabbath. The WIAA could have scheduled around these conflicts but they chose exclusion and persecution, possibly depriving these athletes of a chance to earn a scholarship. Surprising how anti-Christian some Christians suddenly are when you pit something they actually like (high school sports) against something they don't really like, like some cruddy old 4th Commandment that stretches on through multiple verses about keeping the sabbath holy and no dodging the rule cleverly. So should this rule you like requiring participation on a sabbath apply to Christians only? Should it apply to Muslims? How about Jews? Would you allow Jews to keep the 4th commandment and not punish them for it?
Well, if they are building a career, using their God given talents, they may have to miss some church, wouldn't you say? Christians aren't known for making demands The Bible says "Not by power, nor by might, but by the Spirit" Now, please tell how YOU keep the Sabbath holy...
Ah, you don't like the mention of keeping the sabbath holy. That's okay. There's a lot of people now who are hostile to the very idea of holiness. People don't want to measure their own lives against a word like "holiness". It's funny how "keeping the sabbath" devolved in Western countries over last century or two. "Keeping the sabbath" turned into "attend church for an hour or so on Sunday morning". And the "keep it holy" part kind of disappeared from Christian thinking altogether. Along with wisdom, holiness has disappeared as being among the most desirable traits - really the most essential traits - that any Christian can develop over decades. I can't recall the last time I heard a sermon extolling holiness, holy living or prayer to ask God to impart His grace and His wisdom to us. When I was young, we still heard a few sermons like that a year. We're too busy on Facebook to pursue wisdom. Holiness will have to wait until after we get a few more spiritualish tattoos on our thighs. It hasn't been all that long since the pursuit of holiness and wisdom were sermon topics heard in any church in America. You had churches that were all about holiness and holy living, like the old Wesleyan holiness churches. They were quite strict about courtship, secular entertainment, etc. Maybe they've all died out and their great-grandchildren are a bunch of tranny atheists or something like that. You do notice, though, that people don't seem to want to measure their lives against any yardstick of holiness.
Might I conclude you don't like it either? I have asked how YOU keep the Sabbath holy... What day do you consider to be the Sabbath...Saturday? Sunday? For instance, do you refrain from posting on the Sabbath? (Would you be found quarreling on those Sabbath posts). Do you attend church or temple? Do you shop for groceries on Sabbath? Go out to eat? My Mennonite folks will not even answer the phone on Sunday. How exactly do YOU keep the Sabbath holy?
I don't care that much. I'm more interested in how people reconcile their use of scripture to how they conduct their lives. It's a total disconnect. In the vast majority of churches, they only invoke the fury of OT writings for That Stuff that they don't like. Not because it is a great sin but because they have fewer things they agree to be publicly condemning about. What I'm waiting for is the invention of the sinless church for the sinless Christians. We're almost there. And I don't give out very much personal info online. An old habit. And this is an anonymous chat board after all. I get it, the idea of being totally holy on the sabbath. But what if that phone call was to summon them to put out a small fire near their church. And by not answering the phone, their church burns to the ground and requires they restrict their missionary funding and their local charity efforts for years. Answering a phone is not unholy on any day of the week. Do they think, perhaps, it is only unholy on Sunday but perfectly holy the rest of the week? Or are they willing to compromise with the sin of phone use 6 days a week but go for holiness only on the sabbath. The phrase "to keep it holy" can be read several ways. You might keep it holy by dedicating a whole day of worship and family activity and charity work. That probably counts as holiness in any Christian church. However, there is a minimalist element of observation of the sabbath: the one day a week you avoid doing unholy things. The one day a week you really restrain your usual impulses to gossip or overlook the needy or break traffic laws or see your mistress or spend a little alone time with Pornhub, well, whatever your usual sin habits are. I've been interested in this sabbatarianism for many years. From farmers doing no work on Sunday (unless a heifer is calving) down to "no gross sins on Sunday" and now to Christians who resent other Christians who do observe a sabbath day faithfully and expect their civil rights to be respected by society. And so we have misterwhite and you on this thread, expressing considerable resentment toward these two Adventists who expect to have their sabbath respected? What, do they think they deserve equal rights with Muslims or Jews or something? They're going to ruin everything with their sabbath nonsense!
Never gonna happen. As long as we are in this world we are going to sin. The church is made up of sinners. Paul, speaking in the present tense, is saying he is, at that moment, the chief of sinners...what does that say about the rest of us Christians? Thanks, TC, I appreciate your answers.
Oh? They said that? Or are you just making shit up again? "So should this rule you like requiring participation on a sabbath apply to Christians only?" She wasn't "required" to do shit. She chose not to participate, knowing full well she would be disqualified. The rules were written long before she signed up. They apply to everyone. She wanted the league to make an exception just for her.
Isn't it time that we just rewrite that pesky Fourth Commandment? How about: "Forget the Sabbath. And don't you dare to keep it holy." Seems to be about what most of you think about the 4th commandment and any idea of keeping a sabbath holy (whatever that entails). I find it interesting, how people apply or refuse to even acknowledge these supposed landmark ideas about religion in the Jewish or Christian context. You know who is going to really like these two Adventists? Jewish lawyers and judges and Jewish legal scholars. For obvious reasons. I would not bet against the chances for the two Adventists to make Saturday a more respected sabbath under the law than Sunday is at present. I, of course, am cheering for the Adventists, those two lone witnesses for holiness and religious observation.
Thanks for this reminder. I'd forgotten how funny Zechariah and Zerubabbel really were so I had to go back to re-read it.
Other than these two Adventists, how many people has this rule actually affected? Hundreds of Christians? Thousands? How many people, other than these two, will a rule change affect? Any? You are turning this issue into a grand theological debate when it only affect two fanatics who interpret the fourth commandment differently than everyone else.
She chose to participate on non-sabbath days, something well within the power of the sports conference to accommodate. You may not be aware of it but a lot of the civil rights we have today come from cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses back in the Thirties when they had an especially fiery and apocalyptic leader. And the Adventists have their place in our law books, though less so than the Jehovah gang. Heck, even the God-hates-fags Westboro Church won a very major victory at the Supreme Court some years back. (The Westboro church also likes God-hates-soldiers, God-hates-you, God-hates-America too.) All of the founder's children had gotten law degrees and one of the daughters, Margie Phelps, served as lead counsel in their case which was heard by the Supreme Court and which they won resoundingly. Associate justice Alito was the lone dissenter. I enjoy their rendition of "God Bless America" with their new lyrics: "God hates America". Very catchy. So you've got an opinion. But the Adventists have lawyers that have already won a significant civil rights victory and pinned back the ears of the local youth sports mafia. And it is just eating your shit alive to think about that, isn't it? Is it that you have surrendered so much already to accommodate the world, knowing you've gotten almost nothing in return or did you just hate the general idea of holy living to begin with? It's hard to get convincing answers to such questions.
I see. So, in your opinion, it is only "fanatics" that would insist on observing the 4th commandment in any meaningful way instead of dismissing their religious obligations entirely so they can play some crappy bush league sport at which they have a 0.1% chance of ever getting a scholarship, let alone make a living at? I liked you better when you stuck to simple copsucking as a hobby.
How about: "Remember the Sabbath, how Jesus Christ kept it perfectly holy for me, because I couldn't..." That is the substitutionary life that we Christians enjoy.
That's a good answer, as good as you'll get. I think Vic would like that if you've read some of his posts before. Jesus did quote nine of the ten commandments though. I'm not sure that you've dealt with that adequately. But maybe you prefer to plow on through and hope God doesn't hold a little deliberate commandment-breaking against your record.
I don't call a tennis tournament "meaningful". They insist on changing the rules of a crappy bush league sport which affected nobody before they showed up and will affect nobody when they leave.
Or so you hope. You fear that this might spread or you wouldn't be so vehement against these Adventist commandment fanatics. You realize, perhaps, that the two Adventists could set a legal precedent to stop all school sports on weekends while the churches continue playing their puny little league sports on Sundays? Making the churches the most unholy commandment-breakers in American society? That outcome is entirely possible. I think you know it.
If it spread and more and more players refused to play because of their devotion to their faith, then perhaps the WIAA would be open to a rule change. That's how things used to be done. "You realize, perhaps, that the two Adventists could set a legal precedent to stop all school sports on weekends … …" You say that like it's a good thing. Two people, for purely selfish reasons, changing the rules for participants from 800 statewide schools through threat of legal action just so they can play under their interpretation of the fourth commandment.
And good for them. They adhere to their religion. In much the same way that Abraham, for purely selfish reasons, adhered to his new religion. In much the same way that Jesus and the Apostle Paul, for purely selfish reasons, adhered to their religious tenets. You can apply "purely selfish" to almost any religious figure who ever made any history at all. And it is generally the case that those who do stand up for their "purely selfish reasons" are despised in their own era by a majority of the public. And this case is no different. You underestimate the power of this case. It has genuine disruptive potential. And you just can't stand the thought of it. I'd like to see it go all the way to the Supreme Court and set national precedents.
What these two Adventists have done is open the door for Muslims to sue. They'll be playing tennis in burkas soon thanks to the Adventists. What a terrible shame against the Adventists...how dare they take non-Christians to court against the clear teaching of Scripture.
So you're ready to tell all Christians they can never take anyone or any organization to court again ever just so you can justify denying their sabbath rights to two mediocre Adventist tennis players? Is that right? But I'm sure they would assure you that they are not dragging inter-Christian disputes into the secular courts. 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. No, they are dragging a secular organization into court to compel that secular organization to make reasonable accommodation of their solemn religious observance. They are not suing their (alleged) fellow-Christians, something I'm sure they would be quick to point out to you. You're welcome. I'm liking these Adventists more all the time.
What if they strictly adhered to Leviticus 20:13 in the Bible: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Should we change the laws to accommodate them? Is it still, "Good for them"?
Should we be forced to stop eating pork because it offends Muslims and Jews? Here's what I think. I think if Muslims and Jews don't want to eat pork, they should not eat pork. If the 99% of the rest of us want to eat pork, we eat pork. Now, do you get the analogy or do I have to spell it out for you?
I agree. But I believe that if you're going to disrupt society over a religious issue, it should be to remove obstacles to the practice of someone's faith, not force the rest of us to adhere to the tenets of their religion. "and set national precedents." Uh-huh. Ready for Sharia law?
Sure. And why not? America is far from unique in its religious traditions but there are a few that stand out. Thanksgiving is one. In Europe at that time, businesses were subject to closure for the various feast days of the Roman church. And in most cases, the business owners not only had to close but were forced to subsidize these feast days directly. This was widely resented. This was Thanksgiving, a post-harvest festival as an element of state-sponsored religion. In America, no establishment of the church was allowed. And in the era prior to the dozen or so official holidays we now have as federal holidays, in America businesses did not have to pay for religious gatherings and food for the public and they did not have to close and give their workers the day off. America instituted the secular Thanksgiving tradition. Now it has devolved to where it's been turned into one of the few 4-day weekends in the calendar. So you give your employees the day off for Thanksgiving and they all expect to get Black Friday off too (not applicable for employees of Xmas-oriented-retail outlets or food/lodging establishments who rarely even get holiday overtime pay). In part, this is what we mean when we talk about Protestant work ethic. But few people know the story of America's Thanksgiving and why it was actually a radical modification of what America's immigrants had experienced in Europe before they came here. Even fewer care anything about it except for a few oddballs like me. But I like both the old-style secular Thanksgiving with workers still toiling in their mills and I like these litigious but plucky Adventists.
So if we don't stop these mediocre Asian tennis players now, then Osama bin Laden will finally win? LOL You can't be serious. However, you might see a push by Hindus, Muslims, Jews to make reasonable accommodation to their religions, just as Sunday and even Saturday are unpopular to schedule games or tournaments even today. These Adventists are taking a torch to Saturday/Sunday sports events or practices at the public schools. Which is why you seem to hate them.
Pork is not tennis. Food choice from a menu is not comparable to offering equal opportunities to participate in publicly-funded sports and other activities in the public schools. And check just how much halal meat is being fed into our schools via federal programs. Then check how much meat at your local meat outlet is also halal-compliant (meaning acceptable to both Muslims and Jews). Muslims have most of the same dietary issues that Jews have. Muslims are allowed to eat kosher food as it is considered as proper as halal slaughter methods. And they are definitely winning the Battle Of The Carcass. And that carcass is decidedly not pork, the single most negative factor affecting future growth of the pork industry in America. They are maxed out on their domestic market already. Because they are not halal/kosher and never will be.
So do you want them to violate Leviticus or are you suggesting they have already violated Leviticus? I don't even understand why you want to drag sodomy into an issue about reasonable accommodation of religious observance of the 4th commandment. Yes. No. Maybe. I'm not sure what you're even driving at here. Wanting to play tennis on a schoolday instead of your sabbath day should not be compared willy-nilly to acts of sodomy. You're becoming deranged over these Adventists and their subversive sabbath-keeping ways. You sound like you're afraid of them or something.
Sure it is. She HAD an equal opportunity to participate in publicly-funded sports and other activities in the public schools. She CHOSE not to participate. And that's my point. We have pork and you can choose not to eat it. You want to change the rules and eliminate pork because some don't like it.
If you're willing to change the rules to accommodate the religious observance of the 4th commandment (that apparently only two people observe), I'm asking if you're willing to change the rules (laws) to accommodate the religious observance of the Bible -- specifically Leviticus 20:13? Don't act so obtuse.
Hate them? No. I admire them for their devotion to their faith. If they believe their faith says they can't play, they don't play. Period. If that results in negative consequences, so be it. What bothers me is them using the threat of a lawsuit to make changes to long-established rules (which they initially accepted) simply to accommodate their personal needs.
Let me repeat this...seems you missed it: Read 1cor.6:1-6 over and over again until you get it. Christians must avoid going to the courts...with believers and non-believers. Why? Because we are "aliens and pilgrims" in this world (1Peter 2:11) This world is not our home. The courts are not ours. We are foreigners from another land...we are not here to force our will upon this world. We are here to be "salt and light" and that's about it. The Adventists make a big fuss about being "holy"...the word means set apart/separate. They are not exactly being separate from the world when they use the world's court system to impose their will.
And that invalidates any insistence that amateur league high school sports reasonably accommodate requests for respecting religious observance obligations which occur on weekends completely outside the official hours of school attendance. You're on far weaker legal grounds than you can apparently imagine.
Why progress to the regulation of sodomy if you can't even agree on keeping the sabbath holy? Apparently, you have some sodomy issue you're trying to work out. "Well, if you Yankees don't give in to sports on Saturday, we'll all start buttfucking each other just to get revenge on you." Where's the connection in your mind between sodomy and remembering the sabbath, to keep it holy? You don't have a fetish about committing sodomy on the sabbath, do you?
Well, against fellow-Christians in the same church or even denomination. The apostles, while railing against divisiveness and false teachers in local churches that they had established by missionary work, were not shy about calling out the false teachers and nominal Christians in their midst. They did so by name and left a record which is still in the New Testament today. The New Testament never says anything about never suing anyone for any reason. It does discourage, in Paul's voice primarily, taking a fellow-Christian from the local church to court for any reason. So, no sale. What you're saying here is not even an argument really.
What bothers me is them using the threat of a lawsuit to make changes to long-established rules (which they initially accepted) simply to accommodate their personal needs. Maybe you should consider whether anyone should ever stand at your back in a similar situation. Or whether they'll just dismiss it all because they don't want to "accommodate" misterwhite's "personal needs". Are you sure you really want it that way? How many defeats do traditional types have to suffer before they recognize that there is some value in solidarity against those who hate them and their entire way of life and will, if not stopped, impose those values on everyone in society? It's a threat far greater than "Osama will win if we let these Adventists win and force schedule changes so no puny high school tennis gets played on Saturday. Or Sunday. Defending the Saturday sabbath is a rare opportunity. Both sabbath days should be protected against secular intrusion.
So you think the holiest thing you can do is let them deprive the Adventists of their Saturday sabbath on the road to depriving you of your Sunday sabbath? Or are you just confident that they'll mostly leave the Sunday as the default Sabbath in America, at least in your region? I don't grasp why you are so opposed to the idea of any sabbath-keeping. Because you do sound opposed.
I think it's shallow, hypocritical and, frankly, non-Christian of me to say I'm observing the tenets of my faith by forcing others to make changes to accommodate me.
What?? Deprive?? I'm not depriving anyone of anything. As I said before, she's free to observe her Saturday sabbath and not participate in sports. "I don't grasp why you are so opposed to the idea of any sabbath-keeping. Because you do sound opposed." I'm not opposed to the idea of sabbath-keeping. I'm impressed that she observes it and I support her observation of it. But I oppose her use of the legal system to force the school system to void long- standing rules (rules she was aware of) simply to accommodate her fanatical interpretation of what constitutes "working" on the sabbath.
Are you saying I have to keep the sabbath holy? I think I see your problem. And it is your problem.
I'm not opposed to Sabbath keeping...which btw means many different things to many different people. No one is stopping the girl from keeping her Sabbath. I just don't want her to impose her Sabbath on all the other athletes who have trained very hard to compete. Let HER sacrifice her tennis for God, no? I also don't believe she has the Biblical right to take non-Christians to court in order to impose her belief on them. Are her teammates going to think Christianity is a good thing after she drags them through the courts? She gets to ruin others so she can play tennis when it is convenient for her?
So you're fine with the idea of abolishing Sundays or any other day as a day of worship, reserved for religious observation? The world you know was changed to enforce Sunday as a sabbath and it still prevails as a (much diminished) custom even in 2019. Damn, I didn't think you'd just admit to it outright. You're kind of a sabbath-hater. You've displayed nothing but contempt for these two Adventists who just want to play tennis at school on schooldays, not weekends when they expect to be left in peace to worship as they please. I hate to tell you but that is no cloak of righteousness you're wearing.
They're school sports. Participating in them requires school attendance. Why should it not be expected that these sports - for which children have to attend the public schools daily in order to participate - hold their competitions on scheduled school days. The extracurricular part of school, the sports, are being allowed to invade the weekends and the worship habits of Christians (Adventists and others), Muslims and Jews. Or is the only Sabbath-keeping you're willing to tolerate the people who observe Sunday as a sabbath and then only if the local high school hasn't scheduled some puny game or tournament outside school hours?
These two Adventists intend to make it your problem. I couldn't be more pleased. Anti-sabbath Christians don't appeal to me. I have more respect for Christians who respect their own sabbath and the sabbaths of others. But thanks for your honesty.
You seem to think the only solution is to exclude certain participants, people who aren't so popular or so common in your neck of the woods. Like Adventists, Muslims, Jews for instance. Why not hold all school sports during school hours? Or at least as an event after a scheduled school day? Is it important enough to you to have weekend high school sports that you'll deprive (some) Christians, Jews and Muslims from participation in those sports if they refuse to stop observing their religious holidays and obligations? I'm surprised at how fast people are to slam the door on non-Sunday sabbatarians. Or even on sabbath-keeping on Sunday, if push comes to shove with high school or church league sports events. Fortunately, I can cheer on these two courageous Asian Adventists in their tennis victory. They won far more in court than they could have won if they'd won every scheduled match in the season. I hope they keep suing the WIAA and the school(s) so they can win again and pound the lesson home.
How other Christians follow their faith is none of my business. I don't understand why it's yours. She was free to follow her faith. No one interfered with that.
You mean, like, after school? After the scheduled school day? Outside of school hours? Perhaps even off school property? Well, gosh, if that's OK with you, then why not on a Saturday or Sunday? What's the difference?
Other than this girl, who was complaining? 800 schools in the WIAA and she was the only one? Say 50 kids from each school involved in the WIAA program. That's 40,000 kids. ONE complained? Doesn't seem like she's all that common in HER neck of the woods.
It's not a sacrifice if nothing is lost. It's an inconvenience. She wants her cake and to eat it, too.
And she followed it right into a courtroom to demand her God-given right to worship as she pleases, a right explicitly recognized under constitutional law. Not just when some puny high school sports association tells her she can worship.
Since it is school-sponsored and school-staffed, most people think it is appropriate to hold regular games in school facilities which are better equipped to deal with handicapped people, insurance, parking, etc. You really can't suggest a better venue than the school itself. Preferably during school hours but directly after school hours otherwise.
How much more hatred and contempt can even you muster against these children who just want to honor their commitment to keep the sabbath holy? It's like you really resent them venomously. As surprising as it may be, did you know that at one time, schools did not have intramural sports at all? Schools were provided to educate the public, not provide sports venues. You know, back when we achieved 98% adult literacy by eighth grade even among the most rural uneducated people.
I'll send you cash if you post, "Let them eat cake." followed by "Off with their heads." It would be a dream come true.
Who took away her God-given right to worship as she pleases?
One child. Out of 40,000.
You can believe whatever you want, just don't force your belief on me.
The weekend tennis Nazis, that's who.
But aren't you trying to force your belief that it's fine to schedule school events on a Saturday (or Sunday) even if it conflicts with a student athlete's solemn commitment to their faith? Are these sports about you and other adults or are they about youth having a chance to participate in their high school sports programs on an equal footing without being singled out because of their professed religious beliefs? I'm for The Children on this.
Which children? The other children have rights, too...to be free from religious beliefs/obligations that they do not hold.
And they are free. As long as they don't insist on forcing other children to participate in sports on days that school is not in session. These are school sports here. Therefore they are subject to equal opportunity and non-discrimination laws. Maybe if you want your kids to play sports on Saturday or Sunday, you'd better just send them to a private school where you are not subject to all the same laws that the public schools are subjected to. I'm sure the Adventists would be sad to see you do that but they are not going to back down. And they have winning lawyers. And you have no standing with the court. You've got an opinion but they got a win in court and one that may set precedent across the nation.
They WERE free. Now they must observe, by force of law, the Adventist Sabbath.
Not at all. They are free to observe or not observe anything they like on the weekends. Because the school is closed on the weekend and there will be no school sports events while the school is closed for business on the weekend.
Mission accomplished.
There is no Sabbath. That was the Mosaic covenant, exclusively for Jews in Israel, which we are not. End of subject.
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Supreme Court, I expect, will uphold freedom of sport over against enforced respect for anybody's "Sabbath".
I would have to agree with Vic on this one.
For the third (fourth?) time, no one is forcing her to play. She's free to worship any time she wants.
There you go again.
I kinda thought you'd say so. And what about Jesus teaching those same commandments repeatedly? Commandment 2 "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Matthew 4:10). "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Luke 4:8). "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam...to eat things sacrificed to idols" (Revelation 2:14). "Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, because you allow...My servants to...eat things sacrificed to idols" (Revelation 2:20). Commandment 3 "pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name" (Matthew 6:9). "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men" (Matthew 12:31). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,...blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man" (Matthew 15:19-20). "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts ... blasphemy, pride, foolishness" (Mark 7:20-22). Commandment 4 "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:11-12). "And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath" (Matthew 24:20); there would be no reason to pray this if the Sabbath was not going to be in existence. "And He said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath'" (Mk 2:27); this verse tells all who will see which day is the Lord's Day. "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue" (Mark 6:2). "And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read" (Luke 4:16). "Then He went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and was teaching them on the Sabbaths" (Luke 4:31). "The Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath...Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy?" (Luke 6:5,9). "But the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath...The Lord then answered him and said, 'Hypocrite...So ought not this woman...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?'" (Luke 13:14-16). "'Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?'...And they could not answer Him regarding these things" (Luke 14:3,6). "are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" (John 7:23). Commandment 5 "For God commanded saying, 'Honor your father and your mother' and 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death'" (Matthew 15:4). "Honor your father and your mother" (Matthew 19:19). "Honor your father and your mother" (Mark 7:10). "Honor your father and your mother" (Mark 10:19). "You know the commandments:...Honor your father and your mother" (Luke 18:20). Commandment 6 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder', and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21-22). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders...These are the things which defile a man" (Matthew 15:19-20). "You shall not murder" (Matthew 19:18). "...murders...All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (Mark 7:21,23). "Do not murder" (Mark 10:19). "You know the commandments:...Do not murder" (Luke 18:20). Commandment 7 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery'. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28). "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts...adulteries, fornications...These are the things which defile a man" (Matthew 15:19-20). "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9). "You shall not commit adultery" (Matthew 19:18). "...adulteries, fornications...All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (Mark 7:21,23). "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12). "Do not commit adultery" (Mark 10:19). "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18). "You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery" (Luke 18:20). "'Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery'...And Jesus said to her...'sin no more'" (John 8:4,11). "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation" (Revelation 2:22). Commandment 8 "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts...thefts...These are the things which defile a man" (Matthew 15:19-20). "You shall not steal" (Mat 19:18). "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer', but you have made it a den of thieves" (Matthew 21:13). "...thefts...All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (Mark 7:22-23). "Do not steal" (Mark 10:19). "You know the commandments:... Do not steal" (Luke 18:20). Commandment 9 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord. But I say to you, do not swear at all" (Matthew 5:33-34). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts...false witness...These are the things which defile a man" (Matthew 15:19-20). "You shall not bear false witness" (Matthew 19:18). "Do not bear false witness" (Mark 10:19). "You know the commandments:...Do not bear false witness" (Luke 18:20). "And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" (Revelation 2:2). Commandment 10 "Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on" (Matthew 6:25). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts...These are the things which defile a man" (Matthew 15:19-20). "...covetousness...All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (Mark 7:22-23)."I have kept My Father's commandments" (John 15:10). So there is that, written in red letters which you like. Notice how often Jesus said, "You know the commandments..." in everyday conversation. Nor did He ever say anything like, "You know the commandments but those will only count against you until after I'm crucified." Nothing that Jesus said indicated that there would soon be an end to keeping the commandments, either for Jews or anyone else. I still think these two Adventist youth are the greatest thing among Christian youth in decades. They're inspiring, very spiritual litigants.
You can't be serious. Schools are closed on Saturdays and Sundays. They have no curricular activities on either Saturday or Sunday in this country. They may assign homework but that could be done in school, riding a schoolbus, on the non-sabbath weekend day for sabbatarians and on either or both days for kids who aren't religious. The schools have no right to intrude upon students' lives and their religious practice on the weekend when the schools are officially and legally closed. The Court would rule for the Adventists decisively on the basis that the school made no attempt to accommodate their schedule of extracurricular sports toward the schedule of sabbath observance on weekends when the schools are officially closed to all students. And they are discriminating against Saturday sabbath keepers like Adventists and Jews (there are still a few Jews on the Court) but not discriminating against Sunday sabbath keepers. Nor did they discriminate against both types of sabbath keepers equally. Any good lawyer could drive a truck bomb through the school's legal defense. I think it would lead to a unanimous Court verdict in favor of the Adventists. Unfortunately, the sports leagues now have a heads-up on this issue and have seen the result of the first court case and so they may try to tiptoe around it a bit, fearing litigation and attracting some plaintiffs who will take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Maybe you just don't like treating all students equally, regardless of religion. Or maybe you think the current system of discriminating against Saturday sabbatarians works for you and others like you so you don't want any changes. I can't stop laughing at all the hijinks and weird dodges my own alma mater came up with in recent years, trying to deny that they'd run out of having enough boys to play 11-man football. In the end, it's been an utter humiliation for them. And they've discovered what the other small towns around them actually think of them. It's a comedy gold mine there in Hooterville.
Then, since the idea of keeping a sabbath is so repugnant to you, you would have no objection at all if the school sports leagues decided to schedule all their weekend sports activities and tournament play on Sunday mornings instead of Saturday mornings? Since you obviously don't care, why not accommodate the Jews and the Adventists and others who do take the ancient Saturday sabbath seriously as a defining practice of their religion? Put all these school events on Sunday, spread them around throughout the day. Leave Saturday as the true sabbath established since ancient times, the only real sabbath worth observing.
I believe I said I respected her decision to keep the sabbath. "you would have no objection at all if the school sports leagues decided to schedule all their weekend sports activities and tournament play on Sunday mornings instead of Saturday mornings?" Only if it were done vindictively.
Saturday sports have been a part of the American scene for a very, very long time. A Supreme Court composed entirely of Catholics and secular Jews, is not going alter American life to that extent in order to serve the religious hobbyhorses of some fringe nuts.
Actually, they've done that more times than you could count, most recently in their radical sodomy marriage decision. The Court, over a period of decades, changed sodomy from illegal in almost all 50 states to an institution of marriage with all the attendant legal protections in all 50 states. It makes me wonder if you're really a lawyer if you can say that with a straight face and expect someone to take you seriously. The Court is not particularly afraid of upending civic institutions, even those whose origins reach back thousands of years to the founding of the first civilizations.
You should address all the questions TC asked. They are good questions. You cherry picked one and ignored the rest. Does that mean he is right on his other points?
The Sabbath isn't repugnant to me...but snowflakes who demand special treatment...yeah, they are a little repugnant to me. Are they going to shut down the ski team, the golf team, the track and field team, the debate team, the basketball team, the marching band, the Junior and Senior Prom, the foreign student exchange program, the Senior Trip...most of which meet and compete on weekends. Scroll up to the top and take another look at their special snowflake grin now that they've screwed everybody out of extra curricular activity...now that's repugnant!
Extend the school year by a week or two. That would make plenty of time for all these extra sports events. The teens now hardly ever work summer jobs anyway. And most farmers I know are mechanized enough that they aren't relying on their kids for summer labor. That usually involves more mundane stuff like painting buildings or cleaning barns and such anyway. Again, why not make reasonable accommodation? Why is a shorter school year (by a week or two) more important than excluding Saturday sabbatarians from those same taxpayer-funded sports? If you want the freedom to schedule school events any time, night or day, then send your kids to private schools. And would you mind if they just moved all the Saturday sports events to Sundays? Since you don't value a sabbath to begin with, why would you object if Saturday were sports-free and all weekend sports were conducted only on Sundays? Or are you just content to deprive Jews and Adventists of their Sabbath while you know that your (nominal) sabbath (which you've said you don't actually care about) is respected when the schedules are set up for the season?
Vic will have a more unique take, as we should know from his posts on OT scripture. In addition, the church of Rome changed the Saturday sabbath to a Sunday sabbath to displace the worship habits of the pagans of the Roman empire. They did this in conjunction with the emperor so it could be enforced by state power. The original great conjunction of state power and religious doctrine. However, Rome also instituted over time a greater spiritual value on having Mass daily. And since they have Mass daily, then Saturday night is just as good for a worship service as Sunday, isn't it? And just as many Catholics attend Saturday evening Mass as attend Mass on Sunday mornings. The key doctrine being protected here is the Eucharist, as being of far greater importance than any particular sabbath day tradition, even their own sabbath tradition, weak as it is. It is somewhat un-Catholic to insist on a particular Sabbath day. Because Rome said so a long time ago when they were attempting to suppress the worship of pagan idols and make Rome's empire into a Roman Catholic Empire with the emperor's blessing. Of course, Vic knows this and knows what a bunch of mouthy Prots we are. And we all would still have a Saturday sabbath were it not for the church of Rome being the official religion of the Roman empire which is why we Prots still call it the Roman Catholic church, even when Catholics keep telling us "We're just the Catholic church, period!". More ecumenical fun for everyone. So Vic isn't all that likely to post at length on this particular topic. I did flag him just to see if he had some dark humor or a unique take on the topic. Vic can get a Eucharist any day of the week, a couple times a day if he really wants to. So what is a sabbath to Vic? Nothing.
If they did move sports to Sunday, I would not sue them, and demand they bend to my religion...never. I love freedom of religion and I love freedom from religion. Let them move their sports to Sunday...the pros play on Sunday anyway. Let them make Sunday a school day, a work day. Let them make laws that prohibit me from assembling (as already happens around the world). I do not need blue laws or sharia laws or any other man made laws to help me assemble and worship. I am not a snow flake...
Colossians 2:15-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Too bad really. This is one reason Christians in America keep losing so steadily. Because the other side and the courts know you're happy to take it on the chin, no matter what they do. Then why not accommodate these two Adventists since you don't care what days these amateur bush-league events are held on to begin with? No. You're a doormat. And when doormats finally get popular in America, you've got it made.
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Well, Paul is pretty good at having his cake (and idol-sacrificed meat) and eating it too. 4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. That is, at best, a very mixed message from the good Apostle. Maybe he changed his mind in the middle of writing this rather personal spiritual advice to that Corinthian but couldn't erase the ink from his earlier passage of advice that you quoted. Or maybe we should follow Trump's lead and only rely the book where Paul wrote to the two Corinthians. Anyway, Trump doesn't even know John 3:16 (in my estimation) but he does know the 2 Corinthians. I still chuckle over that and wonder if any of his flunkies ever explained to him just how ignorant of the Bible his little remark had revealed him to be. That wasn't the #FakeNews media making him do it; he stepped on his own dick in public with that one. Not that I can tell that it cost him a single vote.
I'd rather be a doormat, than a snowflake.
I was hoping you'd help resolve those contradictions in 1 Corinthians. I'm still not sure what, on balance, Paul intended to convey to that Corinthian. Then he had to go and write to the Two Corinthians after that. The church at Corinth required a lot of apostolic supervision, it seems.
I'm not sure why you posted the Corinthian passage. I posted the Colossians passage... ...because you were judging me in respect to how I kept, or regarded, the Sabbath. You said... and also... Colossians 2:16 was given for just such an occasion as this. In all the years I had read that passage I never dreamt I'd need to quote it. (There's plenty of good commentary on it ;)
If you don't care about the sabbath or recognize it, why do you care if the Adventists do take their sabbath seriously? Or if Jews take their sabbath seriously? You seem to mind more that these Adventists are demanding that their sabbath be respected as much as anyone else's sabbath. Because we both know that regular Sunday high school sports aren't on the schedule anywhere. At least, I never see any games listed on Sundays, not even makeup games or playoffs or tournaments where scheduling would be expected to be tighter. You might be surprised. I know when I was young, there was discussion in the local church of which daily work could be considered routine and which was essential or emergency work. The consensus was that it was an emergency and excusable if you were hard up to finish a harvest or hay crop. Or if you were pulling a calf or feeding cows or checking cows. Other than that, you would be treating the sabbath like an ordinary day of the week. You shouldn't be too surprised if your neighbors might observe the same sort of things. Because rural areas are boring and everyone does know too much about their neighbors. I always went with that standard. I found I could check/feed cattle on Sunday morning early and do another check after church, then an evening check. But I didn't do things like fix fence or do summer fallow or things like that on Sunday. I would try to avoid cutting down hay on Friday or Saturday so I was less likely to need to stack/bale hay on a Sunday. If you don't have too much of a full-time haying schedule, it can be made to work. I'm not sure if anyone even has any regard for sabbaths and farm work any more. Perhaps what I recall and what I did (as a regular churchgoer back then) are just a relic of the old days and no one today pays any attention to sabbath keeping of any sort. Maybe it is now just another day of the week on America's farms and nothing else. We don't grow olives and figs and grapes as they did in the Bible. They didn't have cattle that needed help birthing or crops like wheat or alfalfa that are very time-critical to harvest. We have a different kind of agriculture, often more time-sensitive. So at least some differences do apply IMO. I always thought it was important not to erase the sabbath, to set aside the day if at all possible.
For the millionth time...I don't care if they take it serious or not. I do care that they are using their Sabbath observance to take away American freedom. Others, I think, are trying to tell you the same thing...don't take away someone's freedom to play a sport, when and where they want to, just because you believe a certain way! It's wrong! Let the Adventists go and start a private school. How hard is that! Now, as for your farming work/Sabbath discussions in your old church... How one keeps the Sabbath or any holy day for that matter just ends up as something to boast about: "I keep the Sabbath better than you" "I go to church more than you" "I'm a better Christian than you because I piled up a bunch of hay for my cows the day before Sabbath. See, I didn't do a ANY work on Sabbath". The Bible calls it being "vainly puffed up" by one's fleshly mind. TC, the Sabbath and all the holy days were just a "shadow" of things to come...namely Christ. Read it...it's right there in the Bible. The Sabbath is there to TEACH you about Christ, how He lay in the tomb "resting" after He finished His work on the cross. That's what Sabbath (Shabbat)means, "to rest from labor" It's Christ resting from HIS labor! Please! Try to understand. Christ...fulfilled...Sabbath...already. All you have to do is trust in Him and it is accredited to you as well. And maybe this is why Christians have been instructed to move to a new day, the first day of the week, the Lord's Day. The "rest" is over, it's time to praise and rejoice! Hey, this repetitive stuff is wearisome. I'm old and I've been cutting firewood all day:-)
So you think that schools are free, for instance, to play games and tournaments at 3am. On Thanksgiving or Christmas. That would be fine with you? I think you're not telling the truth. I think you're satisfied with a system that favors the Sunday sabbath and which excludes Jews and Adventists and others even if the game/tournament schedule could be changed to accommodate these religious minorities. And that is exactly why the Adventists won. And that is exactly why I think they would prevail if the WIAA was foolish enough to keep appealing all the way to the Supreme Court. I expect they have lawyers smart enough to tell them to just suck it up before the courts make it worse for them. In the meantime, the news of this precedent is no doubt spreading around the various youth sports leagues and school boards will be considering how willing they are to get sued if they don't make every effort to accommodate religious minorities and to schedule around their sabbaths.
The Sabbath is there to TEACH you about Christ, how He lay in the tomb "resting" after He finished His work on the cross. That's what Sabbath (Shabbat)means, "to rest from labor" It's Christ resting from HIS labor! Please! Try to understand. Christ...fulfilled...Sabbath...already. But was He "just resting", like a parrot in a Monty Python skit? What point is there in resting for the dead whose bodies don't become weary? Then we have a few passages in scripture to deal with. But we have another explanation as well. So Jesus was "resting" in another tiresome too-easy explanation about some OT "foreshadowing". Or he was partying in Paradise with the thief. Or he was preaching in hell. Or maybe he partied for one day with the thief in Paradise then spent 2 days in hell preaching to the semi-righteous who had been burning in hell ever since Noah's flood drowned them all. One of those things. Or something else entirely.
Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. another tiresome too-easy explanation about some OT "foreshadowing". Jesus, being God, can certainly be where ever and whenever He wants, no problem there. As for as OT foreshadowing, that's what the OT is all about. The OT uses historical events to help us understand spiritual truths. For instance, circumcision in the OT helps us understand the spiritual circumcision of the heart. In the same way, Antiochus Epiphanes is a "type" of the Anti-christ, a foreshadowing. Why do you say "foreshadowing" is tiresome? Just curious.
It becomes an excuse to pretend the OT is still relevant, even in its most obscure and inapplicable passages. The greatest sources of heresy, after the gnostics, was a constant series of attempts to apply OT Jewish scripture to the Christians. When, for instance, Paul or other NT writers refer in quotes back to OT scriptures, they were most certainly not telling us that those elements of Judaism are authentical Christian doctrine. Yet every flimflam preacher and theologian in the last two thousand years dips their brush in the OT inkwell, to make it say what they want it to say and to make that applicable to their own favored theology. So you have, for instance, the defenses of American slavery using passages from the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Or defense of public morals laws using the OT when no such condemnation can be found in the NT. The examples are endless and they do blight people's lives, often over centuries. All in the name of Jesus supposedly but actually just in the name of those who promulgate these anti-Christian doctrines that they can support only by trying to pretend that the Old Testament is applicable to Christianity and that "Judeo-Christian morality" is the reason for it. (Another lie: there is no Judeo-Christian anything and any Jew can tell you that if anyone ever bothered to ask them. But they make sure they don't ask the Jews about those things, don't they?)
It makes me wonder if you're really a lawyer if you can say that with a straight face and expect someone to take you seriously. The Court is not particularly afraid of upending civic institutions, even those whose origins reach back thousands of years to the founding of the first civilizations. Each court is different. (You're right that I don't give a fig about "sabbath days". The Sabbath was given to the Hebrews at Sinai. I'm not Jewish. Sunday is not the Catholic Sabbath, it is, rather, a Holy Day of Obligation (as are certain other days during the year, such as Ash Wednesday, Good Friday). The obligation to attend Mass on Sunday can be satisfied by attending the Saturday evening Vigil mass.)(Oh, and one is supposed to take the eucharist only once per day, according to the present rule.)(I don't care much about the "rules" - that's true.) If you don't take me seriously, that is not my problem. You have very peculiar, strong but marginal religious and political ideas and ideals. You're not accustomed to getting what you want out of the country's politics. I'm a status quo centrist type, insofar as "the way things are" - including their slow evolution from what they were to what they are becoming - generally suit me just fine. Issues involving gay rights - on those the court is likely to move goalposts in favor of something in line with "progress", as most people would see it. The Court is unlikely to impose religious restrictions that burden free private activity generally, on behalf of a marginal sect that is not progressive. I'm happy to place a wager on this one.
Because homosexual sex should never have been illegal in the first place, and as the movement to liberate people picked up steam, the religious tried to hold the line, and built up quite a political following, that had to be shoved aside, and was.
Nice list. Indeed, what Jesus said there is the reason I worship YHWH as God. I obey and serve God by following his divine son Jesus, as both God and Jesus said to do.
But you could float from church to church, gobbling all the Eucharists you like. So there is that. That is true enough. But policy never changes as the result of "status quo centrist" types until disaster forces change upon them. Naturally, I don't expect to change the world by posting on LP. I am always interested in how much currency certain issues have with the right wing. I consider the Left to be an entirely lost cause on the issues I care about. Like any scoundrel, I'll always take refuge with Sam Adams. Status quo centrists have never achieved anything in history. They just don't. It's foreign to their nature. Those of us who are are an "irate, tireless minority" may wait decades or a lifetime for our chance but every so often, history ineffably calls out our cause. And the world suddenly changes, no longer the plaything of the elites and the various "status quo centrists". It's taxpayer-funded with funds from federal sources and considerable existing regulation and court precedent. It is subject to Title IX and to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not, by definition, a "free private activity" in any sense. It is a voluntary exercise of opportunity provided equally and without encumbrance to all enrolled youth in American public schools. And it is an activity that is not essential to education and graduation but is instead extracurricular. I really don't think you've thought it through. Trying to dismiss it as "free private activity" is a joke when you consider how many court cases have been decided that explicitly deny such justifications for various types of discrimination, even on far weaker grounds than the ones in this case. The list of cases where similar plaintiffs have prevailed is too extensive to start listing here. What we really need is a transsexual Adventist Asian tennis player to bring a lawsuit. Then we could go all the way to the Supremes and get an answer. My guess is that the WIAA is smart enough not to appeal this loss and risk setting further binding precedent and that the other youth leagues will tiptoe around the scheduling of sports if there's any Adventists (or Jews) on their horizon.
I knew you'd like it. You're a big fan of that red text. : )
I've begun to think that the current strong downturn in church attendance was a result of young people holding a grudge against the various organized tax-free religious outlets with their laws favoring slavery, outlawing miscegenation or the freeing of slaves, against sodomy, against tattoos, etc. In fact, I've considered whether the big craze for tattoos among Christians is a rebellion against its virtual prohibition in Christian circles before 25 years ago. Nowadays, Christian young people are a lot more likely to go to a tattoo shop than a Christian bookstore. And you see Christian family men, mainstays in their church, who drink Scotch and smoke cigars. My landlord is a guy like that, 3 nice kids and a pretty wife, a veteran and a go-getter. I helped him do some repair work to a porch and when he got done, I pulled out an old bottle of Scotch (that I inherited) and we took a few small shots, sitting on the front porch. Just then, his wife and 3 kids turned the corner down the block and I saw them and quickly said, "Maybe I should take these inside." He just said, "It's no problem." I guess it's good that we drank up the Scotch that day because the next day he was doing a little finish work on the porch and his minister came by to talk church business with him privately. Believe me, a generation ago, none of that would have been happening. Hell, I think the Baptists actually speak to each other in liquor stores now and even make love standing up (to remind you of a few old-time jokes on the subject). The churches are paying the price for their past excesses as enacted into public laws. It may finish off the churches in America, just as it largely did in Europe. I've considered that this might be a temporary anti-religious cultural turn, something seen in many centuries though not often well-known even in Christian circles. But sometimes a religion becomes thoroughly discredited by its own record and by its own standards. And so I suspect that American Christianity is in a long downward spiral. It will get much worse for the churches before it gets any better. If it's any comfort, I notice that Judaism and other religions have the same problem. Hindus and Muslims are the next who will have to deal with it, largely among their native-born offspring.
The greatest sources of heresy, after the gnostics, was a constant series of attempts to apply OT Jewish scripture to the Christians. When, for instance, Paul or other NT writers refer in quotes back to OT scriptures, they were most certainly not telling us that those elements of Judaism are authentical Christian doctrine. Yet every flimflam preacher and theologian in the last two thousand years dips their brush in the OT inkwell, to make it say what they want it to say and to make that applicable to their own favored theology. So you have, for instance, the defenses of American slavery using passages from the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Or defense of public morals laws using the OT when no such condemnation can be found in the NT. The examples are endless and they do blight people's lives, often over centuries. All in the name of Jesus supposedly but actually just in the name of those who promulgate these anti-Christian doctrines that they can support only by trying to pretend that the Old Testament is applicable to Christianity and that "Judeo-Christian morality" is the reason for it. (Another lie: there is no Judeo-Christian anything and any Jew can tell you that if anyone ever bothered to ask them. But they make sure they don't ask the Jews about those things, don't they?) Nailed it. Bingo. Bullseye. Target achieved. Exactly right. Perfect. What he said.
What Jesus said, properly translated and taken as a whole (he contradicts himself in places), filtered through my own conscience, is the only aspect of the Bible I accept as binding authority. The opinions of the various Apostles in their letters are interesting, and often persuasive authority, but they are not law. Ditto for the entire Old Testament. Ditto for the various opinions of the Catholic Church over the years. I'll consider all of it, the same way I consider newspaper articles or other editorials. But the only things that I accept as binding legal authority are what God the Father or Jesus said in the Gospels and Revelation, as interpreted by me.
Well, there goes your defense of Sabbath.
Status quo centrists have never achieved anything in history. They just don't. Truths: (1) I could go back to several masses at my own church and the priests are either not going to notice that I've come up for the eucharist at each mass, or they won't care - the rule of "one eucharist per day" is a formal one that few pe people know pe people know (including priests, probably), and that nobody enforces. (2) I don't particularly like going to Church, more than a little bit of starts to feel like a waste of time. I definitely would not waste my time going to multiple masses - it would bore me to tears. (3) Status quo centrists win the wars, kept the country from dissolving in the Civil War, kept us from going either Nazi or Communist during the Great Depression. Kept us from a race war in the 1960s. Kept us in Vietnam until the treaty, and kept us from going back in after we withdrew. Kept Reagan and the Republicans of the 1980s and since from privatizing Social Security or Medicare. Eventually, centrists will get us to universal Medicare WITHOUT socializing everything the way the Left would have us do, but without giving the health insurers what they will always want.
To me, slavery is an attempt to overcome the curse, where God says... Evil lazy men seek to avoid the thorn, thistle, and sweat...by making others endure it for them. What a massive failure for humanity that has been! Since slavery has been outlawed, evil lazy men have conjured other ways to avoid the thorn, thistle, and sweat...namely roundup ready GMO's. And again, what a massive failure for humanity that is turning out to be!
It's why I have such contempt for them and have no time or patience for an anything they say. I know God through miracle, I recognize God in Jesus. I despise the Christian Ch Churches because every time I speak to them, they ignore what I have to say ab about Jesus to go on a Ch Churches because every time I speak to them, they ignore what I have to say ab about Jesus to go on a tear about some stupid made up shit they came up with th that Jesus didn't say. My rejection of them is CATEGORICAL. They DISGUST me. I I do not see them as agents of good, but as agents of oppression who oc occasionally do something I I do not see them as agents of good, but as agents of oppression who oc occasionally do something good, like a blind squirrel finding a nut. I hold the Catholic Church is about the same light, but Catholics don't press their religion on me and I like to sing. The pretty churches and music are nice - for the same reason art museums and European cities are nice: it's an art art form. (So when others scream "idolatry" I've already written all such scre screamers art art form. (So when others scream "idolatry" I've already written all such scre screamers off as bad guys and don't listen to a word they say, but when the Opus Opus Dei crowd get all strange and technical ("Jesus is present in the euch eucharist, but he is no longer present 15 seconds after you swallow him") I roll roll my eyes also. Religious nonsense irritates me. God doesn't. Only very rarely do the twain me meet in my mind. The Churches in Europe died because "When Britain first at heaven's command arose from out the azure main..." and "God and my right!", and "Error has no rights!", and "One faith, one law, one God, one King!", and "Gott Mit Uns!", and "G and "God Save the Tsar!", etc., etc. Lather, rinse, repeat in every great na and "G and "God Save the Tsar!", etc., etc. Lather, rinse, repeat in every great nation nation and paltry principality all over Europe. Now have these nations, eve nation nation and paltry principality all over Europe. Now have these nations, every one pr one protected by God, hurl themselves in isometric battle to the death in W one pr one protected by God, hurl themselves in isometric battle to the death in World War I, War I, and then do it all over again, and by the end of it, people don't b War I, War I, and then do it all over again, and by the end of it, people don't believ believe those lies anymore...and why SHOULD they? (They shouldn't.) Hearing me rage about religion is pointless. Who cares, besides me, what I th think? Nobody. Christianity is dying out, rapidly, everywhere. The only thing that can save it is a laser-beam focus on Christ, just him, because he is the only think wo worthwhile in the whole religion. The men have been murderous shitheads when th they have wielded power. When they just wielded the word, all the way back to Pa Paul, James, Jude and John, they wrote such a confusing and contra Pa Paul, James, Jude and John, they wrote such a confusing and contradictory mess of of letters that, frankly, one can believe anything one pleases, i of of letters that, frankly, one can believe anything one pleases, including a bu bunch of things that contradict Jesus. Given that "Christ"-ianity is supposed to be all about CHRIST, I take it that it makes the most sense to listen to HIM, and to reject every doctrine, every belief, everything, that contradicts anything he said. This means discarding a great deal of the Bible, which drives idolators whose idol is the Bible insane. No skin off my nose. I used to enjoy fighting these battles, but then, Christianity as an organized religion used to be big and important. Now, it's falling apart. Thanks to Mexican immigration the background radiation of religion - the religion of the lower classes - is becoming Catholic, and that I find friendly and warm, unlike the prickly old Protestantisms that I never liked but had to deal with. As they die off, I don't - and that suits me. This is why I think you're off the mark on this Adventist thing. Yes, the Supreme Court DID defend the Catholics' right to be Catholic, back in the day, and did defend freedom of conscience. But no, the Supreme Court has not been in the business of disrupting the society left and right. I see a clear, logical arc in their decisions over history - and given that I'm a status quo centrist, I find myself in agreement with most of what they did. The institutions of America generally do what I want them to do and expect them to do, because the overall temper of this land, written large, is very much like me, and very much NOT like the crabby insane Protty fringe (no matter how much they scream and bleat, to themselves, that THEY founded it and it was all about THEM back in the day). (Truth is, they LED the founding of things, but as soon as they behaved stupidly, as religious fanatics do, that was the end of much of their power: Massachussetts' religious establishment was HEAVILY limited after the Salem witch trial lunacy - MOST people came to America se seeking economic opportunity. Religious freedom is nice, but once religion st starts getting overmighty, Americans pull off fangs, wings and limbs of the re religion and reduce it to a social function, because Americans are not for the mo most part religious fanatics. mo most part religious fanatics. Gay rights were pushed ahead by the Supreme Court because it was a matter of making a broad, stubborn, backwards-thinking quasi religious society accept what what it did not want to: the freedom of secular people to have sex with whom they they please, and to marr they they please, and to marry whom they please. And the more the religious tried to u to use levers of power, to u to use levers of power, the more the court made the point of tearing off wings and and fangs and limbs un and and fangs and limbs until the religion was, once again, neutered. The wedding cake issue cut the other way. There, aggressive gays were trying to to use the law as a club to impose on a private cake artist doing something sp specifically against his will. The Court, unsurprisingly, stepped in and st stopped that nonsense. So, an Adventist - member of a fringe cult - has decided s/he "can't" break sa sabbath because of a sports events, and demands that a whole aspect of American cu culture be chan cu culture be changed to suit her fringe. This is unreasonable. It was not unreasonable for blacks to demand absolutely equal rights, and that businesses have to serve them. It was not unreasonable for gays to demand the right to sex, and ultimately to form unions that allow them old age protections of married people. It was unreasonable, however, that gays demand to make non-gay religious gay religious cake artists decorate their cakes. And it's unreasonable for a fringe cult member to expect the whole sports culture of culture of society to cease because of that cult's peculiar beliefs. It's not reasonable reasonable by my lights, and my lights seem to line up very well with the Centrist st Centrist status quo, which the courts have upheld. gay religious cake artists decorate their cakes. And it's unreasonable for a fringe cult member to expect the whole sports cu culture of society to cease because of that cult's peculiar beliefs. It's not re r re reasonable by my lights, and my lights seem to line up very well with the Ce Centrist status quo, which the courts have upheld. There are different views of right and wrong.
The computer really stutters a lot lately. Something to do with the link, I t think.
I appreciate the appreciation. However, I've posted about the mischief of heresy and false doctrines caused by misuse of the OT about as many times as you've posted about red letter quotes. Certainly, it's a tune I've sung many times online at LP and here at LF. So don't act quite so surprised. But thanks for the concurrence.
I am just as ready to defend the Adventists and their right to enjoy their distinctive sabbatarian doctrine as ever. I admit I was exploring the level of hostility that other Christians hold toward a sabbath throughout this thread. And it is considerable. Right until someone starts talking about holding those high school sports on Sunday instead. Then things take on a hostile undertone.
Religion is a great thing until someone decides to organize it. They only say that to keep the kids from thinking about what your body turns the wafer into in 24 hours or so. For such questions, you need stone-faced nuns with a yardstick so that such questions don't get asked. At least, not more than once. I think it was a long generational process that was instigated by the huge losses Europe experienced in the two world wars. They were bled out. It caused the younger generations to doubt everything element of European traditions as matter of habit. It was a death by a thousand doubts (more like a thousand million doubts). The ancien regime truly died at last and that is part of post-modernist thinking. They're only nominally Catholic. And even less so every day they spend in America. I think you do know this. As for not liking Prot pricks, well, who can blame you? Other than the fabled Prot work ethic, what has it produced really? Nothing of any particular consequence. Even the work ethic is overrated. How can you type that? The Court has spent the last century constantly disrupting American society in decision after decision. It has been a century of unbridled radical court activism, constituting a 9-member super-legislature on the Court. No one can seriously look at the changes in American life instigated by the Supreme Court over the last century and try to portray them as "status quo centrists". Not without people starting to giggle. It was two Adventists. The first played the previous year and observed the sabbath and couldn't complete the scheduled matches but did raise objections to their scheduling, establishing the claim to complaints received by the WIAA. The younger Adventist went to court to demand that the school make reasonable accommodation to allow Saturday sabbatarians to participate before the younger Adventist was also forced to make the choice between religion (First Amendment) and mere weekend sports that are entirely extracurricular. The court found, exercising its due diligence, that the Adventists were correct and that the WIAA could have scheduled the matches outside the weekend sabbath days. And that is why the WIAA lost and why they would continue to lose if they didn't have lawyers to tell them to shut up and not appeal the case to a higher court where they would lose again and set an even more damaging precedent. The case itself wasn't that complex: don't stack weekend extracurricular sports events, held when school is officially closed, against the free exercise of religion, especially not in public schools funded and regulated under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX from 1972. I'm not sure that even a private school could get away with it but any public school league would get in hot water quickly. Which they did at the hands of these two bloodthirsty Adventists who were taking no prisoners. So it's fine for them to get married as long as they don't say "Bake me that cake, bitch!" to some bakery employee. Well, okay. I thought that was the more fun part. I do notice they don't try to pull this crap on any Muslim bakeries. Yeah, there they aren't so brave and sassy, are they? I thought maybe you were dictating by voice your posts on a cellphone or something. I wasn't sure because even posting like that wouldn't result in these rather awful posts you've been making in recent weeks. Your prose quality has nosedived this last month. Surely you're not posting from a desktop computer, are you? If so, you need to replace it or fix it. It's not getting any better and you are a knowledge worker with a need for a reliable working computer. Your thought process should not be interrupted by the need to keep re-editing stuff. That was not the issue before the court. The Adventists never asked the court to do that at all. I'm trying to have the last word or at least a quip but I'm drawing a complete blank.
You should have taken some courses in economics. Bad as the current system is, Medicare for all can only mean one thing. Healthcare rationing and very strict price controls for the medical industry and Big Pharma. Keep in mind, people are finding it harder and harder to even get a doctor if they have Medicare because the doctors say it pays too little and they can't take so many charity cases. There is one real bulwark that I see beyond the medical lobby and Big Pharma that makes me confident that Medicare For All will never happen: the trial lawyers will fight it tooth and nail, top to bottom, state court and legislature all the way to Congress and the Supremes. But all the talk of MFA may lead to the election of a prez/Congress that would tinker with ZeroCare even more and make it even more unworkable. Of course, I am an incurable optimist. Things will probably turn out much worse than I expect.
Certainly, it's a tune I've sung many times online at LP and here at LF. So don't act quite so surprised. But thanks for the concurrence. But THIS time you didn't tangle it up with some "defense of MY doctrine" or Catholic-bashing nonsense. You fired off a well-aimed torpedo and it went right up the poop-chute of your target and exploded. Boom! Slam dunk!
Fencing tournaments worldwide are held on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays - so Muslims, Jews and Christians all have to sacrifice their "day of rest" to participate in the sport. So what? God doesn't care.
No one can seriously look at the changes in American life instigated by the Supreme Court over the last century and try to portray them as "status quo centrists". Not without people starting to giggle. Give me your list.
Even when I re-edit things to get rid of the stu stutter stuttering, the edited messages edit edited messages themselves get scrambled. I am using two two desktop computers. Makes me wonder if this is what happens to Boris To BoRIS (ok that was me me me me).
I rarely blamed Rome for things that the Prots had clearly done. After all, so much of this happened well before there was enough Catholic population in this country to influence anything. Besides, I still have plenty of ammo for Rome when I'm in the mood.
You need a proper technician. In a Blue state they cost more than a plumber but it won't take them long to straighten it out. A few hours, probably less than $200 if they can fix both machines at once (assuming you don't have some hopelessly complex proprietary software on it). Create multiple full backups of all your documents. And get a good tech to come fix them both at the same time. You know, you could just have some malware. Also Windows 10 has known keyboard stuttering problems. Some people report it as being especially bad with dual monitors. Others complain of seconds of delay from striking a key and seeing it on the screen, that sort of thing. I couldn't speculate more without seeing it in person.
Yeah, probably not. Just thinking about typing such a list makes my fingers hurt. There is nothing moderate or centrist or collegial or consistent or principled or courageous about this Court. When will you admit it, when they legalize polygamy and group marriage?
No, you don't care. I don't think you speak for the Jews, Muslims and Christians who observe the Saturday sabbath. You might as well just say, "Well, if I don't mind then they shouldn't either." Which misses the point entirely. OTOH, how many devout Jews/Muslims/Christians pursue a lily white sport like European fencing anyway? A handful? Even fewer than the number of Asian Adventist tennis players.
I took plenty of economics, and work in finance. I've experienced Medicare for ALL; the French system. It's much better than what we have. I think that, just as the issue of black rights finally truly demolished the old Klan South, and just as the issue of gay rights and prosperity gospel really demolished the Moral Majority, that this stalwart refusal to get good medical insurance to all will demolish the Republican Party. They are dug in on this, and things only get worse. It reminds me very much of the way that the Republicans dug in with regards to economic reform at the time of the New Deal, and dug in with isolationism before World War II. In the first instance, the people elected FDR and a Democrat New Deal supermajority in Congress, and FDR frightened the Supreme Court into submission, and didn't lose power again until 1994... In the second instance, the Japanese bombed us and Hitler declared war anyway, permanently discrediting the isolationist sentiment. I think that the stubborn refusal to provide health insurance to about 20% of the population, and the excruciating cost of what we do have to another 20-30% (and rising) will break the power of the Republicans. I think they, armed with the levers of government, will fight to the death on this one, as they did on those other ones, and I think their eventual political defeat on the matter will be calamitous, and will be accompanied by nearly revolutionary changes, including things like a wealth tax (which we do need) and free college (which we don't need). Simply put, you cannot deny a huge and growing portion of the population affordable (to them) health care and expect to hold the line. Racists deluded themselves into believing they could hold the line on race. Christians deluded themselves into believing they could hold the line on sex. Laisser-faire capitalists believed they could hold the line on regulation and taxation. And isolationists believed they could hold the line on military involvement with the world They were all dead wrong - foreseeably so - and when they finally fell under the weight of overwhelming pressure, the entire superstructure went down with them: they never were able to get back up, because they were not simply politically defeated but intellectually discredited. Christianity may fail, but that doesn't mean that the Aztecs will ever get another bite at the apple.
I didn't say the Jews, Christians and Muslims don't care. I said GOD does not care. And he doesn't. People care, because their old political organizations - aka temples, churches and mosques - have erected a series of traditions which they have ground into superstitious heads come from God. They don't come from God. God isn't going to defend the various religious sabbaths, and he isn't going to crush the nations that don't follow them. Never has - except for Israel (because that was a TERM OF A LAND CONTRACT for them) - and never will. No matter how much the superstitious bleat, bray and crow. Now, it might be that the religious still have a sufficient grip on the American Supreme Court to be able to get a "Sabbath Rule" for public school sports. But as I've said before, I doubt it. Sports in America have been happening Friday evenings and Saturdays, and sometimes Sundays, for as long as anybody remembers. The Supreme Court is not going to plow under all of that traditional aspect of the society for a dubious and unworkable accomodation. Sabbaths cannot be accomodated. They can't be done during the school week without interrupting school time and study time. Both days of the weekend are somebody's Sabbath. So, there is no reasonable accomodation: the weekends are when competitive sports need to be done. They're weekends BECAUSE they were somebody's Sabbath. Students have to choose between Sabbath-keeping and sports because there is no other time when sports can be reasonably done. Religion loses.
I'm sorry. I don't follow what this means.
Well, we might accept that you are speaking for your God. Unless you get struck by lightning soon. You don't get to speak for them. Or dictate their policy or theology. Because they do have freedom of religion. No, they haven't. Public high schools went national only a century ago. And the Court is well aware of its short tenure. As I said before, you can play all the sports you want by just adding about two weeks to the school year. I can't imagine you would need 3 weeks to accommodate it. It's not as though teens work any more. At least, I rarely see one with a job even here in a rural area. And none of those teens have a right to work 3 months a year. I do find it humorous that the local schools do close at the first sign of a snowflake hitting the ground. They look for any excuse to do it. That is, unless there is a sporting event. Then they'll brave most any blizzard hazard rather than cancel the school day and therefore the sports event. This is true of football and basketball anyway. Damn, I recall country school when I was a kid. We attended 7 months a year for some of those years and had a 5-month summer break. When we merged with the local town school, most of us were reading 2-5 years above grade level and thought the townies were kind of stupid kids. Which was true.
And France is a very small quaint country with its population conveniently concentrated. As with passenger rail systems which work well in small countries like France or Japan, you cannot easily scale that continental masses like America or Russia or China. And American longevity varies considerably by zip code, something you must already know. It is very difficult to compare the two in any fair way. Or something else will happen. The worldwide system of 800+ American bases is massively expensive even if they don't incur many casualties at present. But we do spend more than the next half-dozen Great Powers combined. And we are facing dangerous enemies who have secret or public nuclear weapons systems. That requires a very hard reckoning of where we spend defense dollars and how many we spend. The petrodollar which has stabilized petroleum at a lower price due to America becoming the world's leading oil supplier a year or so back. But the ongoing Boomer retirement and constantly escalating medical costs for their care is already a huge problem. SS/Medicare are, in fact, bankrupt and the prospect for improvement in their financial stability is dismal. Entire sectors of the economy are due to be overturned radically with the introduction of AI, drones, machine intelligence. We've barely seen the beginnings of what will happen over the next ten years. The future of the American workforce is about like the future of the workforce of most cloud computing centers or credit/debit cards processing centers: a few dozen workers on duty 24/7/365, tending the machines which are configured in a fail-over design. This will result in major expansion and capital investment but without the attendant employment. Large industries growing ever larger but without the cost of people working there. That is a reality that has already arrived in some sectors. We see the same patterns of blending bad mortgages with good mortgages as we saw prior to the 2009 crisis. And the same vulnerability to foreign-instigated currency destabilization. We are vastly overextended militarily around the world. We have a huge ongoing commitment to retirees that is only growing and the SS/Medicare/Medicaid system continues to grow. We are on the verge of seeing vast numbers of working class and middle class jobs simply disappear. And we are vulnerable to the same financial crises that brought us down in 2009, just as we remain quite vulnerable to non-state terrorism like 9/11 whose risks have been barely abated. We are running a trillion dollar deficit this year. We've been running high deficits for some time with national debt doubling in the last decade. We are seeing the end of the road in deficit financing as the steady growth of debt and the revolving interest payments start to suck the federal budget dry. You may hope for a crisis in which they choose (again) to vastly devalue the dollar but think of the retirees on fixed income, of the small farmers and small businessmen and all the rest. The elites and their servant class of professionals may feel immune to these things but I'm not so sure how far you can push Granny. There is considerable volatility in the system and a pervasive sense that things simply cannot continue along this trajectory. And the working class and middle class are not going to take it well when informed that they will just have to take it on the chin again. And that is what is different today than in some of the other issues you mentioned. Think about it. How else would a person like Donald Trump become president? There is real unrest in America across many sectors of society. And we are at the height of internal division in this country with over 40% of the residents being foreign-born and many determined never to assimilate. That never augurs well for the future. Yes, I think the future is more isolationist than at present, certainly multipolar again as it was in the Cold War and with the same opponents with up to a half-dozen new regional nuclear powers. I think medical costs will spiral as more people find it hard to find doctors and services. The oil boom will continue and will ease a little of the pain but even with very high tax rates, it cannot make up for the decades of irresponsible spending by scumbag pols in both parties who usually conspire for their own short-term gain at the expense of the public 10-20 years later. I think we might see a permanently unemployed class of Americans of 50 million or more in the next 10 years. I expect it will be at least 20 million. And the bulk of Boomer retirement is already over so you can't just hope the surplus workers will just retire (and live off the welfare system). So don't fool yourself. All these cards are still on the table, even if you want to pretend they aren't. And there is great unease and a crisis of confidence which really does help explain how Trump beat (the repulsive) Xlinton witch. The elites keep trying to cram their internationalist/interventionist crap down our throats and we don't want it. They regulated everything to death. They have no concern for mounting debt because they're confident they can retreat to their estates and just let the U.S. become a Third World country, overrun by invading hordes that they welcome into the country. There are inevitably, despite any arguments for open borders or heavy regulation, a level at which such practices poison the body politic. And I think Donald Trump's election tends to prove that point. Look at his policies on the wall and immigration, at deregulation, at fast-tracking pipelines and oil/energy exports. Those actually did help get him elected and will keep much of his base very loyal because he did deliver on those promises or at least went all out for them. Because of McStain, he did fail to defund 0bamaCare entirely, missing it by one vote in the Senate. The Stain's dying revenge on us all for electing that crude Trump character. He was a petty man which is why it was probably better that he never became prez. He was far worse than he ever accused Trump of being. And he was a fundamentally corrupt personality, like many of our inbred elites. In truth, these two plucky young Adventists are one of the few rays of sunshine on a darkening horizon. BTTT. We've devolved into general philosophic chat.
You've always had me wrong. I am one of the most realistic people on this site, or any other site you have been on. For example, when you say, above, that Social Security is bankrupt, I reply that it most certainly is not. Rather, it WOULD go bankrupt in the future, if nothing were done. The whole system can be made permanently solvent by eliminating the cap on Social Security, and hitting every dollar of wages earned by anybody in America (as opposed to every dollar of wages up to $132,000 per year), with the Social Security tax. Do that, and the system will be awash in money. It only goes bankrupt, eventually, if we do nothing, which is not going to happen. As far as the military position goes, we are in the best shape that we have ever been militarily. In the distant past, we relied on oceans to keep us safe. In the age of nuclear weapons, long range bombers and nuclear submarines, those moats no longer protect us from destruction. Back in the day, had the British, French or Germans decided to jump the ditch and invade America, they may not have been able to conquer it, but they could have done grievous damage, now, it's completely impossible. If every other nation in the world united in alliance against the US, the US Navy would sweep the seas of every other ship of every other nation, and rule the waves more completely than Britannia ever could hope. The British maintained a navy sufficient to defeat the next two navies compbined. Had France and Germany allied, the British had a navy sized to beat them. The American navy is sized to defeat the combined naval strength of the entire rest of the world. No other nation has ever had anything like the military preponderance, and therefore the security, that the USA currently enjoys. In truth, if we are realistic, only one other nation on earth can threaten our existence: Russia. The next two nuclear powers, France and Britain (in that order) have fewer than 300 weapons, total, and it would be impossible for them to ever muster the will to attack the United States, or even be able to secretly plan doing it without the US knowing in advance and taking counter-measures. China has perhaps 200 weapons, total, and only 90 missiles than can reach any part of the USA, assuming they can launch them without us first taking out many of them, and assuming we can't shoot many down. China could do us a nasty ravage, probably, but the response from us would be the end of the China. The small number of nuclear weapons available to India, Pakistan and Israel, and perhaps North Korea, cannot be delivered on US soil other than by terrorist acts. They lack the missiles to reach us. So, that leaves Russia as the one and only TRUE existential threat to the USA, if they were willing to commit national suicide. Even under Stalin they never contemplated that. By contrast, the American nuclear arsenal IS an existential threat to the countries that still might disturb the peace: Red China, Iran, North Korea - our list of enemies is actually quite thin now (contrary to your belief that we live in a dangerous world full of enemies). Only those four, plus perhaps Cuba and Venezuela (and, of course, Russia), and some benighted holes in Central Asia and Africa, are not already in the world alliance system, the Pax Americana, which is not an empire in the classical sense, but a world security organization. All we really need to do is make a firm and lasting peace with ONE country - Russia - and the rest of these pissant country issues fizzle out, except for China, which is well contained with Russia and America seeing eye-to-eye. Get the peace with Russia (bad for the American military-industrial and intelligence complex, good for the US economy overall because of what comes next), and the Cubas, Syrias and Irans fall in line. Only China remains, and China can be bargained with to protect its neighbors. We are on the cusp of a world security situation that can be a permanent Pax Americana at a much lower cost. That is what I want to drive for, and that is where I see our policy driving, ESPECIALLY given that Trump really does understand the Russia part of the equation. You're right about the fiscal situation, but there is a simple and necessary solution to that: tax wealth. That will impose a tax, for the first time, on securities holdings, which is the primary means of holding wealth in America (real estate is second, but that is already taxed). Taxed securities portfolios and bank accounts, and bullion and art holdings, at the same rate as homes are taxed (approximately 2%), and the fiscal problems dissolve. And with them you have the resources available to provide guaranteed minimum income and health insurance and education to all of those 50 million plus permanently unemployed people you envision thanks to the technical revolution. Sure, the rich are not going to cooperate gladly with wealth taxation, sure, it will take a middle and working class political shift by the majority to cram down a wealth tax upon them, but it will come, sooner or later, because it makes sense. The status quo that I support is that of the Middle Class/Working Class American dream. That will inevitably mean that the overweening, overly wealthy Upper Class American dream will be brought down a bit from its historic highs. There will be measured wealth redistribution without socialist revolution. The wealthy will bitch, but they will have nowhere to go, really. You see a bleak future. I see a future that is pretty bright, in which NONE of these fringy dreams - not of the rich, not of the religious nuts, not of the apocalyptics - wins out, but in which Middle and Working Class America simply assert their broad political power to shore up their own position, and thereby ensure the survival of the American Middle Class lifestyle as a thing to be preserved.
I am. And he's the only one that's REAL.
I must drive down to the City now, to spend the night with family and have a nice meal. I am sure we will speak again on these topics. I would say that, as the years have passed, I have become more directly assertive about what I personally, directly believe, because it has borne out so many times. In the process, I have become less and less tolerant of the flaws in my erstwhile "allies" on the Right, because having, for the most part, prevailed on the crucial battlefield of national security and control of the seas and skies, there is nothing of great importance required yet on the Right, but the human needs required from the Left have become more and more severe, and the Right has become a positive obstacle to that. So, we're going to keep the Pax Americana, but we're going to be sweeping aside the excessive wealth concentrations in the top in favor of a better budget situation and greater social services for many more people. That's the future. And it looks great by my lights. If I were wealthy, with the same God, it would still look ok. If I were wealthy without a redistributive God, it would look rather bad - a diminution in wealth and power is ahead (not a total eclipse). Fine by me. Some religious wing nuts here will come out of the woodwork. so I figure I'll just sign off for awhile. Not interested in a debate. I'm not presenting argument. Something a whole lot more like...prophesy, really.
No, we won't. In fact, it has already failed. There are some who just refuse to admit it. Pax Americana is headed to the scrap heap to join Pax Britannica. History tells us this is inevitable. Regime loyalists are always the last to admit it. But take heart, SoS Mike Pompeo today rushed to the microphones to declare We have “succeeded” in Afghanistan. Essentially, he's saying that al-Qaeda is (temporarily) extinct in Afghanistan so we should declare victory and run for the hills before they do return to their old alliance with the Taliban. The Taliban celebrated our victory in negotiations (with an official terrorist group) by staging a car bomb in Kabul, killing 12 including one American service member. We'd better get out fast, however many Pax Americanas you want to invoke.
If you asked them, they would tell you that you worship a false god. Not that I am their spokesperson but they aren't shy about making such statements.
I've long said the same thing. It will only happen after something as start as the Great Depression sets in, IOW when it's too late to shore up the present system of retirement welfare programs like SS/Medicare/Medicaid. The U.S. Navy makes no such claims. Just the opposite. With ballistic and cruise missile threat growing from shore batteries, they are more vulnerable than ever. Just as WW I demonstrated the futility of all major battleships and made them too vulnerable and too expensive to risk in battle, a new world war would likely reveal that navies are extremely vulnerable to minor military powers. And that is before you get to our opponents who are designing systems to sink our carrier groups and other major naval assets. The future is likely to contain no navies. Too expensive, too vulnerable. Any exchange of nuclear weapons will cause vast environmental damage. An exchange of as few as 100 nuclear weapons detonated in close succession, even if aimed only at military targets like remote island bases, would still likely cause billions of deaths as civilization breaks down as its tight chains of supply break under the disruption of a major nuclear exchange. So it might be Iran/Israel. Or the Norks. Or the Saudis and the Iranians. Or the Pakis and the Indians. Or the Indians and the Chinese. It really is very cute that people think the world can only end if America is involved but civilization could easily end with a death toll of 5 billion or more within a year if any of these lesser powers became involved in a substantial nuclear exchange. And with more nuclear players, the odds of detonation go straight up vertically. Nuclear war is now more likely than it was at the heights of the Cold War (Cuba crisis, 1973 crisis, etc.). This is made worse because so few people recognize how dangerous these weapons still are. Miscalculation and overreaching become much more possible. I've seen some potential for this but many regions are not placated by American policy and are responsive to their own interests or their own regional rivalries. Most often, America gets itself tied down in some pointless military waste production scheme like the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan, some "Crusade For Democracy" where the "natives will greet our invaders as heroes" or some such laughable nonsense. Both Russian and China are producing a rather awful new generation of weapons and we are, overall, falling behind them. We have only a temporary advantage in dirt-cheap launches but they are quickly trying to copy the SpaceX success and they will succeed since it has been obvious for 25 years that we had the technology needed to build re-usable launchers. You're really starting to sound like Comrade Sanders. I suppose it could come to that to fund a universal basic income if we endured 10 years of hard recession, like the Great Depression, and had 20%-30% of the public out of work permanently. But it would have to be truly dire and not just an attempt to address a short-term problem. The system will already have entirely collapsed before you pass a national wealth tax in America. You are also subjecting wealth in the form of property to dual taxation, at the local/state level and a new national tax on top of that. You forget a simple solution that would appeal to the elite more: move all assets overseas, crash the economy, distract the masses until they forget That Dangerous Idea that you advocate. C'mon, outright Marxism is an easier sell in America than permanent wealth taxes. They have plenty of places to go, all over the world. The world would be very happy to have them and their capital. But I doubt they would just abandon a continent like America. Too much wealth left to extract. They would transfer most assets overseas and then play all their cards against any such laws. I see no signs of the working class or middle class having the political will that you imagine. Nor do I see the climbers of the upper class or the elites as giving in so easily as you imagine. History tells us that we must bet against the empire. Any empire, including our own. That is what happens to empires, however fondly their greatest loyalists are about them. And loyalty to the empire is falling fast, at about the same rate as Christian churches are closing their doors. It's a problem with selling God-and-country to the populace for so long. When faith in either one falls, the other suffers as well. After a certain number of decades, people become suspicious of anyone trotting out these hoary bromides to get political support.
Move assets overseas, and they are still taxed by the US tax system: it's global. Currently, income tax is global. Gross wealth tax can be made global.
Not that I am their spokesperson but they aren't shy about making such statements. I know they're not. I simply say that I'm Catholic, to avoid religious discussions. With civilized people that works. With others, it seems to be taken as an invitation to tell me what's wrong with Catholicism, which then is an opening for me to tell them what is wrong with their cranky beliefs. Then we're off to the races.
So the guy who pays $100,000 into Social Security every year will get the same as the guy who paid $5,000 into the system when they retire? Or will you increase the payout -- you know, to be fair. Here's an idea. Stop using Social Security funds to pay for disabilities (SSDI). That money should come from the general fund since it goes to all ages. There's $200 billion a year right there. Or raise the retirement age.
No, but the guy who pays $2 million per year in Social Security taxes will get the same as the guy who puts in $8500 a year. Social Security is a retirement program that should pay retirees enough to live securely at a middle-middle class standard of living. Nothing luxurious, but not penurious either. That means wealth redistribution, obviously. Always has. All taxation is ultimately wealth redistribution.
Obviously. FYI. Anyone who is required to who pay $2 million per year in Social Security taxes is smart enough to figure out how not to pay $2 million per year in Social Security taxes.
To pay that, somebody would have to be earning about $32 million per year. Tax codes have been structured specifically to give the escape valves for the r rich. Those escape valves need to be shut.
If they're earning that much they're being paid in stock, stock options, dividends, or some other form of compensation that is not subject to FICA.
And I prophesy that Vic will tell you that all those loopholes should be entirely eliminated along with a lot of other scammy tax deductions. Never say never, look how Trump capped the deductabiity of state/local taxes on federal tax forms (the so-called SALT deductions). I never thought any Republican would push that through but he did. There was a real hit on Blue states and their taxation patterns which forced the entire country to subsidize their high rates of state/local taxation.
Indeed. The purest taxation system is a unitary gross wealth tax, without deductions, set at the rate necessary to ensure that the country runs a balanced budget with a tiny surplus (to more rapidly reduce the debt). All taxes are taxes on wealth. Income taxes tax new wealth. Sales taxes tax the exchanges of wealth. Property and estate taxes tax static wealth. The loopholes in the system are those things that avoid taxation. Yes, close those. One unitary rate on all gross wealth, no additional taxes.
You'd be surprised how many conservatives/Republicans you could get to agree with you. Except they have extreme distrust toward the pols. The spending never gets cut, the waste, fraud and abuse go on virtually without interruption (or a few token prosecutions are held to great media fanfare to try to convince the rubes that the pols kept their promises).
Liberals and Independents too. The tax RATE is the same for the homeless guy as Bill Gates: let's say 3.5% of total wealth. That MEANS no sales tax, no income tax, no capital gains tax, no estate tax, no excise taxes and no separate car registration or property taxes. It actually COULD mean no fees for public transportation, no bridge tolls - the whole apparatus of government operating off of the tax base. It's FAIR, because EVERYBODY pays the same tax rate, on everything - wages are wealth, so yes, there is, in effect, an income tax, but not as such: it's a wealth tax. The massive concentration of power in America does not come from high wages, but from the concentration of WEALTH, and all of the taxes in the tax code attack wealth ACCUMULATION - making it harder to accumulate it - while leaving accumulated wealth - other than middle class wealth (houses and cars) untaxed. If you JUST tax wealth instead, directly, at a low rate, without any exemptions, you can ensure that everybody is in the system), you collect more money, and it doesn't warp the system; it DOES encourage investment, because a pile of money sitting in a bank account now not only ebbs in value from inflation, but is drawn down by 3.5% per year in taxes. Money is driven to be invested. Capital gains are no longer an issue, in the sense that the capital gains taxes currently severely warp the economy by setting people's behavior. There's no incentive to hold property in one form versus another, nor to time transactions or create great complicated spaghetti bowls of corporate structures to evade corporate taxes. Offshoring becomes pointless: the US taxes globally, so you'll be taxed on the wealth you hold offshore just the same. It's simpler to monitor. In effect, it gives the working and middle classes a huge tax break, because currently those classes pay about 40% of their earnings to the government. Note it's a GROSS wealth tax, not a NET WORTH tax. A net worth tax gives one a tax break for debt, and encourages debt as a tax shelter. None of that. You know, I can wax large on the beauty and practicality of such a system, and on its eminent fairness, how it sets the right burden, at the same percentage, on everyone (and is thus fairer than any other taxation system). But you're right: regardless of HOW you tax, what you spend the money ON, and at what levels, will end up being more important. After all, you can have my perfect and fair tax system, and end up giving the wealthy back the taxes they paid with corruption and stockjobbing contracts, so what have you really done? I don't think that in a republican democracy it really is possible to prevent that, other than through a system that forbids the government to keep any confidential records. And that's not workable in a world in which all are not within the Pax Americana (and probably even then...)
You're full of it Vic. 8 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, 39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: 40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. 41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
That MEANS no sales tax, no income tax, no capital gains tax, no estate tax, no excise taxes and no separate car registration or property taxes. It actually COULD mean no fees for public transportation, no bridge tolls - the whole apparatus of government operating off of the tax base. Okay, now you've just gone too far. Even assuming you cut the size of government and eliminate all the fraud, waste and abuse down to a tiny fraction of 1%, you still have one big problem. The politicians. The political class's bread and butter is redistribution and inflaming various sectors of the population and the business sector to "represent their interests". Or to reject the claims that other sectors of voters and business use to extort from your sector or pocket to subsidize themselves. The pols consider themselves to be the master slicers of the American pie. Redistributionism is the lifeblood of modern American politics. And it has been ever since the turd president LBJ inflicted his Great Society on us. The New Deal was bad enough but the Great Society spelled the end of America as we knew it.
You hate fairness to the core of your being.
"Social Security and Medicare destroyed America!" said the dinosaurs headed to t the tar pits.
Uh...Social Security was from the New Deal, not the Great Society. Don't get all hysterical.
How is it fair for the poor to pay more? The rich pay out of their abundance.
I'm not hysterical. I'm the opposite: resolute. Conservatives of various stripes have been hysterically screaming opposition to Social Security and Unemployment benefits for 86 years, and to Medicare and Medicaid for 55 years. They have always been wrong, but they have never admitted it and never given up. Therefore, those of us with clear heads have had to stand resolutely for the status quo and defeat their efforts every single time, all along. When Reagan tried to undo Social Security, he had to be opposed by a massive united front and either renounce his beliefs or face political extinction. Wisely, Ronnie relented. And so it goes. The Social Safety net is not negotiable. And it will expand to cover everybody with something like universal medicare. The conservatives will be defeated and will have this rammed down their throats, if necessary, sooner or later. If they were at all intelligent, they would surrender on this and use their considerable business acumen to organize it better than the Democrats will, but there are still vast numbers of conservatives who refuse to acknowledge defeat even on Social Security. Therefore, the Democrats will end up having to be the ones who put the entire social safety net into place, and they will have to have done so WITHOUT the benefit of Republican business sense and organizational ability. Which means it will be bloated, have unneccessarily shitty and expensive administration, and always be twice as expensive as it needs to be. But that's the price we have to pay, and will pay, because the conservatives won't grow up and accept reality. In a similar vein, as painful as things like affirmative action and all of the regulation of elections and of business has had to be to enforce the racial equality laws, the racists who perpetually refused to back down on hating blacks ultimately left us with no real choice. Either we let the bigotry continue to hold down a portion of the population, or we intervened with heavy-handed policies that did a lot of unfortunate damage. The ANSWER was for the racists to give up, to surrender the point and join modern civilized society. Since they categorically refused to do so, we had to make society less good for ourselves in order to make it fair for the blacks. There was no other possible outcome if the racists would not back down: they had to be defeated in the field and destroyed, and that meant the loss of liberty to everybody. Blame them for their intransigence. We WILL HAVE universal health insurance. It CANNOT BE resisted in the long term, and it SHOULD NOT be resisted now, because we obviously need it. If conservatives want to be hysterical again, as they were about Social Security, Unemployment, Medicare and the five-day work week, then they will once again simply rule themselves out of the debate, and end up with a shitty Democrat policy set. It would be SO MUCH BETTER if conservatives would just grow up, stop being stupid, mean-spirited bastards, and actually used their skills to put together a BETTER policy for universal health care. But as far as I can see, that is not on the cards. And therefore, unfortunately, the Democrats will remain alive and kicking, and will keep winning every time the Republicans flag at anything important. This is the conservatives' fault, just as the degree and depth of World War II was their fault, because of their cussed stubborn ostrich-headed idiocy in refusing to engage the Third Reich and Japanese when they could still be handled with relative ease. Instead, we had to have the bloody nightmare of World War II because people who needed to have the balls to fight, refused to. We ended up having to fight ANYWAY, but on much less advantageous ground. And FDR had to maneuver us into the fight to boot.
The poor and working classes already pay more, as a proportion of their wealth, than the rich do. It's already not fair. A gross wealth tax fixes that by raising the taxes on the rich so they pay the SAME percentages of their wealth as the poor and middle class already do. To balance the scales, the rich need to pay a lot more out of their abundance than they do.
And I just showed you paying the same percentage isn't fair the rich should pay a higher percentage.
I’d be very cautious with that ideology. The libs are all about “equality”... until they talk about tax rates. We aren’t all equal, but we should be taxed at an equal % rate, to be fair. Punishing the wealthiest, is a slippery slope to socialism and no reason to do any more than the other, lazy fucker you work with.
Jesus said the poor widow who gave a tiny bit paid more than all the rich who gave mich more.
Jesus wasn’t taking about money. lol A widow paying 10 dollars in taxes on 100.00 of earnings, does give more than a person making a thousand and paying 100 in taxes... because it’s harder to live on 100 bucks than 1000. That 10 bucks hurt more to pay the the 100 did. Obviously, in monetary value, the dude paying 100 in taxes “gave much more”. They both paid 10% of their earnings. As it should be
I agree completely. And to that end, the fairest, most equal thing to tax is not wage income alone (which we most highly tax now), nor just houses and cars (middle class wealth), nor sales (a double tax), nor "capital gains" at a much lower rate. We should tax all wealth, of whatever kind, at the same rate. A gross wealth tax of about 3.5% without deductions, could replace all other taxes, and would be the fairest of all taxes, since the tax would not fall differently on people based on the KIND of wealth (e,g, wages, versus stocks and bonds). Everybody would pay 3.5% on their global wealth (no evading it by moving it into offshore tax havens).
a Protestant denomination that observes Sabbath on Saturday as recorded in the Bible, sued the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA)
#2. To: watchman (#1)
If she is part of a team that is counting on her, she should fulfill her obligations.
If she is part of a team that is counting on her, she should fulfill her obligations. Seven Day Adventist Jewish, but if Sabbath worship is that important she should withdraw from the team.
#3. To: watchman, Tooconservative (#1)
f she is part of a team that is counting on her, she should fulfill her obligations.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#4. To: Deckard, watchman (#3)
(Edited)
Would you say the same things about Eric Liddel?
#5. To: Tooconservative (#4)
(Edited)
Would you say the same things about Eric Liddel?
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#6. To: Tooconservative (#4)
BTW, did you actually know who this Liddell was or see some documentary about him or what?
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#7. To: Deckard (#5)
Ever seen the movie Chariots of Fire?
#8. To: watchman (#1)
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8)
The sabbath is truly on Saturday.
Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea, (AD 336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday….
Q. Has the [Catholic] church power to make any alterations in the commandments of God?
A. ...Instead of the seventh day, and other festivals appointed by the old law, the church has prescribed the Sundays and holy days to be set apart for God’s worship; and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath.
—The Catholic Christian Instructed in the Sacraments, Sacrifices, Ceremonies, and Observances of the Church By Way of Question and Answer, RT Rev. Dr. Challoner, p. 204.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#10. To: Deckard (#9)
#11. To: watchman, Vicomte13 (#1)
I worship on Sunday. If my church has athletes that need to play on Sunday then they need to go and play. Church will still be there when they finish the season.
Not to mention, I work seven days a week...and God blesses me mightily.
In the Bible, as here in the Ten Commandments, when you enumerate a list of rights or duties, the most important ones and the ones upon which the authorities all agree upon are listed first. Those which are more controversial or which are added centuries later, appear later in the list. BibleHub: Exodus 20 KJV 1And God spake all these words, saying, BibleGateway: Mark 2 KJV 27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
#12. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13, watchman, redleghunter (#8)
The sabbath is truly on Saturday.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#12)
#14. To: watchman (#1)
I can't get behind this.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#7)
I saw that movie. Most boring movie ever to win best picture. Yawn.
#16. To: misterwhite (#15)
I saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood yesterday. It could take that title away.
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
Most boring movie ever to win best picture. Yawn.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#18. To: A K A Stone (#13)
Yeah i'm as bad as the rest of you.
#19. To: misterwhite, redleghunter (#14)
I'm with you. I'm all for religious freedom, but when you commit to a team you commit to their rules -- which clearly stated that if an athlete could not commit to playing in every level of the tournament, barring injury or illness, they were not allowed to participate at all and would be subject to penalty.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#16)
I was thinking about seeing that movie. I still might. Maybe you just have a different taste then I do in movies. Or maybe I would agree with you.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#8)
The sabbath is truly on Saturday.
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Then the same day at evening, being THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
And upon THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Upon THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
I was in the Spirit ON THE LORD'S DAY, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
#22. To: Tooconservative (#2)
So maybe we should just make some rules that Jews need not apply
#23. To: Deckard (#5)
(Edited)
Would you say the same things about Eric Liddel?
#24. To: Tooconservative (#19)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#13)
My wife was fired from work at a steak house she was working at in the 90's for skipping a meeting and going to church in the morning. It was Sunday.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#13)
My wife was fired from work at a steak house she was working at in the 90's for skipping a meeting and going to church in the morning. It was Sunday.
#27. To: Tooconservative (#11)
Big deal. Everyone engaged in animal husbandry works seven days a week.
#28. To: Tooconservative (#26)
I do have sympathy for that situation. Maybe the steak houses shouldn't open up so early so their employees can attend services and have some family time. Even waiting to open at 11am would help a lot.
#29. To: watchman (#27)
God seems like He's okay with it. He understands that I farm. He understands that Christians play sports on Saturday or Sunday.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#28)
They never opened on Sunday morning. It was a one time special meeting.
#31. To: misterwhite (#24)
Yay, heathen though I may be, rules are rules.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#31)
You're saying you want to disqualify athletes on the basis of religious practice.
#33. To: Tooconservative (#2)
Personally, I don't think they should allow sports and school events on weekends. At all. Let the kids and families have their time free. The same applies to early starts for summer practice for kids' sports.
#34. To: watchman (#22)
I love to see Christian athletes out there on Saturday and Sunday being an example for Christ!
#35. To: misterwhite (#32)
Let's keep in mind, SHE refused to play. It's not as though the WIAA didn't allow her to play on the basis of her religious practice.
#36. To: Tooconservative (#34)
Maybe you'd be even happier if Christian athletes were free to spend Sunday in worship
and demand that society honor their commitment...
#37. To: watchman (#36)
Now, please tell how YOU keep the Sabbath holy...
#38. To: Tooconservative (#37)
Ah, you don't like the mention of keeping the sabbath holy.
#39. To: watchman (#38)
(Edited)
Might I conclude you don't like it either?
My Mennonite folks will not even answer the phone on Sunday.
#40. To: Tooconservative (#39)
What I'm waiting for is the invention of the sinless church for the sinless Christians. We're almost there.
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 1Tim. 1:15
#41. To: Tooconservative (#35)
No, the WIAA decided to schedule games to punish the participation of these athletes who the WIAA had cause to know would not participate on their sabbath.
#42. To: misterwhite, watchman (#41)
#43. To: watchman (#36)
The Bible says "Not by power, nor by might, but by the Spirit"
#44. To: Tooconservative (#42)
Seems to be about what most of you think about the 4th commandment and any idea of keeping a sabbath holy (whatever that entails).
#45. To: misterwhite (#41)
(Edited)
She wasn't "required" to do shit. She chose not to participate, knowing full well she would be disqualified.
#46. To: misterwhite (#44)
You are turning this issue into a grand theological debate when it only affect two fanatics who interpret the fourth commandment differently than everyone else.
#47. To: Tooconservative (#42)
How about: "Forget the Sabbath. And don't you dare to keep it holy."
#48. To: watchman, Vicomte13 (#47)
That is the substitutionary life that we Christians enjoy.
#49. To: Tooconservative (#46)
it is only "fanatics" that would insist on observing the 4th commandment in any meaningful way
#50. To: misterwhite (#49)
They insist on changing the rules of a crappy bush league sport which affected nobody before they showed up and will affect nobody when they leave.
#51. To: Tooconservative (#50)
You fear that this might spread or you wouldn't be so vehement against these Adventist commandment fanatics.
#52. To: misterwhite (#51)
Two people, for purely selfish reasons, changing the rules for participants from 800 statewide schools through threat of legal action just so they can play under their interpretation of the fourth commandment.
#53. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#51)
"You realize, perhaps, that the two Adventists could set a legal precedent to stop all school sports on weekends … …"
If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers! 1Cor.6:1-6
If we Christians are not to take other Christians to court, how much less are we to take non-Christians?
#54. To: watchman (#53)
If we Christians are not to take other Christians to court, how much less are we to take non-Christians?
Biblia: 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 6 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
#55. To: Tooconservative (#52)
And good for them. They adhere to their religion.
#56. To: Tooconservative (#54)
No, they are dragging a secular organization into court to compel that secular organization to make reasonable accommodation of their solemn religious observance.
#57. To: Tooconservative (#52)
You underestimate the power of this case. It has genuine disruptive potential.
#58. To: watchman (#53)
What these two Adventists have done is open the door for Muslims to sue.
#59. To: misterwhite (#57)
Uh-huh. Ready for Sharia law?
#60. To: misterwhite (#56)
Here's what I think. I think if Muslims and Jews don't want to eat pork, they should not eat pork. If the 99% of the rest of us want to eat pork, we eat pork.
#61. To: misterwhite (#55)
What if they strictly adhered to Leviticus 20:13 in the Bible:
Should we change the laws to accommodate them? Is it still, "Good for them"?
#62. To: Tooconservative (#60)
Food choice from a menu is not comparable to offering equal opportunities to participate in publicly-funded sports and other activities in the public schools.
#63. To: Tooconservative (#61)
I don't even understand why you want to drag sodomy into an issue about reasonable accommodation of religious observance of the 4th commandment.
#64. To: Tooconservative (#59)
These Adventists are taking a torch to Saturday/Sunday sports events or practices at the public schools. Which is why you seem to hate them.
#65. To: Tooconservative (#54)
But I'm sure they would assure you that they are not dragging inter-Christian disputes into the secular courts.
If we Christians are not to take other Christians to court, how much less are we to take non-Christians?
#66. To: misterwhite (#62)
We have pork and you can choose not to eat it.
#67. To: misterwhite (#63)
If you're willing to change the rules to accommodate the religious observance of the 4th commandment (that apparently only two people observe), I'm asking if you're willing to change the rules (laws) to accommodate the religious observance of the Bible -- specifically Leviticus 20:13?
#68. To: watchman (#65)
Christians must avoid going to the courts...with believers and non-believers.
#69. To: misterwhite (#64)
Hate them? No. I admire them for their devotion to their faith. If they believe their faith says they can't play, they don't play. Period. If that results in negative consequences, so be it.
#70. To: watchman (#65)
The Adventists make a big fuss about being "holy"...the word means set apart/separate. They are not exactly being separate from the world when they use the world's court system to impose their will.
#71. To: Tooconservative (#69)
Maybe you should consider whether anyone should ever stand at your back in a similar situation.
#72. To: Tooconservative (#70)
So you think the holiest thing you can do is let them deprive the Adventists of their Saturday sabbath
#73. To: Tooconservative (#67)
Why progress to the regulation of sodomy if you can't even agree on keeping the sabbath holy?
#74. To: Tooconservative (#70)
I don't grasp why you are so opposed to the idea of any sabbath-keeping. Because you do sound opposed.
#75. To: misterwhite (#71)
I think it's shallow, hypocritical and, frankly, non-Christian of me to say I'm observing the tenets of my faith by forcing others to make changes to accommodate me.
#76. To: misterwhite (#72)
What?? Deprive?? I'm not depriving anyone of anything. As I said before, she's free to observe her Saturday sabbath and not participate in sports.
#77. To: misterwhite (#73)
Are you saying I have to keep the sabbath holy? I think I see your problem. And it is your problem.
#78. To: watchman (#74)
No one is stopping the girl from keeping her Sabbath. I just don't want her to impose her Sabbath on all the other athletes who have trained very hard to compete. Let HER sacrifice her tennis for God, no?
#79. To: Tooconservative (#77)
Anti-sabbath Christians don't appeal to me.
#80. To: Tooconservative (#76)
Why should it not be expected that these sports … hold their competitions on scheduled school days.
#81. To: Tooconservative (#78)
people who aren't so popular or so common in your neck of the woods.
#82. To: watchman (#74)
Let HER sacrifice her tennis for God, no?
#83. To: misterwhite (#79)
(Edited)
She was free to follow her faith. No one interfered with that.
#84. To: misterwhite (#80)
You mean, like, after school? After the scheduled school day? Outside of school hours? Perhaps even off school property?
#85. To: misterwhite (#81)
Other than this girl, who was complaining? 800 schools in the WIAA and she was the only one? Say 50 kids from each school involved in the WIAA program. That's 40,000 kids. ONE complained?
#86. To: misterwhite (#82)
She wants her cake and to eat it, too.
#87. To: Tooconservative (#83)
to demand her God-given right to worship as she pleases
#88. To: Tooconservative (#85)
How much more hatred and contempt can even you muster against these children
#89. To: Tooconservative (#78)
you'll deprive (some) Christians, Jews and Muslims from participation in those sports if they refuse to stop observing their religious holidays and obligations?
#90. To: misterwhite (#87)
Who took away her God-given right to worship as she pleases?
#91. To: watchman (#89)
(Edited)
You can believe whatever you want, just don't force your belief on me.
#92. To: Tooconservative (#91)
I'm for The Children on this.
#93. To: watchman (#92)
Which children? The other children have rights, too...to be free from religious beliefs/obligations that they do not hold.
#94. To: Tooconservative (#93)
And they are free.
#95. To: watchman (#94)
They WERE free. Now they must observe, by force of law, the Adventist Sabbath.
#96. To: Tooconservative (#95)
there will be no school sports events while the school is closed for business on the weekend
#97. To: Tooconservative (#48)
#98. To: Vicomte13 (#97)
here is no Sabbath.
#99. To: Tooconservative (#52)
I'd like to see it go all the way to the Supreme Court and set national precedents.
#100. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
Supreme Court, I expect, will uphold freedom of sport over against enforced respect for anybody's "Sabbath".
#101. To: Tooconservative (#90)
The weekend tennis Nazis, that's who.
#102. To: Tooconservative (#93)
As long as they don't insist on forcing other children to participate in sports
#103. To: Vicomte13 (#97)
There is no Sabbath. That was the Mosaic covenant, exclusively for Jews in Israel, which we are not. End of subject.
Commandment 1 "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Matthew 4:10). "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and the great commandment" (Matthew 22:37). "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment" (Mark 12:30). "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Luke 4:8).
#104. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#99)
Supreme Court, I expect, will uphold freedom of sport over against enforced respect for anybody's "Sabbath".
#105. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13, A K A Stone, watchman (#101)
For the third (fourth?) time, no one is forcing her to play. She's free to worship any time she wants.
#106. To: Tooconservative (#105)
Then, since the idea of keeping a sabbath is so repugnant to you,
#107. To: Tooconservative (#104)
Any good lawyer could drive a truck bomb through the school's legal defense. I think it would lead to a unanimous Court verdict in favor of the Adventists.
#108. To: Vicomte13 (#107)
Saturday sports have been a part of the American scene for a very, very long time. A Supreme Court composed entirely of Catholics and secular Jews, is not going alter American life to that extent in order to serve the religious hobbyhorses of some fringe nuts.
#109. To: Vicomte13 (#107)
#110. To: Tooconservative (#105)
since the idea of keeping a sabbath is so repugnant to you
#111. To: watchman (#110)
Are they going to shut down the ski team, the golf team, the track and field team, the debate team, the basketball team, the marching band, the Junior and Senior Prom, the foreign student exchange program, the Senior Trip...most of which meet and compete on weekends.
#112. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#109)
You should address all the questions TC asked. They are good questions. You cherry picked one and ignored the rest. Does that mean he is right on his other points?
#113. To: Tooconservative (#111)
And would you mind if they just moved all the Saturday sports events to Sundays?
#114. To: Tooconservative (#111)
...your (nominal) sabbath (which you've said you don't actually care about) is respected when the schedules are set up for the season?
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
#115. To: watchman (#113)
If they did move sports to Sunday, I would not sue them, and demand they bend to my religion...never.
Let them make Sunday a school day, a work day. Let them make laws that prohibit me from assembling (as already happens around the world).
I am not a snow flake...
#116. To: watchman (#114)
(Edited)
Colossians 2:15-17
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. BibleHub: 1 Corinthinans 8 KJV 1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
3But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
#117. To: Tooconservative (#115)
No. You're a doormat.
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
To my great shame, I have come no where near to attaining this verse.
#118. To: watchman (#117)
#119. To: Tooconservative (#118)
I was hoping you'd help resolve those contradictions in 1 Corinthians.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days
since the idea of keeping a sabbath is so repugnant to you
your (nominal) sabbath
#120. To: watchman (#119)
(Edited)
...because you were judging me in respect to how I kept, or regarded, the Sabbath.
#121. To: Tooconservative (#120)
why do you care if the Adventists do take their sabbath seriously?
#122. To: watchman (#121)
Others, I think, are trying to tell you the same thing...don't take away someone's freedom to play a sport, when and where they want to, just because you believe a certain way! It's wrong!
#123. To: watchman (#121)
(Edited)
TC, the Sabbath and all the holy days were just a "shadow" of things to come...namely Christ. Read it...it's right there in the Bible.
BibleGateway: 1 Peter 3 KJV 12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. BibleGateway: Luke 23 KJV 39And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
#124. To: Tooconservative (#123)
he went and preached unto the spirits in prison
#125. To: watchman (#124)
Why do you say "foreshadowing" is tiresome? Just curious.
#126. To: Tooconservative (#108)
Actually, they've done that more times than you could count, most recently in their radical sodomy marriage decision. The Court, over a period of decades, changed sodomy from illegal in almost all 50 states to an institution of marriage with all the attendant legal protections in all 50 states.
#127. To: Tooconservative (#108)
The Court, over a period of decades, changed sodomy from illegal in almost all 50 states to an institution of marriage with all the attendant legal protections in all 50 states.
#128. To: Tooconservative (#103)
#129. To: Vicomte13 (#126)
(Edited)
(Oh, and one is supposed to take the eucharist only once per day, according to the present rule.)
You have very peculiar, strong but marginal religious and political ideas and ideals.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams The Court is unlikely to impose religious restrictions that burden free private activity generally, on behalf of a marginal sect that is not progressive.
#130. To: Vicomte13 (#128)
Nice list. Indeed, what Jesus said there is the reason I worship YHWH as God.
#131. To: Vicomte13 (#127)
(Edited)
Because homosexual sex should never have been illegal in the first place, and as the movement to liberate people picked up steam, the religious tried to hold the line, and built up quite a political following, that had to be shoved aside, and was.
#132. To: Tooconservative (#125)
It becomes an excuse to pretend the OT is still relevant, even in its most obscure and inapplicable passages.
#133. To: Tooconservative (#130)
I knew you'd like it. You're a big fan of that red text. : )
#134. To: Tooconservative (#125)
It becomes an excuse to pretend the OT is still relevant
#135. To: Tooconservative (#129)
But you could float from church to church, gobbling all the Eucharists you like. So there is that.
#136. To: Tooconservative (#125)
So you have, for instance, the defenses of American slavery using passages from the Old Testament,
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,
#137. To: Tooconservative (#131)
The churches are paying the price for their past excesses as enacted into public laws. It may finish off the churches in America, just as it largely did in Europe.
#138. To: All (#137)
#139. To: Vicomte13 (#132)
Target achieved. Exactly right. Perfect. What he said.
#140. To: watchman (#134)
Well, there goes your defense of Sabbath.
#141. To: Vicomte13 (#137)
It's why I have such contempt for them and have no time or patience for an anything they say.
but when the Opus Opus Dei crowd get all strange and technical ("Jesus is present in the eucharist, but he is no longer present 15 seconds after you swallow him") I roll roll my eyes also.
The Churches in Europe died because "When Britain first at heaven's command arose from out the azure main..." and "God and my right!", and "Error has no rights!", and "One faith, one law, one God, one King!", and "Gott Mit Uns!", and "God Save the Tsar!", etc., etc. Lather, rinse, repeat in every great nation nation and paltry principality all over Europe.
Thanks to Mexican immigration the background radiation of religion - the religion of the lower classes - is becoming Catholic, and that I find friendly and warm, unlike the prickly old Protestantisms that I never liked but had to deal with. As they die off, I don't - and that suits me.
This is why I think you're off the mark on this Adventist thing. Yes, the Supreme Court DID defend the Catholics' right to be Catholic, back in the day, and did defend freedom of conscience. But no, the Supreme Court has not been in the business of disrupting the society left and right.
So, an Adventist - member of a fringe cult - has decided s/he "can't" break sa sabbath because of a sports events, and demands that a whole aspect of American cu culture be chan cu culture be changed to suit her fringe. This is unreasonable.
It was not unreasonable for blacks to demand absolutely equal rights, and that businesses have to serve them. It was not unreasonable for gays to demand the right to sex, and ultimately to form unions that allow them old age protections of married people. It was unreasonable, however, that gays demand to make non-gay religious gay religious cake artists decorate their cakes.
gay religious cake artists decorate their cakes.
And it's unreasonable for a fringe cult member to expect the whole sports culture of society to cease because of that cult's peculiar beliefs.
There are different views of right and wrong.
#142. To: Vicomte13 (#135)
Eventually, centrists will get us to universal Medicare WITHOUT socializing everything the way the Left would have us do, but without giving the health insurers what they will always want.
#143. To: Tooconservative (#139)
I appreciate the appreciation. However, I've posted about the mischief of heresy and false doctrines caused by misuse of the OT about as many times as you've posted about red letter quotes.
#144. To: Tooconservative (#140)
I admit I was exploring the level of hostility that other Christians hold toward a sabbath throughout this thread. And it is considerable. Right until someone starts talking about holding those high school sports on Sunday instead. Then things take on a hostile undertone.
#145. To: Tooconservative (#141)
How can you type that? The Court has spent the last century constantly disrupting American society in decision after decision. It has been a century of unbridled radical court activism, constituting a 9-member super-legislature on the Court.
#146. To: Tooconservative (#141)
Your thought process should not be interrupted by the need to keep re-editing stuff.
#147. To: Vicomte13 (#143)
But THIS time you didn't tangle it up with some "defense of MY doctrine" or Catholic-bashing nonsense.
#148. To: Vicomte13 (#146)
Even when I re-edit things to get rid of the stu stutter stuttering, the edited messages edit edited messages themselves get scrambled. I am using two two desktop computers.
#149. To: Vicomte13 (#145)
Give me your list.
#150. To: Vicomte13 (#144)
Fencing tournaments worldwide are held on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays - so Muslims, Jews and Christians all have to sacrifice their "day of rest" to participate in the sport. So what? God doesn't care.
#151. To: Tooconservative (#142)
(Edited)
#152. To: Tooconservative (#150)
#153. To: Tooconservative (#140)
Then things take on a hostile undertone.
#154. To: Vicomte13 (#152)
I didn't say the Jews, Christians and Muslims don't care. I said GOD does not care.
Now, it might be that the religious still have a sufficient grip on the American Supreme Court to be able to get a "Sabbath Rule" for public school sports. But as I've said before, I doubt it. Sports in America have been happening Friday evenings and Saturdays, and sometimes Sundays, for as long as anybody remembers.
Sabbaths cannot be accomodated. They can't be done during the school week without interrupting school time and study time. Both days of the weekend are somebody's Sabbath.
#155. To: Vicomte13 (#151)
I've experienced Medicare for ALL; the French system. It's much better than what we have.
They were all dead wrong - foreseeably so - and when they finally fell under the weight of overwhelming pressure, the entire superstructure went down with them: they never were able to get back up, because they were not simply politically defeated but intellectually discredited. Christianity may fail, but that doesn't mean that the Aztecs will ever get another bite at the apple.
#156. To: Tooconservative (#155)
So don't fool yourself. All these cards are still on the table, even if you want to pretend they aren't.
#157. To: Tooconservative (#154)
Well, we might accept that you are speaking for your God.
#158. To: Tooconservative (#155)
#159. To: Vicomte13 (#158)
So, we're going to keep the Pax Americana...
#160. To: Vicomte13 (#157)
I am. And he's the only one that's REAL.
#161. To: Vicomte13 (#156)
The whole system can be made permanently solvent by eliminating the cap on Social Security, and hitting every dollar of wages earned by anybody in America (as opposed to every dollar of wages up to $132,000 per year), with the Social Security tax. Do that, and the system will be awash in money.
If every other nation in the world united in alliance against the US, the US Navy would sweep the seas of every other ship of every other nation, and rule the waves more completely than Britannia ever could hope. The British maintained a navy sufficient to defeat the next two navies compbined. Had France and Germany allied, the British had a navy sized to beat them. The American navy is sized to defeat the combined naval strength of the entire rest of the world.
The small number of nuclear weapons available to India, Pakistan and Israel, and perhaps North Korea, cannot be delivered on US soil other than by terrorist acts. They lack the missiles to reach us.
We are on the cusp of a world security situation that can be a permanent Pax Americana at a much lower cost.
You're right about the fiscal situation, but there is a simple and necessary solution to that: tax wealth.
And with them you have the resources available to provide guaranteed minimum income and health insurance and education to all of those 50 million plus permanently unemployed people you envision thanks to the technical revolution.
The status quo that I support is that of the Middle Class/Working Class American dream. That will inevitably mean that the overweening, overly wealthy Upper Class American dream will be brought down a bit from its historic highs. There will be measured wealth redistribution without socialist revolution. The wealthy will bitch, but they will have nowhere to go, really.
You see a bleak future. I see a future that is pretty bright, in which NONE of these fringy dreams - not of the rich, not of the religious nuts, not of the apocalyptics - wins out, but in which Middle and Working Class America simply assert their broad political power to shore up their own position, and thereby ensure the survival of the American Middle Class lifestyle as a thing to be preserved.
#162. To: Tooconservative (#161)
#163. To: Tooconservative (#160)
If you asked them, they would tell you that you worship a false god.
#164. To: Vicomte13 (#156)
The whole system can be made permanently solvent by eliminating the cap on Social Security
#165. To: misterwhite (#164)
So the guy who pays $100,000 into Social Security every year will get the same as the guy who paid $5,000 into the system when they retire?
#166. To: Vicomte13 (#165)
That means wealth redistribution, obviously.
#167. To: misterwhite (#166)
Anyone who is required to who pay $2 million per year in Social Security taxes is smart enough to figure out how not to pay $2 million per year in Social Security taxes.
#168. To: Vicomte13 (#167)
To pay that, somebody would have to be earning about $32 million per year.
#169. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#168)
If they're earning that much they're being paid in stock, stock options, dividends, or some other form of compensation that is not subject to FICA.
#170. To: Tooconservative (#169)
And I prophesy that Vic will tell you that all those loopholes should be entirely eliminated along with a lot of other scammy tax deductions.
#171. To: Vicomte13 (#170)
Indeed. The purest taxation system is a unitary gross wealth tax, without deductions, set at the rate necessary to ensure that the country runs a balanced budget with a tiny surplus (to more rapidly reduce the debt).
#172. To: Tooconservative (#171)
You'd be surprised how many conservatives/Republicans you could get to agree with you.
#173. To: Vicomte13 (#172)
It's FAIR, because EVERYBODY pays the same tax rate,
#174. To: Vicomte13 (#172)
(Edited)
Liberals and Independents too. The tax RATE is the same for the homeless guy as Bill Gates: let's say 3.5% of total wealth.
#175. To: A K A Stone (#173)
#176. To: Tooconservative (#174)
The New Deal was bad enough but the Great Society spelled the end of America as we knew it.
#177. To: Vicomte13 (#176)
"Social Security and Medicare destroyed America!" said the dinosaurs headed to t the tar pits.
#178. To: Vicomte13 (#175)
#179. To: Tooconservative (#177)
Don't get all hysterical.
#180. To: A K A Stone (#178)
How is it fair for the poor to pay more? The rich pay out of their abundance.
#181. To: Vicomte13 (#180)
#182. To: A K A Stone (#181)
#183. To: GrandIsland (#182)
#184. To: A K A Stone (#183)
(Edited)
Jesus said the poor widow who gave a tiny bit paid more than all the rich who gave mich more.
#185. To: GrandIsland (#182)
We aren’t all equal, but we should be taxed at an equal % rate, to be fair. Punishing the wealthiest, is a slippery slope to socialism and no reason to do any more than the other, lazy fucker you work with.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]