Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

That isn't what the 2nd amendment says.

Ahh YEAH it does. Your personal ignorance of the language has no traction. Kindly find someone more ignorant than yourself to bully.

Now that we have a more reasonable SCOTUS, you might find what is legal changing.

The law should not be political, or religious. If you want it that way, you don't understand what the law means.

[aretood2]

I think Chaka's main "beef" here is that religion (all of them) is not often taught through the lens of society and history, but used to make the individual "think like the group" instead.
It's the politics of faith, rather than the politics of secularism. Both can be considered "indoctrination" however.


I don't think non-profits, no matter their leaning should be treated any different. If you are non profit, you have no say in government. A say in government IS a profit.

I think people don't understand the 1st Amendment.
Giving you the right to believe what you want, and say what you want, does not infer the right for you to ACT on that. It's a PERSONAL right, not a society right.

The constitution pertains to government action, not citizen action. That's the fundamental misunderstanding. It's not about what people can and cannot do, it's about what uncle Sam can and cannot do.


It's called the "free exercise clause" not the "free faith clause". It explicitly refers to acting on religious belief. And yes, much like free speech gets its limits, there are obvious limits to it. The constitution forbids government action against public and private observance in the free exercise clause, and it prevents action in favor of said observance in the disestablishment clause. It's a balancing act.

Sorry I missed your post but just to go back to this one, if we come back to what the case is about, conversion therapies, I don't think anyone here think these scams are legit?

Speak up now if you believe homo-exorcists clerics can cast transmutation spells on people and change them to hetero's.

For adults? As long as they are consenting, that's their business. And that's really where it lies, consent. But you'll find it about as effective as "cult deprogramming". What should be illegal is subjecting people through trauma without their consent. I would support a law that targets all forms of inquisition style activities that force people to believe and behave "correctly".

[Gatefan1976]

The constitution pertains to government action, not citizen action. That's the fundamental misunderstanding. It's not about what people can and cannot do, it's about what uncle Sam can and cannot do.

I'm yet to see that in practice, sorry Tood.
What I see is a bunch of selfish agenda pushing idiots with deep pockets.

[quote]
It's called the "free exercise clause" not the "free faith clause". It explicitly refers to acting on religious belief. And yes, much like free speech gets its limits, there are obvious limits to it. The constitution forbids government action against public and private observance in the free exercise clause, and it prevents action in favor of said observance in the disestablishment clause. It's a balancing act.

Yes it is, but it's now become more common to utterly ignore that balancing act, and if that is the case, religion has no right to demand a damn thing. They get tax exemption already, what else do they want?
Let's get "murrican" for a minute.
I have every right to shoot a person of faith if they are "on my land"
Is that really what you want??

For adults? As long as they are consenting, that's their business. And that's really where it lies, consent. But you'll find it about as effective as "cult deprogramming". What should be illegal is subjecting people through trauma without their consent. I would support a law that targets all forms of inquisition style activities that force people to believe and behave "correctly".

Indonesia disagree's with you.

[Annoyed]

For adults? As long as they are consenting, that's their business. And that's really where it lies, consent. But you'll find it about as effective as "cult deprogramming". What should be illegal is subjecting people through trauma without their consent. I would support a law that targets all forms of inquisition style activities that force people to believe and behave "correctly".

That's just it. The people involved ARE consenting adults (or children of consenting parents) There is no requirement to be a member of any specific religion.

If a Church wants / requires its members to be straight, go through conversion therapy or stand on their heads every Tuesday afternoon, that is between the church and the member. The member can always leave the church. So this should be hands off for the govt.

On the other hand, if a Church claims that all people, members and non-members alike have to do this, it's the govt's job to tell them they're nuts.

[Chaka-Z0]

You still don't get it. Medical acts performed outside of medical regulations, medical orders and medical professionals should be banned, period. Psychologists should deal with people in mental distress, then refer to the appropriate professional if need be. Doctors for physicals.

Do you want a shaman to open shop around the corner and perform cheap surgeries? Let him be because its his religion yo, abracadabra.

[aretood2]

I'm yet to see that in practice, sorry Tood.
What I see is a bunch of selfish agenda pushing idiots with deep pockets.

You're speaking to practice? In practice the free exercise clause has been used to protect people's perceived rights to act on their beliefs. In purpose, it is to limit the government's actions. I'm not really sure where you got the "free to believe but not act" thing from. As for agendas, those will always be no matter the topic. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Yes it is, but it's now become more common to utterly ignore that balancing act, and if that is the case, religion has no right to demand a damn thing. They get tax exemption already, what else do they want?
Let's get "murrican" for a minute.
I have every right to shoot a person of faith if they are "on my land"
Is that really what you want??

As opposed to a person without faith? I don't follow what your point is here at all, nor what you are speaking to.

Indonesia disagree's with you.

???

That's just it. The people involved ARE consenting adults (or children of consenting parents) There is no requirement to be a member of any specific religion.

If a Church wants / requires its members to be straight, go through conversion therapy or stand on their heads every Tuesday afternoon, that is between the church and the member. The member can always leave the church. So this should be hands off for the govt.

On the other hand, if a Church claims that all people, members and non-members alike have to do this, it's the govt's job to tell them they're nuts.

Parents can't consent for children in this case in many states, nor should they be able to.

You still don't get it. Medical acts performed outside of medical regulations, medical orders and medical professionals should be banned, period. Psychologists should deal with people in mental distress, then refer to the appropriate professional if need be. Doctors for physicals.

Do you want a shaman to open shop around the corner and perform cheap surgeries? Let him be because its his religion yo, abracadabra.

Shaman surgeries? I googled shaman surgeries and found this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16735867
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp204-u...or-the-soul-2/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/shama...b0d6492d633c23
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/20shaman.html

So interestingly, medical science is flirting with shamanism. Nothing really keeps you from doing both and there really is something to the phrase "mind over matter". But I couldn't find anything about shamans cutting people open.

It's illegal (as it should be) to falsely advertise a religious procedure as a medical procedure. If you want someone to cut into you, that's all on you. However it's never a good idea to appeal to the absurd while taking shots at things that seem odd to you like Shamanism. If it helps people, then I don't see a problem with it. As long as deception isn't involved. Of course there are limits, but it's not an "all or nothing" type of thing.

[Annoyed]

Parents can't consent for children in this case in many states, nor should they be able to.

Parents *should* have absolute control over their children in all but cases where public health is involved, such as vaccinations.

[Annoyed]

And now I see we have a hole bunch of young skulls full of mush participating in a "climate strike", taking the day off from school to protest climate change.

Question: Why didn't they do this over the recently ended summer recess period?
Answer: Their true motive is showing.

[Chaka-Z0]

As long as deception isn't involved. Of course there are limits, but it's not an "all or nothing" type of thing.

But deception is involved, homosexuality isn't a disease or illness that can be cured / changed. Good intentions or not it remains a scam, all this therapy does is teaching the patients to lie to themselves. The very definition of deception.

Also if shamans are legally allowed to offer surgeon services without any compliance to medical regulations you live in a very fked up place.

[jelgate]

Whenever Annoyed brings in ageism, I follow the rule that he has argument. It never fails.

[Chaka-Z0]

Or we can return the favor. Students are marching for the climate and opposition to fossil énergies, which also include old maga fossils such as Annoyed.

[jelgate]

That would require Annoyed to care about someone besides himself and not reject science. Good luck on that one

[Annoyed]

Or we can return the favor. Students are marching for the climate and opposition to fossil énergies, which also include old maga fossils such as Annoyed.

I will admit to being a fossil, and maybe the term megafossil, based on the ever growing list of aches & pains. But MAGA? I've been firmly planted on the right side of the spectrum since before I was eligible to vote. Not so much on that.

Oh, By the way. Canadian Lizards Bacon life forms should not be going on about the environment.
Their board members are INTENTIONALLY altering water levels in Lake Ontario & the St. Lawrence seaway for commercial gain, causing flooding and other distress for people on the southern shores.

[jelgate]

That's another fallacy. Chaka has never claimed the Canadian government is blameless

[Annoyed]

That's another fallacy. Chaka has never claimed the Canadian government is blameless

Guilt by association. Also, it's easier to just blame everything on lizards.