LarsMac;1470862 wrote: they can use Birth control. The companies' objection is to them using company-financed health insurance to pay for it.
It is still kind of stupid, given that the cost of a single pregnancy is probably significantly more that a life-time of Birth control medication.
The notion that any employer could be in a position to dictate to a woman whether she uses birth control or not is one I find incredible.
posted by tude dog
What he did was a political stunt which only affects some federal employees and contractors. In the meantime the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is still the law of the land and far as I know enforced.
It's your country you should know. try asking some of your female friends.
Equal pay for US women taken up by Senate as study highlights gender gap | US news | The Guardian
American women are paid, on average, between 64 to 90 cents for every dollar paid to men, according to a new state-by-state analysis by the National Partnership for Women and Families that comes as Congress and the White House take steps to address the gender pay gap.
posted by tude dog
I dunno what you mean.
Is it not the case that planned parenthood lost it's federal funding thanks to religious groups that thibnk all they do is carry out abortions?
I don't give a squat what most western European Countries view as an infringement of rights. Nevertheless I suppose it is nice to see we are on the same page.
Wouldn't expect you to any more than we care what americans think it's more a comment that americans seem to tolerate situations that most europeans would consider completely unacceptable in this particular case that health care is provided through an employer giving them a level of power over an employee that I find staggering. It features quite a lot in american drama where an emoployee is terrified of being sacked and losing medical cover it's quite odd. One of those cultural differences that makes you go - What you've got to be kidding.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1470864 wrote: ....... One of those cultural differences that makes you go - What you've got to be kidding.
And until now I thought that you were kidding ...... the employer dictating the use and/or availability of birth controll and all of that.
And until now I thought that you were kidding ...... the employer dictating the use and/or availability of birth controll and all of that.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1470864 wrote: The notion that any employer could be in a position to dictate to a woman whether she uses birth control or not is one I find incredible.
posted by tude dog
It's your country you should know. try asking some of your female friends.
Equal pay for US women taken up by Senate as study highlights gender gap | US news | The Guardian
posted by tude dog
I
Is it not the case that planned parenthood lost it's federal funding thanks to religious groups that thibnk all they do is carry out abortions?
Wouldn't expect you to any more than we care what americans think it's more a comment that americans seem to tolerate situations that most europeans would consider completely unacceptable in this particular case that health care is provided through an employer giving them a level of power over an employee that I find staggering. It features quite a lot in american drama where an emoployee is terrified of being sacked and losing medical cover it's quite odd. One of those cultural differences that makes you go - What you've got to be kidding.
Again, companies cannot dictate whether a woman uses birth control, or not. But they can, apparently, dictate whether said birth control can be paid for through the company medical insurance plan.
And, by the way, that only applies to specific types of birth control. It is not a blanket policy. And I might add that all of that is still going through the courts, so we'll see how it turns out.
And, no, women do not yet have true equality of pay, inspite of all the federal regs to the contrary.
Planned Parenthood has not had federal funding for quite some time because of the anti-abortion crowd.
There are many situations in many countries that people find intolerable when viewing from their own world.
I find that Europeans and Brits tolerate a lot of things that we would not put up with in this country.
It's all relative.
posted by tude dog
It's your country you should know. try asking some of your female friends.
Equal pay for US women taken up by Senate as study highlights gender gap | US news | The Guardian
posted by tude dog
I
Is it not the case that planned parenthood lost it's federal funding thanks to religious groups that thibnk all they do is carry out abortions?
Wouldn't expect you to any more than we care what americans think it's more a comment that americans seem to tolerate situations that most europeans would consider completely unacceptable in this particular case that health care is provided through an employer giving them a level of power over an employee that I find staggering. It features quite a lot in american drama where an emoployee is terrified of being sacked and losing medical cover it's quite odd. One of those cultural differences that makes you go - What you've got to be kidding.
Again, companies cannot dictate whether a woman uses birth control, or not. But they can, apparently, dictate whether said birth control can be paid for through the company medical insurance plan.
And, by the way, that only applies to specific types of birth control. It is not a blanket policy. And I might add that all of that is still going through the courts, so we'll see how it turns out.
And, no, women do not yet have true equality of pay, inspite of all the federal regs to the contrary.
Planned Parenthood has not had federal funding for quite some time because of the anti-abortion crowd.
There are many situations in many countries that people find intolerable when viewing from their own world.
I find that Europeans and Brits tolerate a lot of things that we would not put up with in this country.
It's all relative.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1470865 wrote: And until now I thought that you were kidding ...... the employer dictating the use and/or availability of birth controll and all of that.
Is it not the case that some employers are refusing to allow the health insurance they provide to cover birth control on religious grounds?
ah found a link
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/ho ... .html?_r=0
Justice Alito said the requirement that the two companies provide contraception coverage imposed a substantial burden on their religious liberty. Hobby Lobby, he said, could face annual fines of $475 million if it failed to comply.
Justice Alito said he accepted for the sake of argument that the government had a compelling interest in making sure women have access to contraception. But he said there were ways of doing that without violating the companies’ religious rights.
Don't know how widespread it is or what impact the decision had - apart from anything else how does an employer find out if an employee has received contraceptives? Do they get told all the condfidential details about someones medical treatment or something?
It caught my eye simply because the very concept of employer funded health insurance is so weird. Over here some companies do provide such things but it's an added benefit in kind not a substitute for the NHS and many decline it on principle.
Is it not the case that some employers are refusing to allow the health insurance they provide to cover birth control on religious grounds?
ah found a link
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/ho ... .html?_r=0
Justice Alito said the requirement that the two companies provide contraception coverage imposed a substantial burden on their religious liberty. Hobby Lobby, he said, could face annual fines of $475 million if it failed to comply.
Justice Alito said he accepted for the sake of argument that the government had a compelling interest in making sure women have access to contraception. But he said there were ways of doing that without violating the companies’ religious rights.
Don't know how widespread it is or what impact the decision had - apart from anything else how does an employer find out if an employee has received contraceptives? Do they get told all the condfidential details about someones medical treatment or something?
It caught my eye simply because the very concept of employer funded health insurance is so weird. Over here some companies do provide such things but it's an added benefit in kind not a substitute for the NHS and many decline it on principle.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
LarsMac;1470862 wrote: they can use Birth control. The companies' objection is to them using company-financed health insurance to pay for it.
What I think what they are referring to is
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
Hobby Lobby is a privately owned company whose employees are given health insurance which includes
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
National Review
So I ask, what's the problem?
The owners of Hobby Lobby have a moral objections to particular parts of Obamcare.
While Hobby Lobby officials say they don’t object to all contraception, they refuse to provide access to “abortifacient (causing an abortion) drugs. Since the mandate covers all contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, how these methods work and whether they are abortifacients matters.
Hobby Lobby already provides insurance coverage for 16 other forms of birth control, including pills that prevent ovulation. But they contend their religious freedom rights would be violated if they are required to cover four specific forms of birth control — implanted devices such as intrauterine devices (known as IUDs) a contraceptive rod implanted in a woman’s arm and two forms of emergency contraception commonly called “morning after pills.
What’s abortifacient?
Don't like the company health plan, quit crying work somewhere else.
What I think what they are referring to is
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
Hobby Lobby is a privately owned company whose employees are given health insurance which includes
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
National Review
So I ask, what's the problem?
The owners of Hobby Lobby have a moral objections to particular parts of Obamcare.
While Hobby Lobby officials say they don’t object to all contraception, they refuse to provide access to “abortifacient (causing an abortion) drugs. Since the mandate covers all contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, how these methods work and whether they are abortifacients matters.
Hobby Lobby already provides insurance coverage for 16 other forms of birth control, including pills that prevent ovulation. But they contend their religious freedom rights would be violated if they are required to cover four specific forms of birth control — implanted devices such as intrauterine devices (known as IUDs) a contraceptive rod implanted in a woman’s arm and two forms of emergency contraception commonly called “morning after pills.
What’s abortifacient?
Don't like the company health plan, quit crying work somewhere else.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Or..........modern day feudalism ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1470870 wrote: Is it not the case that some employers are refusing to allow the health insurance they provide to cover birth control on religious grounds?
ah found a link
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/ho ... .html?_r=0
Yes! Here is the part that baffles:
“Justice Alito said the requirement that the two companies provide contraception coverage imposed a substantial burden on their religious liberty.
Is it the companies' religious liberty that is being discussed here? If so does that mean that (1) a company actually has (can have) a particular religious conviction and (2) they being compelled to contribute to contraceptive coverage denies this religious-oriented company the right to make a “pro life statement? So it's an in-house moral stance they are taking? I wonder if the Americans consider this PROGRESSIVE (read "liberal") and if they understand what the term "liberty" (a derivative) means and who it might apply to? And really ....... a "SUBSTANTIAL" burden? :yh_ttth
ah found a link
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/ho ... .html?_r=0
Yes! Here is the part that baffles:
“Justice Alito said the requirement that the two companies provide contraception coverage imposed a substantial burden on their religious liberty.
Is it the companies' religious liberty that is being discussed here? If so does that mean that (1) a company actually has (can have) a particular religious conviction and (2) they being compelled to contribute to contraceptive coverage denies this religious-oriented company the right to make a “pro life statement? So it's an in-house moral stance they are taking? I wonder if the Americans consider this PROGRESSIVE (read "liberal") and if they understand what the term "liberty" (a derivative) means and who it might apply to? And really ....... a "SUBSTANTIAL" burden? :yh_ttth
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1470892 wrote: Yes! Here is the part that baffles:
“Justice Alito said the requirement that the two companies provide contraception coverage imposed a substantial burden on their religious liberty.
I am presuming that 'Justice' Alito is a Magsitrate (or whatever the title is there), rather than his first name. In which case, although he does not state that in so doing, what they were doing was illegal, but it certainly looks as if he is putting a biased spin on it. In the same way, it could be said that the ability to be able to purchase alcohol in Free World Countries (as oppoosed to Dry State countries, such as Saudi) imposes a substantial burden on those who might otherwise choose to remain teetotal.
I don't pretend to fully understand the ins & outs of the legal arguments here, but as I understand it, in a country where Health Insurance is so expensive that it becomes a luxury, and even basic contraception can be rather costly, any employer that offers Contraception as part of its Salary package for its employees is merely acting on a perfectly sound business premise. Regardless of how you view the woman's 'right' to paid Maternity Leave (or a man's right to Paternity Leave, for that matter), the fact remains that the company is still expected to continue paying their employee for the period that they're not there. Furthermore, they also need to take someone else on in order to fill the position while they're away. By this, it obviously pays them to make Contraception freely available to be encouraged as an OPTION. It doesn't mean it's being enforced. As for crowbarring Religion into it, be it for or against, either way, that's neither here nor there - especially in a country that has, as part of its Consitution the right of free worship, regardless of what their chosen Religion may be. In fact, the only Religion I know of that prohibits Contraception is Christianity - and even then, only the Catholic creed (I could be wrong in this, of course, but it's the only one that I know of). Therefore, to deny them the option would be unconstitutional.
“Justice Alito said the requirement that the two companies provide contraception coverage imposed a substantial burden on their religious liberty.
I am presuming that 'Justice' Alito is a Magsitrate (or whatever the title is there), rather than his first name. In which case, although he does not state that in so doing, what they were doing was illegal, but it certainly looks as if he is putting a biased spin on it. In the same way, it could be said that the ability to be able to purchase alcohol in Free World Countries (as oppoosed to Dry State countries, such as Saudi) imposes a substantial burden on those who might otherwise choose to remain teetotal.
I don't pretend to fully understand the ins & outs of the legal arguments here, but as I understand it, in a country where Health Insurance is so expensive that it becomes a luxury, and even basic contraception can be rather costly, any employer that offers Contraception as part of its Salary package for its employees is merely acting on a perfectly sound business premise. Regardless of how you view the woman's 'right' to paid Maternity Leave (or a man's right to Paternity Leave, for that matter), the fact remains that the company is still expected to continue paying their employee for the period that they're not there. Furthermore, they also need to take someone else on in order to fill the position while they're away. By this, it obviously pays them to make Contraception freely available to be encouraged as an OPTION. It doesn't mean it's being enforced. As for crowbarring Religion into it, be it for or against, either way, that's neither here nor there - especially in a country that has, as part of its Consitution the right of free worship, regardless of what their chosen Religion may be. In fact, the only Religion I know of that prohibits Contraception is Christianity - and even then, only the Catholic creed (I could be wrong in this, of course, but it's the only one that I know of). Therefore, to deny them the option would be unconstitutional.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
FourPart;1470902 wrote: I am presuming that 'Justice' Alito is a Magsitrate (or whatever the title is there), rather than his first name. In which case, although he does not state that in so doing, what they were doing was illegal, but it certainly looks as if he is putting a biased spin on it. In the same way, it could be said that the ability to be able to purchase alcohol in Free World Countries (as oppoosed to Dry State countries, such as Saudi) imposes a substantial burden on those who might otherwise choose to remain teetotal.
I don't pretend to fully understand the ins & outs of the legal arguments here, but as I understand it, in a country where Health Insurance is so expensive that it becomes a luxury, and even basic contraception can be rather costly, any employer that offers Contraception as part of its Salary package for its employees is merely acting on a perfectly sound business premise. Regardless of how you view the woman's 'right' to paid Maternity Leave (or a man's right to Paternity Leave, for that matter), the fact remains that the company is still expected to continue paying their employee for the period that they're not there. Furthermore, they also need to take someone else on in order to fill the position while they're away. By this, it obviously pays them to make Contraception freely available to be encouraged as an OPTION. It doesn't mean it's being enforced. As for crowbarring Religion into it, be it for or against, either way, that's neither here nor there - especially in a country that has, as part of its Consitution the right of free worship, regardless of what their chosen Religion may be. In fact, the only Religion I know of that prohibits Contraception is Christianity - and even then, only the Catholic creed (I could be wrong in this, of course, but it's the only one that I know of). Therefore, to deny them the option would be unconstitutional.
There it is. Do they stand on sound business practices or a religious, moral high ground? The answer is certainly which ever is perceived to be an advantage in any given situation. Always on the look-out for the loophole or “spin, as you say. It is just very difficult to believe that they are willing to present their case as a religious one! Is there no shame?
I don't pretend to fully understand the ins & outs of the legal arguments here, but as I understand it, in a country where Health Insurance is so expensive that it becomes a luxury, and even basic contraception can be rather costly, any employer that offers Contraception as part of its Salary package for its employees is merely acting on a perfectly sound business premise. Regardless of how you view the woman's 'right' to paid Maternity Leave (or a man's right to Paternity Leave, for that matter), the fact remains that the company is still expected to continue paying their employee for the period that they're not there. Furthermore, they also need to take someone else on in order to fill the position while they're away. By this, it obviously pays them to make Contraception freely available to be encouraged as an OPTION. It doesn't mean it's being enforced. As for crowbarring Religion into it, be it for or against, either way, that's neither here nor there - especially in a country that has, as part of its Consitution the right of free worship, regardless of what their chosen Religion may be. In fact, the only Religion I know of that prohibits Contraception is Christianity - and even then, only the Catholic creed (I could be wrong in this, of course, but it's the only one that I know of). Therefore, to deny them the option would be unconstitutional.
There it is. Do they stand on sound business practices or a religious, moral high ground? The answer is certainly which ever is perceived to be an advantage in any given situation. Always on the look-out for the loophole or “spin, as you say. It is just very difficult to believe that they are willing to present their case as a religious one! Is there no shame?
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
One has to wonder how a thread about Kaley Cuoco has turned into a thread about contraception.....................is it saying something about the macho males on here?
The 'refusal' to supply contraception is not a blanket refusal, the company refuses to supply the equivalent of 'the morning after pill' , the way I understand it, although I have always failed to understand the distinction.
The 'refusal' to supply contraception is not a blanket refusal, the company refuses to supply the equivalent of 'the morning after pill' , the way I understand it, although I have always failed to understand the distinction.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Bruv;1470907 wrote: One has to wonder how a thread about Kaley Cuoco has turned into a thread about contraception.....................is it saying something about the macho males on here?
The 'refusal' to supply contraception is not a blanket refusal, the company refuses to supply the equivalent of 'the morning after pill' , the way I understand it, although I have always failed to understand the distinction.
Other than "Planned parenting" vs. Ad hoc hump?
The 'refusal' to supply contraception is not a blanket refusal, the company refuses to supply the equivalent of 'the morning after pill' , the way I understand it, although I have always failed to understand the distinction.
Other than "Planned parenting" vs. Ad hoc hump?
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1470908 wrote: Other than "Planned parenting" vs. Ad hoc hump?
No.....*sigh*.....the difference between prevention by contraception, and events that might interfere with "Planned parenting", sickness, rape, miscalculation,ripped condom, and of course it can be as simple as unbridled passion........remember ?
No.....*sigh*.....the difference between prevention by contraception, and events that might interfere with "Planned parenting", sickness, rape, miscalculation,ripped condom, and of course it can be as simple as unbridled passion........remember ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Bruv;1470910 wrote: No.....*sigh*.....the difference between prevention by contraception, and events that might interfere with "Planned parenting", sickness, rape, miscalculation,ripped condom, and of course it can be as simple as unbridled passion........remember ?
Ah yes, it's coming back to me! A fumble behind the bus shelter ..... and a "standing" ovation.
Ah yes, it's coming back to me! A fumble behind the bus shelter ..... and a "standing" ovation.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1470912 wrote: Ah yes, it's coming back to me! A fumble behind the bus shelter ..... and a "standing" ovation.
And the ultimate contraceptive in such an instance - A Request Stop.
And the ultimate contraceptive in such an instance - A Request Stop.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
FourPart;1470920 wrote: And the ultimate contraceptive in such an instance - A Request Stop.
:wah::wah::wah:
:wah::wah::wah:
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Bruv;1470907 wrote: One has to wonder how a thread about Kaley Cuoco has turned into a thread about contraception.....................is it saying something about the macho males on here?
The 'refusal' to supply contraception is not a blanket refusal, the company refuses to supply the equivalent of 'the morning after pill' , the way I understand it, although I have always failed to understand the distinction.
It's also about feminism which is a subject that ls rather hard to discuss without contraception and a woman's right to choose coming in to it.
In the hobby lobby case it seems you have an employer that considers they have a moral right to impose their own particular beliefs on their employees. America is a country where politcians can argue that women don't become pregnant if they are raped and they still get elected and no one laughs at them.
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 'refusal' to supply contraception is not a blanket refusal, the company refuses to supply the equivalent of 'the morning after pill' , the way I understand it, although I have always failed to understand the distinction.
It's also about feminism which is a subject that ls rather hard to discuss without contraception and a woman's right to choose coming in to it.
In the hobby lobby case it seems you have an employer that considers they have a moral right to impose their own particular beliefs on their employees. America is a country where politcians can argue that women don't become pregnant if they are raped and they still get elected and no one laughs at them.
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1470924 wrote: ........ America is a country where politcians can argue that women don't become pregnant if they are raped and they still get elected and no one laughs at them. .......
It does boggle the mind. Where do they stand on spontaneous generation?
It does boggle the mind. Where do they stand on spontaneous generation?
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
There are many women and children who wished that were true.
The orphanage is home to just over 150 children. Some of them have lost their families to war and sickness, others, like Suzanna, were abandoned as "rape babies" - children born during the war to women who had been raped - and left unacknowledged by families and state alike.
The orphanage is home to just over 150 children. Some of them have lost their families to war and sickness, others, like Suzanna, were abandoned as "rape babies" - children born during the war to women who had been raped - and left unacknowledged by families and state alike.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1470927 wrote: It does boggle the mind. Where do they stand on spontaneous generation?
They are generally against it.
They are generally against it.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
LarsMac;1470941 wrote: They are generally against it.
I'm so glad. :yh_angel
I'm so glad. :yh_angel
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Bruv;1470935 wrote: There are many women and children who wished that were true.
The orphanage is home to just over 150 children. Some of them have lost their families to war and sickness, others, like Suzanna, were abandoned as "rape babies" - children born during the war to women who had been raped - and left unacknowledged by families and state alike.
Religion causes so much misery and cinflict yet we seem to be in the midst iof a revival.
The orphanage is home to just over 150 children. Some of them have lost their families to war and sickness, others, like Suzanna, were abandoned as "rape babies" - children born during the war to women who had been raped - and left unacknowledged by families and state alike.
Religion causes so much misery and cinflict yet we seem to be in the midst iof a revival.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1470953 wrote: Religion causes so much misery and cinflict yet we seem to be in the midst iof a revival.
That's because religion, like nationalism, is up to its' eyeballs in BS propaganda - telling us that they are the good guys and the others are the bad guys.
There is nothing wrong with believeing in God (a God). The danger is believing in a church, an indoctrine.
That's because religion, like nationalism, is up to its' eyeballs in BS propaganda - telling us that they are the good guys and the others are the bad guys.
There is nothing wrong with believeing in God (a God). The danger is believing in a church, an indoctrine.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1470958 wrote: That's because religion, like nationalism, is up to its' eyeballs in BS propaganda - telling us that they are the good guys and the others are the bad guys.
There is nothing wrong with believeing in God (a God). The danger is believing in a church, an indoctrine.
Or perhaps believing that your faith gives you a god given right to tell others how to live and worship. It's an inherent flaw in monotheism there is onlyb one god and everybody else is wrong.
There is nothing wrong with believeing in God (a God). The danger is believing in a church, an indoctrine.
Or perhaps believing that your faith gives you a god given right to tell others how to live and worship. It's an inherent flaw in monotheism there is onlyb one god and everybody else is wrong.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1471048 wrote: Or perhaps believing that your faith gives you a god given right to tell others how to live and worship. It's an inherent flaw in monotheism there is onlyb one god and everybody else is wrong.
Well ...... er ...... ah ..... yeah. If I had a way with words I would have said that instead. :yh_clown However, I don't think that using monotheism is really what you want to say.
Well ...... er ...... ah ..... yeah. If I had a way with words I would have said that instead. :yh_clown However, I don't think that using monotheism is really what you want to say.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Snooz;1470793 wrote: Off topic, sorry. I'm still trying to wrap my head around someone averaging 650 students per year. Say a classroom holds 40 students, six periods in the day... that's 240 students for a school year. Summer school is maybe two - three classes with fewer students but lets say 40 again. That's 120. Night school - two classes per semester, four semesters let's say 20 in the class = 120 students. High estimate is 480 students unless you're teaching to an auditorium sized classroom which is unlikely since you're in a small community.
And I don't see how you could have taught that many people in that small community unless quite a few kids are repeating grades.
Don't mean to be obsessive but those numbers just seem really off.
You forgot Saturday School, and Double Summer School. Summer School runs about 200 students, not forty. You also forgot that I substituted for a year. Then you ignored the fact that I had two groups of 50 per morning and two groups of 50 per afternoon alternating for eight years. Then there was the fact that you divided by 20 instead of 21.
Now stop being petty, obsessive, and mean. Or is that even possible for you?
Regardless, even taking your pathetic mean-spirited number to be true, you don't think that 480 students a year is impressive? Or that it gives me recognition in our community which was the original point? Look, here's a link to my school website, Maybe you can get some more ammunition for your debased, shameless, obsessive tirade:
http://rhs.fms.k12.nm.us/teachers/jives/
Now snoz, please post something you have achieved (If anything) so that I can have some fun trying to insult you and pull you down. It's my turn.
I'll add this: It's behavior like yours that drives away intelligent and good posters from this board.
And I don't see how you could have taught that many people in that small community unless quite a few kids are repeating grades.
Don't mean to be obsessive but those numbers just seem really off.
You forgot Saturday School, and Double Summer School. Summer School runs about 200 students, not forty. You also forgot that I substituted for a year. Then you ignored the fact that I had two groups of 50 per morning and two groups of 50 per afternoon alternating for eight years. Then there was the fact that you divided by 20 instead of 21.
Now stop being petty, obsessive, and mean. Or is that even possible for you?
Regardless, even taking your pathetic mean-spirited number to be true, you don't think that 480 students a year is impressive? Or that it gives me recognition in our community which was the original point? Look, here's a link to my school website, Maybe you can get some more ammunition for your debased, shameless, obsessive tirade:
http://rhs.fms.k12.nm.us/teachers/jives/
Now snoz, please post something you have achieved (If anything) so that I can have some fun trying to insult you and pull you down. It's my turn.
I'll add this: It's behavior like yours that drives away intelligent and good posters from this board.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Saint_;1471060 wrote: You forgot Saturday School, and Double Summer School.
Then there are the evening classes you teach in catechism, home economics, yoga, personal hygiene, pottery, Lamaze, water polo, and Esperanto for advanced learners. You really are a very busy man! If this snooze gets to be too much - just let me take care of him.
Disclaimer: This is a SARCASM ALERT
Then there are the evening classes you teach in catechism, home economics, yoga, personal hygiene, pottery, Lamaze, water polo, and Esperanto for advanced learners. You really are a very busy man! If this snooze gets to be too much - just let me take care of him.
Disclaimer: This is a SARCASM ALERT
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Him is a Her, HT---snooze, I mean.
Saw Kaley Cuoco last night on 'People's Choice Awards'--------she says she is on an 'Apology Tour' for the remarks that started this thread!
Saw Kaley Cuoco last night on 'People's Choice Awards'--------she says she is on an 'Apology Tour' for the remarks that started this thread!
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
AnneBoleyn;1471065 wrote: Him is a Her, HT---snooze, I mean.
Saw Kaley Cuoco last night on 'People's Choice Awards'--------she says she is on an 'Apology Tour' for the remarks that started this thread!
I would forgive her anything.
Saw Kaley Cuoco last night on 'People's Choice Awards'--------she says she is on an 'Apology Tour' for the remarks that started this thread!
I would forgive her anything.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1471063 wrote: Then there are the evening classes you teach in catechism, home economics, yoga, personal hygiene, pottery, Lamaze, water polo, and Esperanto for advanced learners. You really are a very busy man! If this snooze gets to be too much - just let me take care of him.
Disclaimer: This is a SARCASM ALERT
ROFL! Thanks for reminding me not to be so thin-skinned! Hahahaha... It is the internet after all!
Disclaimer: This is a SARCASM ALERT
ROFL! Thanks for reminding me not to be so thin-skinned! Hahahaha... It is the internet after all!
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
AnneBoleyn;1471065 wrote: Him is a Her, HT---snooze, I mean.
Saw Kaley Cuoco last night on 'People's Choice Awards'--------she says she is on an 'Apology Tour' for the remarks that started this thread!
Yeah, that was pretty funny wasn't it? I thought the ladies did an excellent job of being funny without being insulting.
Saw Kaley Cuoco last night on 'People's Choice Awards'--------she says she is on an 'Apology Tour' for the remarks that started this thread!
Yeah, that was pretty funny wasn't it? I thought the ladies did an excellent job of being funny without being insulting.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Bruv;1471066 wrote: I would forgive her anything.
I am a forgiving person, Bruv. Many people never forgive, just make up their minds & that's that.
I am a forgiving person, Bruv. Many people never forgive, just make up their minds & that's that.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1471052 wrote: Well ...... er ...... ah ..... yeah. If I had a way with words I would have said that instead. :yh_clown However, I don't think that using monotheism is really what you want to say.
It is I think. If you believe in one god then everybody who doesn't is wrong.
If you believe in one god then everyone who also believes in one god a partly right but if their view is not exactly like the one you believe in they must be wrong as well because it's not quite the same god.
maybe I should have said
It's an inherent flaw in monotheism there is only one god anyone who doesn't agree there is only one god is wrong and those who believe in one god and don't agree with your perception of him must be wrong in their beliefs. Therein lies the basis of conflict with people who can;t agree to disgree and leave it at that. Worse they are so concerned about you going to hell (caring souls that they are) they can justify all sorts of terror to get you to comply.
Those terrorists in france just want us all to go heaven and will kill anyone who doesn't.
It is I think. If you believe in one god then everybody who doesn't is wrong.
If you believe in one god then everyone who also believes in one god a partly right but if their view is not exactly like the one you believe in they must be wrong as well because it's not quite the same god.
maybe I should have said
It's an inherent flaw in monotheism there is only one god anyone who doesn't agree there is only one god is wrong and those who believe in one god and don't agree with your perception of him must be wrong in their beliefs. Therein lies the basis of conflict with people who can;t agree to disgree and leave it at that. Worse they are so concerned about you going to hell (caring souls that they are) they can justify all sorts of terror to get you to comply.
Those terrorists in france just want us all to go heaven and will kill anyone who doesn't.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1471086 wrote: It is I think. If you believe in one god then everybody who doesn't is wrong.
If you believe in one god then everyone who also believes in one god a partly right but if their view is not exactly like the one you believe in they must be wrong as well because it's not quite the same god.
maybe I should have said
It's an inherent flaw in monotheism there is only one god anyone who doesn't agree there is only one god is wrong and those who believe in one god and don't agree with your perception of him must be wrong in their beliefs. Therein lies the basis of conflict with people who can;t agree to disgree and leave it at that. Worse they are so concerned about you going to hell (caring souls that they are) they can justify all sorts of terror to get you to comply.
Those terrorists in france just want us all to go heaven and will kill anyone who doesn't.
I don't think monotheism has much to do with it. The point (as I see it) is “Our God(s) is (are) best/true. Whether you believe in one God or several, the idea is that your God (read religion) is the only one. Monotheism is no more or less superstitious (if I may be allowed to use the term) than any other. If I were to try disproving my own theory then I would have to say that Judaism (a monotheism) is rather tolerant with regards other beliefs, but that fact would disprove your notion even more ..... rather than less.
If you believe in one god then everyone who also believes in one god a partly right but if their view is not exactly like the one you believe in they must be wrong as well because it's not quite the same god.
maybe I should have said
It's an inherent flaw in monotheism there is only one god anyone who doesn't agree there is only one god is wrong and those who believe in one god and don't agree with your perception of him must be wrong in their beliefs. Therein lies the basis of conflict with people who can;t agree to disgree and leave it at that. Worse they are so concerned about you going to hell (caring souls that they are) they can justify all sorts of terror to get you to comply.
Those terrorists in france just want us all to go heaven and will kill anyone who doesn't.
I don't think monotheism has much to do with it. The point (as I see it) is “Our God(s) is (are) best/true. Whether you believe in one God or several, the idea is that your God (read religion) is the only one. Monotheism is no more or less superstitious (if I may be allowed to use the term) than any other. If I were to try disproving my own theory then I would have to say that Judaism (a monotheism) is rather tolerant with regards other beliefs, but that fact would disprove your notion even more ..... rather than less.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
FourPart;1470812 wrote: I'm glad I'm not the only one.
As for the link given as to how 'gorgeous' she is - there's no accounting for taste I suppose. We've got a couple of girls far more gorgeous than that working in our office - and probably with a lot more intelligence.
Hear ya.
:yh_clap
As for the link given as to how 'gorgeous' she is - there's no accounting for taste I suppose. We've got a couple of girls far more gorgeous than that working in our office - and probably with a lot more intelligence.
Hear ya.
:yh_clap
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
tude dog;1471117 wrote: Hear ya.
:yh_clap
Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder, like that infamous episode of the Twilight Zone. I only learned this week, because she died, that Elly Mae Clampett (in life: Donna Douglas) was the bandaged girl in that! Saw it one million times & never knew that before! Live & learn.
:yh_clap
Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder, like that infamous episode of the Twilight Zone. I only learned this week, because she died, that Elly Mae Clampett (in life: Donna Douglas) was the bandaged girl in that! Saw it one million times & never knew that before! Live & learn.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1471087 wrote: I don't think monotheism has much to do with it. The point (as I see it) is “Our God(s) is (are) best/true. Whether you believe in one God or several, the idea is that your God (read religion) is the only one. Monotheism is no more or less superstitious (if I may be allowed to use the term) than any other. If I were to try disproving my own theory then I would have to say that Judaism (a monotheism) is rather tolerant with regards other beliefs, but that fact would disprove your notion even more ..... rather than less.
Monotheism means the belief in only one god, it is exclusive of the possibility of there being any other god. Therefore all else is heresy and nonbelievers inferior it's nopt a qwuestion of making a choice from a selection of pagan gods or just one.
If you believe in many gods then there is usually no belief that one is necessarily superior to another pagans would cheerfully switch gods if they felt the one they worshipped was letting them down or they had different gods for different problems or places. gods of war, the sea etc etc
Pagan slaughtered pagan and the gods were on the side of the victor one tribe would exterminate another just for the hell of it or to take their lands but it takes monotheism to justify genocide in the name of god and make hatred and contempt acceptable. Just read the old testament if you don't believe me. Moses wanted to weld the tribe together to do what he saw as necessary and used religion to do so.
I'm not saying religion is to blame for everything but christian can't sit down with christian or muslim with muslim for more than five minutes befire they start fighting over who is right.
Jesus christ might have preached tolerance but his followers didn't waste much time before they were arguing.
You may be wondering what religion this has to do with feminism but it's thanks to the garden of eden myth that women have been made to suffer, eve's curse is something you have to be very sick to believe in but maybe I shouldn't say that out of respect for some people's religious sensibilities.
Woman should be subservient to man that is god's will according to some.
Monotheism means the belief in only one god, it is exclusive of the possibility of there being any other god. Therefore all else is heresy and nonbelievers inferior it's nopt a qwuestion of making a choice from a selection of pagan gods or just one.
If you believe in many gods then there is usually no belief that one is necessarily superior to another pagans would cheerfully switch gods if they felt the one they worshipped was letting them down or they had different gods for different problems or places. gods of war, the sea etc etc
Pagan slaughtered pagan and the gods were on the side of the victor one tribe would exterminate another just for the hell of it or to take their lands but it takes monotheism to justify genocide in the name of god and make hatred and contempt acceptable. Just read the old testament if you don't believe me. Moses wanted to weld the tribe together to do what he saw as necessary and used religion to do so.
I'm not saying religion is to blame for everything but christian can't sit down with christian or muslim with muslim for more than five minutes befire they start fighting over who is right.
Jesus christ might have preached tolerance but his followers didn't waste much time before they were arguing.
You may be wondering what religion this has to do with feminism but it's thanks to the garden of eden myth that women have been made to suffer, eve's curse is something you have to be very sick to believe in but maybe I shouldn't say that out of respect for some people's religious sensibilities.
Woman should be subservient to man that is god's will according to some.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1471131 wrote: Monotheism means the belief in only one god, it is exclusive of the possibility of there being any other god.
So far so good.
gmc;1471131 wrote: Therefore all else is heresy and nonbelievers inferior
I am a monotheist and what you just wrote does not resemble my religious tradition.
So far so good.
gmc;1471131 wrote: Therefore all else is heresy and nonbelievers inferior
I am a monotheist and what you just wrote does not resemble my religious tradition.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
tude dog;1471139 wrote: I am a monotheist and what you just wrote does not resemble my religious tradition.
That's what I was referring to in my post #83.
That's what I was referring to in my post #83.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1471131 wrote: You may be wondering what religion this has to do with feminism but it's thanks to the garden of eden myth that women have been made to suffer, eve's curse is something you have to be very sick to believe in but maybe I shouldn't say that out of respect for some people's religious sensibilities.
Woman should be subservient to man that is god's will according to some.
I think it's more a case that God created Man in HIS own image. HE never even thought of bothering with a mere Woman until Adam asked HIM to.
Woman should be subservient to man that is god's will according to some.
I think it's more a case that God created Man in HIS own image. HE never even thought of bothering with a mere Woman until Adam asked HIM to.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
posted by tude dog
I am a monotheist and what you just wrote does not resemble my religious tradition.
I don't know what your tradition is and I wasn't referring to it.
OK I do take your point the all others are inferior may be stretching a point but it's easy to see where the believe that everybody else is going to hell or wherever comes from in those tradiotions that teach that kind of doctrine.
heresy. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
I'm using a broad brush and am not directing my comments at you or any other poster in particular.
posted by fourpart
I think it's more a case that God created Man in HIS own image. HE never even thought of bothering with a mere Woman until Adam asked HIM to.
Did he? Says who? :)Your assumption that god made man is not one I happen to share but if you buy in to the creration myth it was eve who got us chucked out of the garden and she has been cursed ever since. I would point out if it's still not clear I don't believe in adam and eve myth it's just a myth.
I am a monotheist and what you just wrote does not resemble my religious tradition.
I don't know what your tradition is and I wasn't referring to it.
OK I do take your point the all others are inferior may be stretching a point but it's easy to see where the believe that everybody else is going to hell or wherever comes from in those tradiotions that teach that kind of doctrine.
heresy. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
I'm using a broad brush and am not directing my comments at you or any other poster in particular.
posted by fourpart
I think it's more a case that God created Man in HIS own image. HE never even thought of bothering with a mere Woman until Adam asked HIM to.
Did he? Says who? :)Your assumption that god made man is not one I happen to share but if you buy in to the creration myth it was eve who got us chucked out of the garden and she has been cursed ever since. I would point out if it's still not clear I don't believe in adam and eve myth it's just a myth.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1471131 wrote: Monotheism means the belief in only one god, it is exclusive of the possibility of there being any other god. Therefore all else is heresy and nonbelievers inferior it's not a question of making a choice from a selection of pagan gods or just one.
If you believe in many gods then there is usually no belief that one is necessarily superior to another pagans would cheerfully switch gods if they felt the one they worshipped was letting them down or they had different gods for different problems or places. gods of war, the sea etc etc
Not sure if we are on the same wave-length but Polytheism (correct me id I am wrong) believes that each God is responsible for only one piece of the metaphysical puzzle. They've covered all of the bases (no less than monotheistic theologians have done) and they too feel that theirs is the true religion - with respects all of the others. Monotheistic religions have no monopoly on that score. THAT is where I think your claim of Monotheism is irrelevant.
gmc;1471131 wrote: Pagan slaughtered pagan and the gods were on the side of the victor one tribe would exterminate another just for the hell of it or to take their lands but it takes monotheism to justify genocide in the name of god and make hatred and contempt acceptable. Just read the old testament if you don't believe me. Moses wanted to weld the tribe together to do what he saw as necessary and used religion to do so.
I am stretching my pseudo knowledge here but I do believe that destruction (not sure about full-blown “genocide) is covered rather well with Gods such as Shiva which is part of one (at least) Polytheistic religion.
gmc;1471131 wrote: I'm not saying religion is to blame for everything but Christian can't sit down with Christian or Muslim with Muslim for more than five minutes before they start fighting over who is right.
Jesus Christ might have preached tolerance but his followers didn't waste much time before they were arguing.
I wouldn't disagree with that.
gmc;1471131 wrote: You may be wondering what religion this has to do with feminism but it's thanks to the garden of eden myth that women have been made to suffer, eve's curse is something you have to be very sick to believe in but maybe I shouldn't say that out of respect for some people's religious sensibilities.
Woman should be subservient to man that is god's will according to some.
Oh-oh! We're going to talk about that are we? If this is a trap I have nothing to say!
If you believe in many gods then there is usually no belief that one is necessarily superior to another pagans would cheerfully switch gods if they felt the one they worshipped was letting them down or they had different gods for different problems or places. gods of war, the sea etc etc
Not sure if we are on the same wave-length but Polytheism (correct me id I am wrong) believes that each God is responsible for only one piece of the metaphysical puzzle. They've covered all of the bases (no less than monotheistic theologians have done) and they too feel that theirs is the true religion - with respects all of the others. Monotheistic religions have no monopoly on that score. THAT is where I think your claim of Monotheism is irrelevant.
gmc;1471131 wrote: Pagan slaughtered pagan and the gods were on the side of the victor one tribe would exterminate another just for the hell of it or to take their lands but it takes monotheism to justify genocide in the name of god and make hatred and contempt acceptable. Just read the old testament if you don't believe me. Moses wanted to weld the tribe together to do what he saw as necessary and used religion to do so.
I am stretching my pseudo knowledge here but I do believe that destruction (not sure about full-blown “genocide) is covered rather well with Gods such as Shiva which is part of one (at least) Polytheistic religion.
gmc;1471131 wrote: I'm not saying religion is to blame for everything but Christian can't sit down with Christian or Muslim with Muslim for more than five minutes before they start fighting over who is right.
Jesus Christ might have preached tolerance but his followers didn't waste much time before they were arguing.
I wouldn't disagree with that.
gmc;1471131 wrote: You may be wondering what religion this has to do with feminism but it's thanks to the garden of eden myth that women have been made to suffer, eve's curse is something you have to be very sick to believe in but maybe I shouldn't say that out of respect for some people's religious sensibilities.
Woman should be subservient to man that is god's will according to some.
Oh-oh! We're going to talk about that are we? If this is a trap I have nothing to say!
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1471153 wrote:
Did he? Says who? :)Your assumption that god made man is not one I happen to share but if you buy in to the creration myth it was eve who got us chucked out of the garden and she has been cursed ever since. I would point out if it's still not clear I don't believe in adam and eve myth it's just a myth.
I didn't mean to say that I did either, rather than that is the Religious Doctrine of belief, as set down in Genesis (although my main question is that if there is only one God, then why would he have a gender of any sort in the first place?)
Did he? Says who? :)Your assumption that god made man is not one I happen to share but if you buy in to the creration myth it was eve who got us chucked out of the garden and she has been cursed ever since. I would point out if it's still not clear I don't believe in adam and eve myth it's just a myth.
I didn't mean to say that I did either, rather than that is the Religious Doctrine of belief, as set down in Genesis (although my main question is that if there is only one God, then why would he have a gender of any sort in the first place?)
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
gmc;1471153 wrote: ...... it's easy to see where the believe that everybody else is going to hell or wherever comes from in those tradiotions that teach that kind of doctrine.
I might be taking this out of context, or just plain misunderstood you, but Judaism is extremely tolerant with non-Jewish beliefs. In fact, Jews give others a free ride. "The Chosen People" means ... chosen to live a stringent life (a bit like the Amish, one could say) but others need ONLY follow the ten commandments to be in God's good graces. Now if you know anything about Orthodox Judaism then you might realize that the ten commandments is a walk in the park in comparison. So, the upshot is that Jews do not condemn non-Jews to Hell - or even to Hotel California. The contrary is true.
I might be taking this out of context, or just plain misunderstood you, but Judaism is extremely tolerant with non-Jewish beliefs. In fact, Jews give others a free ride. "The Chosen People" means ... chosen to live a stringent life (a bit like the Amish, one could say) but others need ONLY follow the ten commandments to be in God's good graces. Now if you know anything about Orthodox Judaism then you might realize that the ten commandments is a walk in the park in comparison. So, the upshot is that Jews do not condemn non-Jews to Hell - or even to Hotel California. The contrary is true.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1471196 wrote: I might be taking this out of context, or just plain misunderstood you, but Judaism is extremely tolerant with non-Jewish beliefs. In fact, Jews give others a free ride. "The Chosen People" means ... chosen to live a stringent life (a bit like the Amish, one could say) but others need ONLY follow the ten commandments to be in God's good graces. Now if you know anything about Orthodox Judaism then you might realize that the ten commandments is a walk in the park in comparison. So, the upshot is that Jews do not condemn non-Jews to Hell - or even to Hotel California. The contrary is true.
I must say, I've never come across any Jewish extremist groups.
I must say, I've never come across any Jewish extremist groups.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
FourPart;1471198 wrote: I must say, I've never come across any Jewish extremist groups.
An odd individual from time to time but no group, I agree.
An odd individual from time to time but no group, I agree.
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
FourPart;1471198 wrote: I must say, I've never come across any Jewish extremist groups.
You should get out more......HERE
You should get out more......HERE
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1471210 wrote: An odd individual from time to time but no group, I agree.
Blimey......I don't believe it....HERE
Blimey......I don't believe it....HERE
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Bruv;1471211 wrote: You should get out more......HERE
Note however that such an incident is perceived as what we might call a sacrilege committed UPON THEIR RELIGEOUS CONVICTIONS - Not imposing their religious convictions onto others. But I have a suspicion that you are now going to split hairs.
Note however that such an incident is perceived as what we might call a sacrilege committed UPON THEIR RELIGEOUS CONVICTIONS - Not imposing their religious convictions onto others. But I have a suspicion that you are now going to split hairs.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
Bruv;1471212 wrote: Blimey......I don't believe it....HERE
Sorry. I've only read as far as the end of the dialogue and I can already say with no reservation what-so-ever that it is the writer who's the extremist, not the so-called Haredi. Do you disagree with me?
Sorry. I've only read as far as the end of the dialogue and I can already say with no reservation what-so-ever that it is the writer who's the extremist, not the so-called Haredi. Do you disagree with me?
Feminism.......and Kaley Cuoco
High Threshold;1471216 wrote: Sorry. I've only read as far as the end of the dialogue and I can already say with no reservation what-so-ever that it is the writer who's the extremist, not the so-called Haredi. Do you disagree with me?
Blooming right I disagree with you.
I Googled 'extremist Jews' and returned both the stories shown above.
I remember hearing of a section of Jewish society that are as fundamental or extreme as the most extreme fundamentalist Muslim.
The writer refuses to allow his friend move away from the group of three friends sitting together, the request was because "He appeared agitated by this: haredi men scrupulously avoid any contact with, even close proximity to, women who are not family members" So the writer was making a stand against the haredi gentleman in a secular public meeting not a religious group at the man's synagogue.
Blooming right I disagree with you.
I Googled 'extremist Jews' and returned both the stories shown above.
I remember hearing of a section of Jewish society that are as fundamental or extreme as the most extreme fundamentalist Muslim.
The writer refuses to allow his friend move away from the group of three friends sitting together, the request was because "He appeared agitated by this: haredi men scrupulously avoid any contact with, even close proximity to, women who are not family members" So the writer was making a stand against the haredi gentleman in a secular public meeting not a religious group at the man's synagogue.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth