Quantcast

Explaining Religious Psychosis

eric strt6

eric strt6

Resident Curmudgeon
Sep 8, 2001
23,387
13,684
directly above the center of the earth
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has vetoed a hot-button measure that would have permitted businesses in the state to deny service to gay and lesbians for religious beliefs.

At a news conference at the state capitol just after 7:45 p.m. ET, Brewer said the bill "could result in unintended and negative consequences."

"I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve," Brewer said.


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/arizona-bill-controversy/arizona-governor-jan-brewer-vetoes-anti-gay-bill-n39666
 
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
Biomedical engineers adjust the brain - soul not part of the equation:

One thing that really excites me is understanding how the brain implements a thought or a feeling. Would it actually transform how humanity operates for the better — in the sense of things like strife and violence and irrationality — if we understood those things? Would understanding the mechanisms underlying these things let us be less governed by them? One scary part is that all technologies can be abused, which is why it’s important to make sure we’re discussing these things openly, ahead of the game.

Let’s take a good success story. I think it was in 1974, when it seemed clear you could take a gene from one organism and pop it into another. A bunch of people got together at Asilomar, in California, to work out some ideas for the regulations and restrictions and guidelines for manipulating genes. For crying out loud, you’re taking a gene from a plant and putting it into an animal or doing all sorts of mixing and matching! Now flash forward. It’s 40 years since then, and all sorts of things like insulin, human growth hormone and antibodies that treat cancer have come out of this genetic revolution. Of course, people always speculate that a new killer virus could be engineered by a renegade person, but if you look over nearly a half-century of recombinant DNA and biotechnology, it’s been a pretty big win for humanity.

Brain treatment, and if it gets to that point, brain augmentation, could not only change functions like cognition, emotion or movement, but maybe even change identity. So what we want to do for brain technology, once we really have the tools, would be to have that same kind of gathering, to discuss these things openly, in the context of the future of humanity and how we can benefit humanity. Let’s get everybody in the room and make sure that we all have a moral direction going forward.
Click to expand...
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
re: AZ, everybody just CTFD

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/02/no-this-is-not-jim-crow-for-gays-understanding-arizona-s-b-1062.php
The Arizona legislature has passed S.B. 1066. It amends a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It does so in an attempt to strengthen the ability of vendors to follow their religious conscience by, for example, declining to provide services at gay weddings.

The legislation has generated much criticism. The two most recent Republican presidential candidates have urged Governor Brewer not to sign the bill. Various big businesses have done the same. Even the National Football League, that bastion of enlightenment, has weighed in. This is no small matter given that Arizona likes to host the Super Bowl. Must religious freedom pay for Richie Incognito’s sins?

I’m confident that a broad consensus exists on the issues raised (or allegedly raised) by S.B. 1066. First, it seems fundamentally wrong to deny someone service at, say, a restaurant or a gas station because of his or her sexual orientation (although doing so is not currently banned by Arizona state law). Likewise, it seems fundamentally wrong for a photographer to refuse to take, say, a passport photo of a person because of his or her sexual orientation.

But second, it also seems fundamentally wrong to require a photographer who believes, based on sincere religious conviction, that gay marriage is immoral to participate in a gay marriage celebration by photographing it. Indeed, it is odd (and telling) that any gay couple would want their sacred ceremony to be chronicled by someone who finds the event morally reprehensible. Such a photographer is unlikely to capture the spirit of the occasion.
Click to expand...
Eleven leading scholars religious-liberty scholars said:
SB1062, which amends Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is on your desk for signature. The bill has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics. We write because we believe that you should make your decision on the basis of accurate information.

Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it. Nine of the eleven signers of this letter believe that you should sign the bill; two are unsure. But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading.

The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Another twelve or thirteen states interpret their state constitutions to provide similar protections. These laws enact a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to individual cases by courts. They say that before the government can burden a person’s religious exercise, the government has to show a compelling justification.

That standard makes sense. We should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have a very good reason. Arizona has had a RFRA for nearly fifteen years now; the federal government has had one since 1993; and RFRA’s standard was the constitutional standard for the entire country from 1963 to 1990.

There have been relatively few cases; if you knew little about the Arizona RFRA until the current controversy, that is because it has had no disruptive effect in Arizona. Few people had heard of the federal RFRA before the current litigation over contraception and the Affordable Care Act.

SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.

But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

As a business gets bigger and more impersonal, courts will become more skeptical about claims of substantial burden on the owner’s exercise of religion. And as a business gets bigger, the government’s claim of compelling interest will become stronger.

Arizona’s RFRA, like all RFRAs, leaves resolution of these issues to the courts for two related reasons. First, it is impossible for legislatures to foresee all the potential conflicts between the diverse religious practices of the many faiths practiced in Arizona and the diverse array of regulations enacted by the state and all its agencies, counties, municipalities, and special purpose districts.

And second, when passions are aroused on all sides, as they have been in this case, it becomes extraordinarily difficult for legislatures to make principled decisions about whether to make exceptions for unpopular religious practices. Courts can generally devote more time to the question, hear the evidence from both sides, and be more insulated from interest-group pressure.

So, to be clear: SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It says that business people can assert a claim or defense under RFRA, in any kind of case (discrimination cases are not even mentioned, although they would be included), that they have the burden of proving a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona make the final decision. . . .

There have been very few [RFRA] claims by businesses over the years, but there have been a few. It is true that some of these claims are based on objections to same-sex marriage, although that is not an issue in Arizona.

The cases pending in the Supreme Court involve business owners who believe they are being asked to pay for abortions. Business regulations do not often require a business owner to violate a deeply held religious belief, but sometimes they do, and when that happens, the Arizona RFRA should be available. Keep in mind that it will not guarantee either side a win; it will test the government’s claims and the religious believer’s claims under RFRA’s general standard.

Whatever judgment you pass on SB1062, you should not be misled by uninformed critics. The Arizona bill. . .resolves ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation elsewhere. It deserves your accurately informed consideration.
Click to expand...
 
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
Why post more about SB1062, it's been vetoed as Eric noted earlier? Moot point.
 
Last edited:
eric strt6

eric strt6

Resident Curmudgeon
Sep 8, 2001
23,387
13,684
directly above the center of the earth
So I saw something really odd at work today. I was picking up a patient and this group of women came in with a smudge on their forehead, they looked possibly Indian so i ascribed it to some Hindu dot sort of thing. Then I saw a man with it. I had no clue what it was until tonight when I pulled up the NBC News website... Growing up in coastal Southern and Central California all we worshiped was surf, skiing and getting laid.

Hmmn Ash Wednesday never made the connection. I had in 57 years never seen Christians with an ash cross on the forehead until today. How freaking bizarre a custom.

 
AngryMetalsmith

AngryMetalsmith

Business is good, thanks for asking
Jun 4, 2006
21,250
10,230
I have no idea where I am
^^ It's quite common to see that in the North East. I went to a Catholic high school in Delaware and not being Catholic myself it was a bit strange especially coming from the mountains of NC. But then again, so was having to use indoor plumbing and wearing shoes.
 
eric strt6

eric strt6

Resident Curmudgeon
Sep 8, 2001
23,387
13,684
directly above the center of the earth
AngryMetalsmith said:
^^ It's quite common to see that in the North East. I went to a Catholic high school in Delaware and not being Catholic myself it was a bit strange especially coming from the mountains of NC. But then again, so was having to use indoor plumbing and wearing shoes.
Click to expand...
nothing better that peeing out in mother nature, edge of a cliff with a great view is the best.
 
eric strt6

eric strt6

Resident Curmudgeon
Sep 8, 2001
23,387
13,684
directly above the center of the earth
golly gosh darn, Fred Phelps is in Hospice



TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., who founded a Kansas church widely known for its protests at military funerals and anti-gay sentiments, is in a care facility, according to a church spokesman.

Phelps, 84, is being cared for in a Shawnee County facility, Westboro Baptist Church spokesman Steve Drain said Sunday. Drain wouldn't identify the facility.
 
valve bouncer

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
I hope he dies peacefully in his sleep, without pain and with his family around him. I hope his family get to mourn his death with privacy and respect.
 
mattmatt86

mattmatt86

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2005
5,347
10
Bleedmore, Murderland
jonKranked said:
i wonder how they're going to respond to evidence of the big bang....

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/17/5518346/first-evidence-gravitational-waves-supports-big-bang-inflation
Click to expand...
The same way they respond to everything they disagree with that we have evidence of, ignore it.

Bill Maher had a great quote in response to the Todd Aiken "legitimate rape" comments that perfectly illustrates how it's nearly impossible to convince evangelicals with "facts."

Here's the only thing you need to know about Todd Akin and human anatomy: he's an asshole. What I want to talk about is how it's not a coincidence that the party of fundamentalism is also the party of fantasy. When I say religion is a mental illness, this is what I mean: it corrodes your mental faculties to the point where you can believe in tiny ninja warriors who hide in vaginas and lie in wait for bad people's sperm.

Evangelicals might like to pretend that the magical thinking that they indulge in at home doesn't affect what they do at the office, but it absolutely does. The brain that believes in angels and miracles and Jesus riding a dinosaur is trained to see the world not as it is, but as you want it to be.
Click to expand...
Trying to argue with an evangelical is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. They will just knock over all the pieces, Sh!t on the board, then fly home and tell all the other pigeons that they won.
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
mattmatt86 said:
They will just knock over all the pieces, Sh!t on the board, then fly home and tell all the other pigeons that they won.
Click to expand...
you believe in talking pigeons?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom