VP pick named.

[Matata]

but per Ella I think this could attract spammers.

I wasn't aware there was an issue.

 

[JPie]

I wasn't aware there was an issue.

It came up in a separate thread about doing the vertical mambo. Ella explained that we should use euphemisms because writing out the actual words tended to attract spammers to PS.

Here’s the conversation for reference:

Something different ... (no sex)

My favorite lolli-pop flavor is root beer! Mmmmm

www.pricescope.com

 

[Matata]

It came up in a separate thread about doing the vertical mambo. Ella explained that we should use euphemisms because writing out the actual words tended to attract spammers to PS.

Thanks JPie. I wondered why we were getting so much "male enhancement" spam.

 

[AGBF]

Thanks JPie. I wondered why we were getting so much "male enhancement" spam.

The word that has to be avoided is the correct word for representing a male or female animal or person . "Gender", which is now so universally used, is actually incorrect. "Gender" refers only to words; it is a grammatical term. So the abolition of the "s" word does a lot of damage to normal, English conversation.

On the other hand, I don't want spam. (This is called living in the real world.)

 

[Matata]

So the abolition of the "s" word does a lot of damage to normal, English conversation.

On the other hand, I don't want spam. (This is called living in the real world.)

Imo, spam is similar to an assault on free speech in that the onus for avoiding spam rests on the spammed who must continually find new ways to say the same thing and engage in creative euphemisms to avoid algorithms. I think it's impossible for us average folk to outsmart computers in that way.

 

[redwood66]

Harris creates a problem with her views and continuous attempts to thwart religion wherever she can.

Kamala Harris’ Limited Vision of Religious Liberty

When presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris was running for president, she appeared at CNN's Equality Town Hall, an…

reason.com

 

[missy]

Government should stay out of religion and religion should stay out of government.

 

[redwood66]

That's not what she wants. She wants the government to compel persons and businesses to go against their faith.

 

[missy]

That's not what she wants.

That is why I am neither a Democrat or Republican.
However I will be voting for Biden/Harris. As with all elections I vote the lesser of the evils and there is no question in my mind Biden and Harris are the only choice this election. For better or worse. And it will certainly be better than the past 4 years. I have to believe that.

 

[redwood66]

That is why I am neither a Democrat or Republican.
However I will be voting for Biden/Harris. As with all elections I vote the lesser of the evils and there is no question in my mind Biden and Harris are the only choice this election. For better or worse. And it will certainly be better than the past 4 years. I have to believe that.

This is great. We all should make the choice we deem the best.

 

[missy]

This is great. We all should make the choice we deem the best.

I agree. I share my thoughts if asked but I never tell anyone who to vote for. We all have to vote our conscience. It is the best any of us can do.

 

[scouty]

In 2016 Trump said in a campaign speech that "Christianity will have power" if he is President. Soon after taking office he banned entry to the US from a number of majority Muslim countries. This week Trump told his rally he moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem "for the evangelicals". I don't like the executive branch admitting impartiality and actively serving the purpose of one religion.

 

[jaaron]

That's not what she wants. She wants the government to compel persons and businesses to go against their faith.

These libertarian think tanks (reason.com) are so busy you almost have to wonder if they're worried.

An alternative translation is that she doesn't believe employers' religious views should be allowed to be imposed on their employees and that she supports Roe, which, for the moment anyway, is still the law.

 

[redwood66]

These libertarian think tanks (reason.com) are so busy you almost have to wonder if they're worried.

An alternative translation is that she doesn't believe employers' religious views should be allowed to be imposed on their employees and that she supports Roe, which, for the moment anyway, is still the law.

Attack the messenger of course. Libertarianism is about choice and taking a job is a choice. Government needs to stay out of religion.

 

[AGBF]

I have never seen government impinge on religion. Recently Karl pointed out that limiting worship during a pandemic was a form of control. I agree, although I think it is a justified one, like limiting someone from swinging his knife where it will hit someone else.

I have seen religion impinge plenty on what should be civil life, though!

 

[redwood66]

No, Joe Biden And Kamala Harris Aren’t ‘Rockefeller Republicans’

In the face of rising radicalism in the Democratic Party, the media’s new tactic is to paint Biden and Harris as milquetoast moderates.

thefederalist.com

 

[partgypsy]

It's a founding bedrock of our country of freedom of religion, or freedom from religion. The Puritans were escaping a country where there was one state religion, and others not of that faith were persecuted. I have not yet seen the government preventing people from worshipping, observing their faith, etc, whether they are Christian, Jewish, buddhist, Muslim etc. There are only issues when a person discriminates or restricts other people's behavior in the public sphere based on their beliefs. That's not allowed in this country. For example you are a pharmacist and your beliefs do not allow you to serve everyone coming in with their legal prescriptions, that person is not able to do their job. That would be like a Jehovah's witness being a nurse and refusing to help with blood transfusions. It's impractical/dangerous to keep that person in that line of work. I think the only exception would be a creative who only wants to do a certain kind of work, can open an Etsy store or equivelant, and say they do commision-based work of this type only.

 

[JPie]

I’ve never seen Christians persecuted in this country. What I have seen is the Christian faith being favored over other religions. It’s on our currency (“In God We Trust”), in our pledge of allegiance (“One nation, under God”), and in front of government buildings (Ten Commandments Monument, Little Rock, Arkansas).

Being the favored religion, it must feel like repression when the playing field is evened, like no prayer in public schools.

 

[redwood66]

It's a founding bedrock of our country of freedom of religion, or freedom from religion. The Puritans were escaping a country where there was one state religion, and others not of that faith were persecuted. I have not yet seen the government preventing people from worshipping, observing their faith, etc, whether they are Christian, Jewish, buddhist, Muslim etc. There are only issues when a person discriminates or restricts other people's behavior in the public sphere based on their beliefs. That's not allowed in this country. For example you are a pharmacist and your beliefs do not allow you to serve everyone coming in with their legal prescriptions, that person is not able to do their job. That would be like a Jehovah's witness being a nurse and refusing to help with blood transfusions. It's impractical/dangerous to keep that person in that line of work.

And people have a choice not to work in those positions. I don't want the government to compel them to work there either.

 

[scouty]

I have never seen government impinge on religion. Recently Karl pointed out that limiting worship during a pandemic was a form of control. I agree, although I think it is a justified one, like limiting someone from swinging his knife where it will hit someone else.

I have seen religion impinge plenty on what should be civil life, though!

The US military is the largest employer in the United States and in 1986 a Supreme Court ruling upheld the military's ban on facial hair and religious headgear. Rules were changed in 2017 to allow hijabs for women and new appearance standards for men who wish to wear facial hair or turbans for religious reasons. There was a long period of time in the US where observant Muslims and Sikhs faced conflicts between their religious beliefs and the US military service policies, while in other countries there were already accommodations.

 

[redwood66]

Legislation that would force religious institutions and healthcare providers to perform abortions is just about the most egregious impingement on the 1st Amendment I can imagine.

 

[Matata]

The majority christian religion in the US has its claws sunk too deeply into society and has successfully threatened and reduced the rights and freedoms of American citizens. It's well past time for its influence in politics to be exorcised.

 

[scouty]

 

[redwood66]

No one is telling you that you can't have an abortion or buy contraceptives, but by the same token you can't force someone to give you one either if it impinges on their religious tenets. You have a choice to go elsewhere. Why is this soooo hard for people to understand?

 

[scouty]

No one is telling you that you can't have an abortion, but by the same token you can't force someone to give you one either if it impinges on their religious tenets. You have a choice to go elsewhere. Why is this soooo hard for people to understand?

I agree that a doctor should not be forced to operate against their religious beliefs. Protections should go both ways. Many states want to push their religious agenda on all with policies that create obstacles to obtaining medical care.

 

[redwood66]

I agree that a doctor should not be forced to operate against their religious beliefs. Protections should go both ways. Many states want to push their religious agenda on all with policies that create obstacles to obtaining medical care.

Government shouldn't be involved in what happens between a doctor and patient at all, ever. Some states do decide what limits should be placed on abortions and the nation as a whole has decided that there must be limits on when and who pays.

 

[voce]

Legislation that would force religious institutions and healthcare providers to perform abortions is just about the most egregious impingement on the 1st Amendment I can imagine.

I'm with you and scouty in agreeing that no physician or nurse should be forced to perform abortions.

However, what legislation forces healthcare providers to perform abortions?

What legislation would force religious institutions to perform abortions?

I'm not that well informed on the matter.

Just as an aside, my mom grew up in Communist China, and she considers abortions a woman's human right, but she wouldn't want a queasy, incompetent or mentally unprepared physician to operate on her. What kind of person would want to force an unprepared/unqualified doctor to perform a procedure that's life-threatening?

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Snip:
...address the chief concern you'll hear from religious conservatives these days: Whether they'll be compelled to participate in and pay for things, particularly in the workplace, which their creeds and consciences forbid.

I have no problem with whatever religion or faith someone chooses to express. Privately. At their church, in their homes, or in their hearts. They can walk down the street praying. I think it's great.
I do have an issue with bringing it into the public sphere and using it to deny/refuse to provide other Americans services or infringes upon a woman's agency and right to choose. They can decide this for themselves, that cannot decide this for me.
It should be kept completely separate.
The Gov't makes sure that the people who would deny can't. That's all they do. I want any politician to protect my rights...under the First Amendment

Your Right to Religious Freedom | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

This is America's first freedom.

I'm with you and scouty in agreeing that no physician or nurse should be forced to perform abortions.

However, what legislation forces healthcare providers to perform abortions?

What legislation would force religious institutions to perform abortions?

I'm not that well informed on the matter.

Just as an aside, my mom grew up in Communist China, and she considers abortions a woman's human right, but she wouldn't want a queasy, incompetent or mentally unprepared physician to operate on her. What kind of person would want to force an unprepared/unqualified doctor to perform a procedure that's life-threatening?

None. Not one.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Harris creates a problem with her views and continuous attempts to thwart religion wherever she can.

Kamala Harris’ Limited Vision of Religious Liberty

When presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris was running for president, she appeared at CNN's Equality Town Hall, an…

reason.com

I'm curious, how is this thwarting religion in your mind/from your perspective? I don't understand the issue with her stance.
Personal religious belief shouldn't impinge on the public sphere.

* I reread and realized this could seem combative. I do not mean it this way. I truly would like to know your perspective on this and why.

 

[jaaron]

Attack the messenger of course. Libertarianism is about choice and taking a job is a choice. Government needs to stay out of religion.

It's not attacking the messenger exactly. It's replying in accordance with the understanding that the original statement, "Harris creates a problem with her views and continuous attempts to thwart religion wherever she can" and the source cited to back up that statement, are biased descriptors of the situation. I'm not arguing that the counter view isn't equally biased. I am arguing that this article is in no way a straight down the line take.

I agree that no healthcare provider should be forced to provide an abortion. I do not agree that employers should be allowed to impose their beliefs by denying birth control to their employees, although I can see the fairness in exceptions for religious organisations to some extent. Many people live in areas with few employment opportunities or lack the skills/education to have many choices when it comes to employers. These same people often live in areas without much access to free/low cost health care--particularly women's health. Do we sentence them to children they don't want and/or can't afford? Do these employers' beliefs extend to the life of the child/health of the parents once it's born? I'd be way more sympathetic to this argument if the sanctity of human life didn't seem to end at birth for so many of these people. Plus there's the fact that many women use hormonal birth control for reasons other than contraception.