Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Mon 27 Jun 2022, 18:26:13**

Religious Diversity in Italy and the Impact on Education
https://newdiversities.mmg.mpg.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015_17-01_06_Giorda.pdf

So, yeah, this could be the USA soon. Can't be that bad if the Italians put up with it (can it?)

Oh, then I looked at the sub title (but didn't read far enough in to reach the conclusion):

The History of a Failure

Posted: **Mon 27 Jun 2022, 19:59:32**

Well considering the abject failure of our public schools today, especially for inner city schools with high minority populations, trying something different, even if that something different is not a proven winner, is better then doing nothing.
Suppose a student was assigned to read a lot of the Bible (or Koran if you prefer). At least he or she would become competent at reading and could read and comprehend other sources later like the instruction manuals to their companies newest robotic machine.

Posted: **Mon 27 Jun 2022, 20:45:30**

vtsnowedin wrote:Well considering the abject failure of our public schools today, especially for inner city schools with high minority populations, trying something different, even if that something different is not a proven winner, is better then doing nothing.
Suppose a student was assigned to read a lot of the Bible (or Koran if you prefer). At least he or she would become competent at reading and could read and comprehend other sources later like the instruction manuals to their companies newest robotic machine.

You know. Some schools choosing to investigate one religion or the other should not be improper, especially if there are alternatives offered. But, we all know, it will not turn out that way. They'll be teaching Creationism before we know it and Thomas, Alito and what's her face, I'm sure already have that in their crosshairs (as a revisionist Supreme Court is wont to do). It's very coordinated. There doesn't have to be someone calling all the shots, but all they need is enough money funneled to those channels (as the SC has already allowed). I must admit, it's a very good system for subverting our constitution, our liberties and our way of life.

Posted: **Mon 27 Jun 2022, 22:36:21**

The first amendment has two parts related to religion:

1. The Federal Govt. can't establish an official religion (the Establishment Clause)
2. The Federal Govt. can't interfere with the free expression/practice of religion (The Free Exercise Clause)

The 14th amendment incorporated these protections into state government actions

Like all rights, there are limits created by the rights of others and essential govt. interests (such as internal order, national security, safety, etc.) No right is absolute and differing opinions can see the same action in differing ways.

In part of Minnesota, the call to prayer for Muslims is broadcast on loud speakers in some neighborhoods- is that free exercise or does the allowed violation of noise ordinances by city govt. create an establishment of a favored religion? If a church bell is allowed to ring- is that a broadcast of faith? Many issues are very complicated.

Posted: **Tue 28 Jun 2022, 04:21:34**

Plantagenet wrote:
jedrider wrote: The current SC is a religious spearhead into a multicultural secular nation.

Not really. As Careinke noted above, religious people have freedom of speech just like non religious people do.

Personally, this is one SCOTUS ruling I support.

IMHO We should all be cheering when the SCOTUS supports individual rights over the state.

jedrider wrote: The court's liberal justices said the decision weakens separation of church and state.

The constitution doesn't call for a "separation of church and state.

What the Constitution says is that the state cannot establish a state religion. The liberals have got this all backward----the FIRST AMENDMENT to the constitution isn't about limiting individual rights----its about restricting the power of the STATE. Its just silly to claim that a football coach praying after a game establishes a state religion, or that a soccer player thanking god when he scores a goal establishes a state religion.

People praying in public after sporting events.....even praying on TV DURING sporting events...... does not establish a state religion and is therefore protected by the constitution

jedrider wrote:Taking a prayer in public as a controlling figure, basically forcing EVERYONE to part take of this Christian ritual

What nonsense. Are you incapable of walking away or turning your head or closing your eyelids? No one is forcing you to watch anything. Try to be a little bit tolerant of other people instead of being so biased and prejudiced against people who have different beliefs then you do.

jedrider wrote: if a Muslim tried praying to Alah like that, he would never get employment again.

Please don't start posting crazy anti-Muslim nonsense. There are millions of Muslims in this country who pray several times a day and are gainfully employed as well. Its bad enough you post anti-Catholic conspiracy theories....there is no need for you to start in on the Muslims too.

Cheers!

I get your argument, but are you really serious about how an authority figure doing that isn't different? You don't seem to remember what it was like to be young and impressionable. I like that you say that people ought to be able to defend themselves. That's a good principle. The only problem is that you are fudging a bit when it comes to those who have some power over another and use it to push through their way over the way of those whom they are seeking to convince. You are advocating for Svengali. You are advocating for not just that, but for leaving a permanent wide open vulnerability to such a one.

Posted: **Tue 28 Jun 2022, 06:57:15**

C8 wrote:The first amendment has two parts related to religion:

1. The Federal Govt. can't establish an official religion (the Establishment Clause)
2. The Federal Govt. can't interfere with the free expression/practice of religion (The Free Exercise Clause)

The 14th amendment incorporated these protections into state government actions

Like all rights, there are limits created by the rights of others and essential govt. interests (such as internal order, national security, safety, etc.) No right is absolute and differing opinions can see the same action in differing ways.

In part of Minnesota, the call to prayer for Muslims is broadcast on loud speakers in some neighborhoods- is that free exercise or does the allowed violation of noise ordinances by city govt. create an establishment of a favored religion? If a church bell is allowed to ring- is that a broadcast of faith? Many issues are very complicated.

Good points.

There is an old quote from a Supreme Court justice hat points to a similar dilemma. “I can not define pornography but ai know it when I see it.”

This could also apply to banning assault STYLE rifles since we can not come up with a functional definition beyond what is already effectively banned.

Thorny issues indeed.

It does strike me that many folks really have no idea of how the SC works. They can not invent topics to rule upon, they can only rule on matters brought forward. They have discretion in which cases they choose. Recently they said that one case was a bad one to pick and did not rule.

I have for decades read, from both sides, Roe was a poor ruling that was built on a weak argument. The SC did not remove protections, but said those protections reside with the state to decide.

I would like to see abortion tested as a matter of faith. One could challenge an abortion ban as enforcing an article of faith. They may well rule it is an act based upon religious beliefs and outside the limits of state authority.

It seems this has never been tested, but I could he wrong.

Posted: **Tue 28 Jun 2022, 07:49:42**

A look at the congressional district map shows that abortion will remain legal in 51% of congressional districts so half the women in America will experience no change. Women in five states will have to cross two state or national borders to access a abortion clinic.

Posted: **Tue 28 Jun 2022, 08:44:54**

vtsnowedin wrote:A look at the congressional district map shows that abortion will remain legal in 51% of congressional districts so half the women in America will experience no change. Women in five states will have to cross two state or national borders to access a abortion clinic.

Based on the reaction to the ruling, it looks like those pesky complainers just haven't sat down and thought it out. Either that, or there is more to this than what all us rich white older mostly men think about it.

Posted: **Tue 28 Jun 2022, 18:03:34**

vtsnowedin wrote:A look at the congressional district map shows that abortion will remain legal in 51% of congressional districts so half the women in America will experience no change. Women in five states will have to cross two state or national borders to access a abortion clinic.

You're only considering surgical abortions.

Those days are long gone, except for rare cases with complications.

The abortion pill has been available in the USA for about 20 years.

This pill is available over the internet and this will safely and reliably produce an abortion in the vast majority of women.

People can order it over the internet and have it delivered to their home in a couple of days.

plannedparenthood-the-abortion-pill

As usual the Ds want to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in attempt to scare people into voting for them.

But thanks to modern technology abortions today can done just by taking a pill.

Cheers!

Posted: **Tue 28 Jun 2022, 19:14:49**

Plantagenet wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:A look at the congressional district map shows that abortion will remain legal in 51% of congressional districts so half the women in America will experience no change. Women in five states will have to cross two state or national borders to access a abortion clinic.

You're only considering surgical abortions.

Those days are long gone, except for rare cases with complications.

The abortion pill has been available in the USA for about 20 years.

This pill is available over the internet and this will safely and reliably produce an abortion in the vast majority of women.

People can order it over the internet and have it delivered to their home in a couple of days.

plannedparenthood-the-abortion-pill

As usual the Ds want to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in attempt to scare people into voting for them.

But thanks to modern technology abortions today can done just by taking a pill.

Cheers!

I am aware of that but some of the reddest of pro lifers want to make that pill illegal and want to prosecute anyone that transports it into their state. They and others want to make all forms of contraception illegal as well. They are as extreme on their side as the pro choicers on the other that want due date partial birth abortions legal.
\ Hopefully the country will come to something more sensible near the middle.

Posted: **Tue 28 Jun 2022, 20:38:44**

jedrider wrote:
careinke wrote:
jedrider wrote:Now, prayers in school. I think my points were well-made. The current SC is a religious spearhead into a multicultural secular nation.
Pretty sure free speech also falls under the constitution.

Peace

Evidently:

A 6-3 majority said that coach's prayers were a form of private speech, protected by the First Amendment. The court's liberal justices said the decision weakens separation of church and state.

So, taking a 'knee', they can fire you. Taking a prayer in public as a controlling figure, basically forcing EVERYONE to part take of this Christian ritual (in an unheard of fashion - must be the 'free speech' part).

I think us 'liberals' are awe-struck! Obviously, it has NOTHING, ZIP to do with free speech, because if a Muslim tried praying to Alah like that, he would never get employment again.

I would defend someone taking a knee as well as a Muslim praying. Hell, when someone burns a US Flag in the United States I view it as a testament free speech is still valid here. Forcing others to comply is where the line gets crossed.

Peace

Posted: **Wed 29 Jun 2022, 00:26:19**

vtsnowedin wrote:]I am aware of that but some of the reddest of pro lifers want to make that pill illegal and want to prosecute anyone that transports it into their state.

Yes, and some of the most rabid progressives want to allow women to have abortions right up until the moment a child is born and there are a few who would even "abort" some babies even after birth.

At some point you have to ignore the rabid fanatics on both the right and the left and let the sensible middle decide how to do things.

Personally, I think the invention of the abortion pill makes the need for abortion clinics essentially obsolete anyway so I'm not all that concerned that abortion clinics are closing in some states.

I predict local drug dealers will soon be selling marijuana, opioids, Fentanyl and heroin, cocaine, AND ABORTION PILLS wherever there is demand and wherever these things aren't legally available.....including all the states that imagine they are outlawing abortion by outlawing abortion clinics. If drug dealers can get illegal drugs into every city in this country, then they will also be able to get abortion pills into every city in this country.

Surprise!!! Your friendly local drug dealer will soon also be selling abortion pills in red states (and everywhere else).

CheerS!

Posted: **Wed 29 Jun 2022, 04:11:13**

vtsnowedin wrote:
Plantagenet wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:A look at the congressional district map shows that abortion will remain legal in 51% of congressional districts so half the women in America will experience no change. Women in five states will have to cross two state or national borders to access a abortion clinic.

You're only considering surgical abortions.

Those days are long gone, except for rare cases with complications.

The abortion pill has been available in the USA for about 20 years.

This pill is available over the internet and this will safely and reliably produce an abortion in the vast majority of women.

People can order it over the internet and have it delivered to their home in a couple of days.

plannedparenthood-the-abortion-pill

As usual the Ds want to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in attempt to scare people into voting for them.

But thanks to modern technology abortions today can done just by taking a pill.

Cheers!
I am aware of that but some of the reddest of pro lifers want to make that pill illegal and want to prosecute anyone that transports it into their state. They and others want to make all forms of contraception illegal as well. They are as extreme on their side as the pro choicers on the other that want due date partial birth abortions legal.
\ Hopefully the country will come to something more sensible near the middle.

Seriously, you are holding two things equal which are not equal. Taking away contraception is not the same, in this argument, as insisting upon due date abortions because no one is stomping up and down insisting upon due date abortions. That seems like something introduced just to make the equivalency. One is not actually happening outside of some very small circumstance. The other is, apparently, commonplace, seeing as how Clarence Thomas suggested as much in his comments.

Posted: **Wed 29 Jun 2022, 04:19:33**

Plantagenet wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:]I am aware of that but some of the reddest of pro lifers want to make that pill illegal and want to prosecute anyone that transports it into their state.

Yes, and some of the most rabid progressives want to allow women to have abortions right up until the moment a child is born and there are a few who would even "abort" some babies even after birth.

At some point you have to ignore the rabid fanatics on both the right and the left and let the sensible middle decide how to do things.

Personally, I think the invention of the abortion pill makes the need for abortion clinics essentially obsolete anyway so I'm not all that concerned that abortion clinics are closing in some states.

I predict local drug dealers will soon be selling marijuana, opioids, Fentanyl and heroin, cocaine, AND ABORTION PILLS wherever there is demand and wherever these things aren't legally available.....including all the states that imagine they are outlawing abortion by outlawing abortion clinics. If drug dealers can get illegal drugs into every city in this country, then they will also be able to get abortion pills into every city in this country.

Surprise!!! Your friendly local drug dealer will soon also be selling abortion pills in red states (and everywhere else).

CheerS!

You know what Plant, that's not far off of my absurd solution for American healthcare. Flippantly, I've said before that America ought to just make everything legal, no prescriptions. Advertise like hell. Then let everybody decide for themselves what they need, based upon what they believed was going on. That way, the free market reigns. Black markets are about as self-knowledgeable. They would get the critical aspects of healthcare about as right. Maybe real physicians could get gigs making things happen on social media? They'd need to do something, seeing as how the market had made them irrelevant.

There is no substitute for facing the fact that women have rights.

Posted: **Wed 29 Jun 2022, 07:23:22**

evilgenius wrote:There is no substitute for facing the fact that women have rights.

The idea that women have rights is a relatively novel concept in most of the world. Most women didn't have rights in most of the world until a handful of generations ago and will probably go back to not having rights in another handful of generations. Women were mostly property, like slaves, throughout most of human existence.

Posted: **Wed 29 Jun 2022, 09:39:40**

"Man made men and women, Sam Colt made them equal. "
Good luck trying to take rights away from the Western women of the world.
Being in the majority they will vote you out of office, and if that doesn't work they will just shoot you and be done with it.

Posted: **Wed 29 Jun 2022, 12:24:29**

JuanP wrote:women ... will probably go back to not having rights in another handful of generations.

Nonsense. Why would that happen?

Who (other than Islamist fundamentalists) believes in depriving women of their rights?

IMHO all we have to do is stop Al Qaida and other Muslim fundamentalists from taking over and women's rights should be in no danger.

IMHO, People who don't support women's rights can spin on it.

Cheers!

Posted: **Wed 29 Jun 2022, 12:40:23**

Plantagenet wrote:
JuanP wrote:women ... will probably go back to not having rights in another handful of generations.

Nonsense. Why would that happen?

Who (other than Islamist fundamentalists) believes in depriving women of their rights?

IMHO all we have to do is stop Al Qaida and other Muslim fundamentalists from taking over and women's rights should be in no danger.

Cheers!

I support women's rights 1000%, but I believe that in the future they will lose most, if not all, the rights they have gained in the last 100 years or so. There is a reason they didn't have those rights before. Those rights are a consequence of the abundance of energy and other resources available, IMO. As resources become increasingly scarce so will rights, not just for women, but for everyone. What WE believe won't matter, besides most of us will be dead anyway, all of us in time, and OUR beliefs will die with us.

Posted: **Wed 29 Jun 2022, 12:52:40**

vtsnowedin wrote: They are as extreme on their side as the pro choicers on the other that want due date partial birth abortions legal.

....as though men should have any say in it at all....

vtsnowedin wrote:Hopefully the country will come to something more sensible near the middle.

...and what might "the country" have to do with you managing your life and body, or woman managing hers?

Posted: **Wed 29 Jun 2022, 13:03:01**

evilgenius wrote:You know what Plant, that's not far off of my absurd solution for American healthcare. Flippantly, I've said before that America ought to just make everything legal, no prescriptions. Advertise like hell. Then let everybody decide for themselves what they need, based upon what they believed was going on. That way, the free market reigns.

I used to think this also. Unfortunately, times change and new technology is producing drugs that addict a person for life after only one use. The amount of destroyed, useless individuals that full legalization would produce will collapse society.

Markets are based on educated consumers who are free to choose. But the reality is that advertising will make a lot of addictive drugs seem harmless that aren't and consumers are anything but educated. Items will be laced with other substances to create a more addictive version- cigarettes have over 5000 chemical additives today for just this purpose. Once addicted the game is over- addicts are not "free to choose".

Full legalization will crash out society- science has created drugs far too powerful for individuals to handle today. Technology is upending all the old assumptions.

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2

Re: SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States Pt.2