Oppressive Secular Laws
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2015, 09:05 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(30-08-2015 01:36 PM)Alla Wrote:  They won't ask. Nobody can get married in LDS Church any more. LDS bishops don't have authority any more to marry straight couples.
If we have to say "no" to gay couples, we say "no" to straight couples also.
So straight couples LOST this RIGHT in the Church.

Except that isn't true. Not one word of it.

Here is the church's statement.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
30-08-2015, 09:14 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(30-08-2015 04:08 PM)Alla Wrote:  I wish we all started to understand each other better. Or at least we can try.
The problem is, when you belong to a religious organisation, those organisations are almost always aggressively exclusive.
It becomes us vs them. They become confrontational, they want to poke at the gays, tell the gays they are wrong, they want to poke at the atheists, telling us we are wrong, they want to poke at others from different religions telling them they are wrong.

They want to convert everyone to their own religion. Even if they can't convert us, they want to enforce their own morals onto us. Tell us what we can and can't do, tell us what we can and can't think, tell us how to dress, tell our mothers, sisters and daughters that they have to play a subservient role etc.
They don't promote tolerance and they aren't accepting of diversity. They draw a clear line and they then fight their battle.

Atheists on the other hand don't have that line. We aren't an exclusive group. We aren't even a group, we are just people without god beliefs and hence individually fit the label of "Atheist". We don't get upset if you believe in a god, we don't get upset if you believe in many gods, we don't get upset if you believe in the "wrong" god. We don't fight wars in the name of "our" god. We don't pretend to be righteous and fight against "evil".
What we will fight for though, is our freedom. If an exclusive religion tries to use force or law to take away our freedoms then we will defend ourselves.
Regarding "understanding others". Catholics learn about the Catholic beliefs, Jews learn about the Jewish believes, Muslims learn about the Muslim beliefs. But take no notice of beliefs other than their own.
Many atheists learn about all sorts of beliefs hence atheists generally fair well on religious knowledge quizzes/surveys.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Stevil's post
30-08-2015, 11:06 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
Reltzik - I wish I had more Likes to give you, and more rep points to give you, for that analysis.

Well stated. I hope Alla reads it.

More importantly, I hope she reads it carefully, and understands what you are saying.

Those videos are amazing.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2015, 11:18 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
Short version:




Full version:



"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 12:11 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(30-08-2015 04:08 PM)Alla Wrote:  But I know one thing: destruction will never bring Justice and Peace.

Except for the great flood, the destruction of Sodom & Gommorah, the walls of Jericho, etc.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(30-08-2015 07:56 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Sure we do.
But one of the first step in solving a problem is identifying it and its underlying causes, and that will lead to honest disagreements.
I agree with you but what I observe is that many people do not want to do this. This is the problem. Each side says arguments and doesn't want to hear the other side.
I think that people who have some kind of agenda will never listen to the other side because it is not their goal to come to understanding.
I have no agenda I am ready to hear both sides. I want to understand both sides.
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  You've taken racism in law enforcement off the table as being a possible problem, and done so with... very little basis, so far as you've presented.
I don't take it of the table. I don't believe that the whole police department is racist. I don't believe that most of cops in poor minority areas go to discriminate black/minority people.
Are there many arrests? I believe this. But what is the reason according to you?
I also have a question: how many black men were killed by police this year? last year? 2 years ago?
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  As far as racism? It wouldn't surprise me if there were a small minority of cops that were racist in a classical sense -- that is, the Bull Connor, one-race-is-superior, keep-those-other-people-in-their-place variety. (Though the example of Bull Connor and his era does tell us that police officials aren't AUTOMATICALLY good people.) But I'll agree, most of them aren't like this.
OK, you say that most of police officials are not good. I don't believe this. But if you have some evidence I am ready to hear/see it.
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  (Of course, there is the overt racism dressed up to look nice, such as racial profiling, which many police organizations still argue for even if it's been declared unconstitutional. Even if the cops being told to implement this racist policy are themselves racism-free, the fact that so many are arguing for it does color perceptions.)
About racial profiling. How can you get rid of this? I don't think it is even possible.
I can be good person and not racist but if I am in east LA area I am very cautious if black or Latino man that looks like "cholo" approaches me. I will be scared.
Why? Can someone blame me for this? Or should we blame all those "cholos" and black man who do lots of crimes and very dangerous?
The same we can say about white man who look like gangs.
If cops are in poor minority areas they will have to be very careful. Whose fault is this they have to be very careful?
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  But that classical, overt racism isn't the only type of racism out there. Let's consider another type of racism... the type that subconsciously influences decision-making, rather than a deliberately and consciously held preference. For example, a recent study linked race to a decision to shoot. In it, participants were shown pictures of people holding various objects -- sometimes guns, but sometimes benign objects such as cell phones or soda cans -- and forced to make a split second decision of whether or not to shoot. Not only did the participants shoot in error more often when the picture they were shown was of a black man... they also shot with less hesitation. The scientists speculated that our culture is more likely, based on stereotypes at play in our culture, to link black men to guns than white men, and thus less brain function was used to process the "threat", resulting in a swifter and less-careful decision. This might affect a police officer's decision to shoot... or in a less charged situation, their gut call about whether a driver is a good kid or not and whether to let them off with a warning or give them a ticket.
I understand this. Do you think it is possible to change? When you worry about your life? when you risk your life every day how do you change this? when you know that many black or Latino man in minority communities commit crimes and have illegal guns? I don't think it is even possible.
Do I think it is fair? Of course it is not fair. But this is part of this world - we will never have fairness in all things all the time. It is not possible.
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Other studies show that blacks (or people just with "black-sounding" names) are less likely to be hired than white candidates, even when their resumes are identical.
Who made those studies? how many people were involved in these studies?
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  They're also less likely to secure credit from banks or be accepted to college, again, even controlling for credit rating and grades. Jurors in simulated trials are more likely to view them as dangerous and less likely to sympathize with them, even when the cases presented were identical, resulting in higher conviction rates. On and on. These aren't just anecdotes, these are scientific, peer-reviewed data. Less formal tests show cops are much more likely to approach a black man jimmying open a car door than a white man, and the difference in their response to a black man doing an "open carry protest" with an assault rifle compared to a white man was... extreme.
I don't know if what you say is true. But I still have my question: why is this happening? is this because people are racists or because people know that there are many black people who commit crimes and they are afraid?
I know it is not fair, I know it is horrible but if this is true(people are afraid) what should be done that people stop to be afraid?
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  There's another type of racism to consider as well: structural racism. This isn't the type of racism that one person practices, but which society as a whole practices. Again, this doesn't have to be about conscious decisions. It could be a matter of simple demographics and neglect. One example is "broken windows" policing. Under this theory, the prevalence of smaller crimes (vandalism, breaking windows, jaywalking, etc) lead to an acceptance of bigger crimes, leading to the strategy of aggressive policing in neighborhoods with more broken windows... typically poorer neighborhoods.... where demographically speaking, there are more blacks.
If you don't have aggressive policing in these kind of areas what will happen? good people will suffer because bad people will do more crimes.
Am I wrong?
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Another problem is policing for profit. This was a huge problem around St. Louis, including in Ferguson. The justice department report you were citing a few pages back hammered the police for treating the predominantly black population as a resource to be exploited. Other common tactics include civil forfeiture, for-profit prisons that exploit prisoner labor and don't focus on reform (because, after all, recidivism makes them more money), and official or unofficial quota systems, where cops have to decide where to focus their efforts, and decide to focus on the communities least able to fight back.
I am not sure what you are talking about. Do you mean police make them(criminals) to work? Please, explain.
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Then there's alienation. Often police don't live in the communities they police. They live in other neighborhoods or suburbs and commute to work. They don't, for example, have kids going to school with a suspect's kids, or shop at the same stores, or bump into each other at the gym. This impacts how you interact with other people. Middle-class cops are more likely to live in middle-class communities, and not be part of lower-class communities.
Do you want your kids to go to poor dangerous communities? I don't want this. Not because I am racist but because good and wise parents don't want their kids to be in a danger and have bad influences. I think it is easy to understand.
Do you want to send your kid to a market where around the corner some guy will offer drugs to him/her(your kid)?
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Again related to poverty, is how much money can be allocated to policing. Poorer communities mean less revenue, meaning lower police salaries, meaning a lower quality of officer attracted. Even when this is avoided (for example, by being different precincts in the same city operating under the same budget) police operating without quotas tend to prefer nicer, less hostile neighborhoods and will try to transfer there, and if transfers are merit-based then the poorer neighborhoods will wind up with lower quality officers.
Od course, they would prefer better areas. Who can blame them. So, something has to be done with those poor and dangerous areas? What should be done in your opinion?
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  So, you want to talk about how to fix problems? Let's talk about how to fix problems. Here's some proposals regarding the police. What do you think?
(1) Hold police accountable. If a cop shoots someone, they should face a process similar to what a civilian faces if they shoot someone. Not harsher... but also not a whitewash. One example: a cop who shot a running suspect was given several days to think about his story and get his facts straight before being interviewed. A civilian would be questioned immediately.
1)Why do they give a cop more days to think about his story?
2)It makes sense to question him/her immediately.
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  (2) Better monitoring of police. This includes street cameras, body cameras,
I agree with this.
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  the elimination of laws that makes recording police with cell phones illegal, and the practice of police seizing any cell phone they see recording them.
I don't like this. Let me tell you why.
1)If I am a cop and I do my job I don't want someone to be in my face and watching me. It is very annoying
2)Cop has to pay attention at the person whom he/she stopped. Now he or she doesn't know who is the person with cell phone. It is much harder and it makes cop even more nervous.
If I was a cop I would hate it. Isn't body camera and street cameras are enough?
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  If the police are doing everything right, this should just showcase how awesome they are and restore trust in the community.
I agree with this statement.
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  (3) Independent investigation and prosecution. One of the big sources of distrust in regard to both the Michael Brown case and the Eric Garner case was that the district attorneys considering prosecution were not sufficiently independent. They were seen as too reliant on the police for their day-to-day duties to risk pissing them off by prosecuting. Independent prosecutors would allow DAs to do their jobs without putting them in a conflict of interest.
I don't know about this.
How about Freddie Grey case? do we need an independent prosecutor instead of Mosby?
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  (4) Equal enforcement regardless of location. If you're doing random stop-and-frisks in Harlem, do it on Wall Street too. You might not find a lot of pot, but you'll find a lot of traders with bags of cocaine and cards for escort services. Hey, they do high-adrenaline trading, they want uppers rather than downers.
Yes, stop-and-frisk on Wall Street too. For sure in poor areas where there are lots of crimes.
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Okay, that's a few proposals on how to deal with police. Now here's some proposals for society in general. What do you think?
(1) END THE DRUG WAR. Either make most recreational drugs legal the way that alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are legal, or at least decriminalize them and focus on treatment rather than incarceration.
To tell you the truth I don't know what is better: to continue to fight with drug sellers or just let them sell whatever.
To have war on drugs will help to control it at least to some degrees.
Not to have war on drugs will have more horrible consequence.
So, I really don't know what is better.
The only thing I see is that parents teach their children and be good example for them. Less children will use drugs.
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  (2) PRESSURE HOLLYWOOD. Yeah, I'm targeting the liberals here. Bring pressure to stop typecasting blacks as muggers and whites as ordinary people. Better yet give small subsidies to producers who go against type. This could be a public project or a private one, I don't care. This could go a LONG way to eliminating stereotypes.
I agree with this. Hollywood is also horrible example for young people. Loom at celebrities. Many of them teach kids to do bad things.
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  (3) FIX THE DAMN WINDOWS. If environmental factors lead to crime, fix the environmental factors. Don't send waves of cops into communities with broken windows. Send glass-makers instead.
Sounds good. Who will pay for this?
How about make signs: "there are guns in this house, beware" Nobody dares to break my windows. Smile
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  (4) REDISTRIBUTE PUBLIC FUNDS BETWEEN COMMUNITIES. Schools in high-income neighborhoods are getting flooded with money while those in low-income neighborhoods are broke. Same for police, fire departments, health services, road services. EVERYTHING. I'm not talking about raising taxes. I'm talking about spending the existing tax money more fairly.
can you explain to me, please, why poor communities have everything bad? whose fault is this?
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  (5) FEWER GUNS. Argue ALL YOU WANT about good people with guns and stopping home invaders and so on. The plain, simple, well-documented, statistical FACT is that regions with fewer guns per capita have less crime.
In my area everybody has LEGAL guns/lots of guns. We have no crimes.
In poor areas people have ILLEGAL guns. How can you stop criminals from getting illegal guns?
Take Chicago - very strict gun laws but lots of ILLEGAL guns. Lots of crimes.
My area(Idaho) - there are no strict guns laws, almost every person has concealed weapon and big gun collections(including myself), not so many crimes. just hunting Smile
(30-08-2015 05:48 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Do side-by-side comparisons of nations -- those with fewer guns have less crime. Do side-by-side comparisons of states in the U.S. -- those with fewer guns have less crime. This data has been in for over a decade, and the longer we go the more it gets confirmed! Bottom line, a bad person with a gun is far more empowered to do bad things by having a gun than a good person with a gun is empowered to do good things by having a gun. Now I don't care if it's gun control laws or something else. Buy them up and melt them down, maybe. Maybe a privately-funded effort to publicize the risk to your children that owning a gun carries. BUT GET THAT NUMBER DOWN, because every study we've got links it to high crime.
There's more we can get into, but that's a start. You want to focus on how to fix problems? There's some solutions. Have at it.
Fact: massive shootings happen in gun-free zones.
what is your solution about guns? to take away from me my guns? leave to me one gun?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 03:28 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(30-08-2015 11:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Reltzik - I wish I had more Likes to give you, and more rep points to give you, for that analysis.

Well stated. I hope Alla reads it.

More importantly, I hope she reads it carefully, and understands what you are saying.

Those videos are amazing.
I will read it and may be I will give him like too(for you)Smile

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 03:32 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
I did read it. I made an error instead of Reltzik I used "docskeptic"
Reltzik, I responded to you. Sorry, and I gave you my like. Good post.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 03:32 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(30-08-2015 05:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 05:16 PM)Alla Wrote:  GirlyMan, I think we have love-hate relationship on this forum. Don't you agree?

No Alla. We have a love relationship. Girly loves Alla. There is no hate.
SmileHeart

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 03:33 PM
RE: Oppressive Secular Laws
(30-08-2015 09:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 01:36 PM)Alla Wrote:  They won't ask. Nobody can get married in LDS Church any more. LDS bishops don't have authority any more to marry straight couples.
If we have to say "no" to gay couples, we say "no" to straight couples also.
So straight couples LOST this RIGHT in the Church.

Except that isn't true. Not one word of it.

Here is the church's statement.
Let me read your link

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: