UPS and Intel end support of BSA

[skeptic 993]

The great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority. - James Madison

 

Today, in many of these controversies, it is the opposite. But the PC crowd tends to have the vocal media and self important public figures on their podium. Just an observation.(This message has been edited by skeptic) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[AZMike 173]

"I understand and appreciate the views about homosexuality by some religions represented in the BSA members. But I don't think it's fair to press those religious views on the rest of us. There a plenty us who don't subscribe to their strict interpretation of the Bible or follow other religions whose beliefs are that homosexuality is a personal choice."

 

DigitalScout, people have moral views that originated and are informed by their religious faith. If you believe that it is unfair for them to press those religious views on the rest of you, why is it not unfair for you to press your secular views on them?

 

Judaeo-Christian religious teachings inform many people's moral stances on the environment, on civil rights, on the status of immigrants, on the need for charity, on prison reform, on capital punishment, on the status of women, on the sanctity of human life, and on peace between nations. You may agree with many of those views, some you may not. If those religious views guide them and create a better world, should you say, "well, religious views are acceptable in the public sphere if it concerns the need to preserve the earth's resources, or to treat immigrants humanely, but not if it concerns sexual morality"? You can certainly disagree with articular religious teachings (I don't agree with all the teachings of other faiths), but you can't ban them from the field of debate simply BECAUSE they are of religious origin.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

OK, since that's gone, I'll remove this. I like pie, but only apple pie.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Eagle732 27]

OK UPS discriminates against the deaf because they would not hire them to drive their trucks ( I googled it). They lost a court case and paid out big bucks over it. UPS drivers must have a commercial CDL drivers license. I have a Class A license and I have to take a hearing test with my DOT physical every year. Wondering how this is discrimination.

[moosetracker 132]

I was wondering if safty issues factored in, whether it be at state or Federal.. That would be a policy beyond their control.. I can't see though the deaf community going after them for that, if it was the case. I guess the question is, if they would (or have) hired deaf in other fields, like office work.

 

AZMike - You pick very strange examples:

"well, religious views are acceptable in the public sphere if it concerns the need to preserve the earth's resources, or to treat immigrants humanely, but not if it concerns sexual morality"?

 

The Republicans trying to throw the bible into preserving the earths's resources is the problem, they try to use it to ignore global warming, and those the republicans have chosen to be on the science committee, have all stated ridiculous things that make them walking jokes.

 

Treat immigrants humanely? REALLY?? We just went thought the election process, it was very apparent who was disrespectful of the immigrants.. If your treatment of them came from more bible teachings, count me out!

 

And we have already debated and condemned the biblic views on sexual morality, that make the religious very intolerant, outdated and uninformed.. It can not accept anything that does not resemble a 1950 sitcom..

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Eagledad 2779]

>>And we have already debated and condemned the biblic views ..

[JoeBob 606]

Uh, Moose? Here's an update for you:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

 

"The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

This means that the pausein global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996"

 

You'll need to find another, better substantiated, bit of mud to fling at conservatives.

 

 

 

 

[moosetracker 132]

I can out link you..

 

http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/15/more-say-there-is-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120806/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/?mobile=nc

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/2012/research/global-warming-and-the-global-economic-growth/

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-research-global-warming-0470.html

 

I will look for a video I watched just the other day on global warming, it states our tempatures are rising faster then they were projecting.. Sort of cancels out your article that says it isn't.. Was on Morning Joe, I will post it when I find it.

 

Better yet, ask the victims from hurrican Sandy, The farmers whose crops died in this years draught, and the polar bears who are loosing the polar ice caps.. In other words get your nose out of the bible, and stick it out the window..

 

Eagledad - you took my words out of context.. I said And we have already debated and condemned the biblic views on sexual morality.. We have had many a debate on this forum.. Need more? The question was why shouldn't we accept to be dictated to by outdated biblical laws.. I simply answered the question.. Also we have polls showing that the population is becoming more & more acceptable to gay marriage, with 3 recent elections in it's favor, plus a few gay people voted into office.. So I would say all that also is a victory as to why we shouldn't be forced to live under laws the majority of people now do not accept.

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[AZMike 173]

moosetracker: "The Republicans trying to throw the bible into preserving the earths's resources is the problem, they try to use it to ignore global warming, and those the republicans have chosen to be on the science committee, have all stated ridiculous things that make them walking jokes.

 

Who the heck was saying anything about the Republicans, Moosetracker?

 

Stay with the argument that was raised. I said that if you accept some arguments based on religious morality in the public sphere, you shouldn't exclude any other views that are less congenial to your own prejudices, based sheerly on the fact that they are also religious in origin.

 

Examples of political stances based on religious beliefs include the abolitionists' opposition to slavery, religious opposition to nuclear armament, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's battle for civil rights, Pope John Paul II's opposition to the suppression of the Poles, the Dalai Lama's opposition to Chinese occupation of Tibet, Pope Pius XII's opposition to Nazism and rescue of almost a million Jews, and the charity shown by Mother Teresa to the poor of India.

 

Not all religious people are Republicans, as I would think you should know. All the beliefs I named were based on religious teachings. The need for stewardship of the earth's resources is found throughout the religions of the world. The Pope has spoken on the need to reduce global warming. Other religious figures have as well.

 

"Treat immigrants humanely? REALLY?? We just went thought the election process, it was very apparent who was disrespectful of the immigrants.. If your treatment of them came from more bible teachings, count me out!"

 

The Bible teaches us to give respect and treat the alien with dignity and compassion, and such teaching is fundamental to Catholic teaching on social justice.

 

"And we have already debated and condemned the biblic views on sexual morality, that make the religious very intolerant, outdated and uninformed.. It can not accept anything that does not resemble a 1950 sitcom.. "

 

Who is this "we" who have already "debated and condemned" biblical teachings of which you speak? There is no "private" and "public" morality, there is just morality. If the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and the Dalai Lama both condemned homosexual behavior, should we also ignore their other moral views?

[Eagledad 2779]

>>We have had many a debate on this forum.

[moosetracker 132]

Well it's the tea-party "religious" right that are making a mockery out of the Science committee.. Attempting to create or ignore based on their biblical views..

 

Couldn't find the Morning Joe show, but here is the research they were discussing.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/19/world-bank-warns-climate-change/1715165/

 

 

All I am saying with the religious making the laws about morality, is that the majority of the US population is not in agreement.. You can do things like that in the southern states if you wish, until your children grow up and out-vote these laws, but the Nation as a whole is in disagreement with it, and it showed in this past election. From this point forward, I doubt you will see a statewide win on barring same-sex marriage except for in your Republican leaning states..

 

Here in NH, we couldn't vote on same-sex marriage as it isn't our policy for the electorite to vote on issues. But, 2 years ago we voted in Republicans, who ran on Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.. They went in and tried to enforce these biblical laws, with no thought to Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.. Thank goodness our Democratic Governor ruled by veto.. 2 years later in this election the state house went very blue, as we voted their butts out of office.. Watch 2 years from now, I feel those Republican Governors voted in 2 years back to the swing states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia etc..) will also be getting kicked out.. The state has had enough of their government and are angry enough to turn out.. Even in a mid term election.. No one in Democratic states or swing states are appreciating your Biblical social laws..

[Eagledad 2779]

>>All I am saying with the religious making the laws about morality, is that the majority of the US population is not in agreement.. You can do things like that in the southern states if you wish, until your children grow up and out-vote these laws

[JoeBob 606]

Moose! Your links to 'global warming' alarmists crack me up! Thanks.

 

http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/15/more-say-there-is-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/

A survey of man-on-the-street types finds that 67% think that the globe is warming after an eight year media barrage? Hurrah for the intelligent 33%!

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120806/

You must have missed the media hubbub when Hansen was scolded by NASA for cherry picking data.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/?mobile=nc

Thinkprogress as a reliable source? Uh huh.

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

An EPA propaganda website aimed at children?

 

http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/2012/research/global-warming-and-the-global-economic-growth/

This Univ. of Mich. study doesn't attempt to prove global warming. Just to predict the economic impact IF it happens.

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-research-global-warming-0470.html

Here's what inquiring minds think of the 'Union of Concerned Scientists;:

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/06/07/union-of-concerned-scientists-not-very-concerned-with-accuracy/

 

The link I posted simply points out that the predicted warming ain't happening. It's a graph of actual temperatures, not projections. Did you read the Georgia Tech professor of CLIMATOLOGY who observed that "the computer projection models have been deeply flawed"?

 

As to your anecdotal suppositories:

Sandy was a 100 year storm. Whose SUVs caused the last one, 100 years ago?

 

Polar bears? Google "Polar Bear Extinction Hoax" for yourself.

 

Get back to me in another 20 years about how we need to combat "Global Cooling!"

[Brewmeister 132]

Holy cow, we went from gays to global warming in 8 pages. No mention of Hitler yet though. Where's the popcorn?

[JoeBob 606]

Duplicate.(This message has been edited by JoeBob)