PDA

View Full Version : Navy lodge removing bibles from rooms..



garhkal
08-14-2014, 02:17 AM
Anyone else see this on fox? I just looked it up on bing and there are more sources.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/11/navy-removes-bibles-from-guest-rooms/

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/28162

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Navy-lodge-Bibles-removed/2014/08/11/id/588150/
Apparently its in response to the Freedom from Religion foundation lodging a complaint with the navy. Not a lawsuit, not a court ruling. just a complaint.

While i consider myself more agnostic than Atheist, i still seeth when i read stuff like this. Especially since every hotel i have been in that HAD a bible, they were in a draw, not in plain view.

LogDog
08-14-2014, 03:41 AM
Anyone else see this on fox? I just looked it up on bing and there are more sources.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/11/navy-removes-bibles-from-guest-rooms/

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/28162

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Navy-lodge-Bibles-removed/2014/08/11/id/588150/
Apparently its in response to the Freedom from Religion foundation lodging a complaint with the navy. Not a lawsuit, not a court ruling. just a complaint.

While i consider myself more agnostic than Atheist, i still seeth when i read stuff like this. Especially since every hotel i have been in that HAD a bible, they were in a draw, not in plain view.
Apparently, most Bibles in hotels are supplied by outside groups free of charge and since it doesn't cost the hotel anything they follow the philosophy of "Free, Take One,"

I'm wondering how outraged Fox News would be if there were Korans in the hotel rooms instead of Bibles. As far as I'm concerned, you can bring your own Bible, Koran, or other religious book yourself. Military Inns shouldn't be offering only one religious book over others.

sandsjames
08-14-2014, 11:17 AM
Don't think it matters either way if they are there or not there. I highly doubt anyone reads them anyway. Now if we can only get them to remove any TV show or movie on AFN that is above a PG-13 rating we'll be good. Wouldn't want anyone to be forced to watch a channel or read a book just because it's there.

USAF-Controller
08-14-2014, 04:25 PM
Apparently, most Bibles in hotels are supplied by outside groups free of charge and since it doesn't cost the hotel anything they follow the philosophy of "Free, Take One,"

I'm wondering how outraged Fox News would be if there were Korans in the hotel rooms instead of Bibles. As far as I'm concerned, you can bring your own Bible, Koran, or other religious book yourself. Military Inns shouldn't be offering only one religious book over others.



Emphasis mine. Thats the real issue. Most people who scream "freedom of religion" only want it applied to their religion.

Measure Man
08-14-2014, 04:48 PM
I'm wondering how outraged Fox News would be if there were Korans in the hotel rooms instead of Bibles.

...pretty sure that would evidence that Obama was secretly trying to convert America to Sharia Law and install himself as the Holy Ruler.

sandsjames
08-14-2014, 05:01 PM
...pretty sure that would evidence that Obama was secretly trying to convert America to Sharia Law and install himself as the Holy Ruler.

You mean "The World" instead of "America" and "Anti-Christ" instead of "Holy Ruler", right?

technomage1
08-14-2014, 05:25 PM
The problem with bibles in a military run hotel is that it indicates a government endorsement of a particular religion. Off base, in a privately run hotel, I really don't care. On base should be a no-go, unless all faiths are allowed to put their books in there. Aside from taking up a lot of space, I can guarantee some Christians would throw an absolute fit to see anything but a bible in there. I can hear them now, "I don't want my kids exposed to that (insert name of other book here) trash!" One can only imagine the fuss if atheist literature were left. It's just easier to expect people to byob...bring their own bible. I believe it's even a free download on the kindle, and I'm pretty sure the chapel would give out one if asked.

sandsjames
08-14-2014, 05:34 PM
On base should be a no-go, unless all faiths are allowed to put their books in there. I'm not sure that all faiths aren't allowed to. Kinda the same argument about everything else diversity wise. Just because somebody doesn't organize a function for a particular group doesn't mean that it's not allow, just that it's never been tried.

Now, I don't think that government funds should be spent on a particular religious book of any kind but as far as having any of them in the room, who gives a shit? Not like I'm gonna be forced to read it just because it's there.

The only issue I have with any of it is that someone would actually bitch about it being in the room. Are they afraid of catching Christianity?

Measure Man
08-14-2014, 05:48 PM
I'm not sure that all faiths aren't allowed to. Kinda the same argument about everything else diversity wise. Just because somebody doesn't organize a function for a particular group doesn't mean that it's not allow, just that it's never been tried.

Now, I don't think that government funds should be spent on a particular religious book of any kind but as far as having any of them in the room, who gives a shit? Not like I'm gonna be forced to read it just because it's there.

The only issue I have with any of it is that someone would actually bitch about it being in the room. Are they afraid of catching Christianity?

I'm with you on this one...as I understand, those Bibles are placed free of charge from Gideons or someone like that..and I'd assume others are/were probably free to do the same.

...I also don't think removing them is a big deal. The part about this I find amusing is someone "was concerned" about the Bibles being there, and someone else "was concerned" about them being removed.

sandsjames
08-14-2014, 06:31 PM
The part about this I find amusing is someone "was concerned" about the Bibles being there, and someone else "was concerned" about them being removed.Agree 100%.

Chief_KO
08-14-2014, 08:21 PM
Personally as a Christian it does not bother me if there is or is not a Bible in my hotel room. It would also not bother me if the Koran, Torah, Book of Morman, etc. was in my room.

Easy fix for the Navy (and other services that will have to follow suit): Have multiple copies of each (along with all other religious/secular guide books (donated by their respective organizations)) available for check out in the lobby. A simple card stating "We have copies of ________ available for your use" in each room should satisfy most sane people.
You can never satisfy the insane people.

sandsjames
08-14-2014, 08:50 PM
I think all Men's Health magazines should be removed from all lobby's on a military installation. I don't like eating healthy or working out. They make me feel insecure.

Chief_KO
08-14-2014, 09:41 PM
Cosmopolitan should also be removed.

Whenever I see the cover while in line at the BX all the blood rushes from my brain and I pass out.

sandsjames
08-15-2014, 11:20 AM
Cosmopolitan should also be removed.

Whenever I see the cover while in line at the BX all the blood rushes from my brain and I pass out.

Sorry, but I think you have to be an officer's wife in order to be officially offended by those types of magazines.

technomage1
08-16-2014, 01:59 AM
Www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-tells-lodges-to-put-removed-bibles-back-into-rooms-1.298351
Looks like the Navy's caved anyway....

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-16-2014, 06:12 PM
Apparently, most Bibles in hotels are supplied by outside groups free of charge and since it doesn't cost the hotel anything they follow the philosophy of "Free, Take One,"

I'm wondering how outraged Fox News would be if there were Korans in the hotel rooms instead of Bibles. As far as I'm concerned, you can bring your own Bible, Koran, or other religious book yourself. Military Inns shouldn't be offering only one religious book over others.

I don't consider myself religious at all, but have never been offended by the bible. The Koran though? Yes, I'd be offended. The so-called "religion of peace," Islam, offends me. It offends me because it threatens the principles for which our constitution stands for. Give most Muslims an anonymous vote and they'd gladly replace the US Constitution with Sharia law.

garhkal
08-17-2014, 11:57 PM
Emphasis mine. Thats the real issue. Most people who scream "freedom of religion" only want it applied to their religion.

And what about those screaming for "Freedom from religion"? They seem to only ever go after Christianity..


I'm with you on this one...as I understand, those Bibles are placed free of charge from Gideons or someone like that..and I'd assume others are/were probably free to do the same.

...I also don't think removing them is a big deal. The part about this I find amusing is someone "was concerned" about the Bibles being there, and someone else "was concerned" about them being removed.

Exactly. Any religion could step up and do this, but it seems only the Gidians have done so. Nothing i have read or seen, prevents any other religion from also doing it, but non have stepped up and done so.


Www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-tells-lodges-to-put-removed-bibles-back-into-rooms-1.298351
Looks like the Navy's caved anyway....


=Good. Glad someone has some common sense.

Measure Man
08-18-2014, 03:56 PM
And what about those screaming for "Freedom from religion"? They seem to only ever go after Christianity.

Because, so far, only Christianity in this country has enjoyed the dominant position that allows them to bully everyone else.

TJMAC77SP
08-18-2014, 11:25 PM
Because, so far, only Christianity in this country has enjoyed the dominant position that allows them to bully everyone else.

Not sure I would use the word 'bully' but there is a similar situation elsewhere for every religion where it is in the majority.

I would not expect to see Gideon bibles in Israeli hotels (and you won't). In fact you will only get kosher food in Israeli hotels. Good thing Christianity doesn't have any dietary restrictions.

Wait, back when the Catholic church enforced a 'no meat on Friday' provision, could one obtain meat in US hotels where Catholics are the majority?

Measure Man
08-18-2014, 11:30 PM
Not sure I would use the word 'bully' but there is a similar situation elsewhere for every religion where it is in the majority.

I don't doubt that. I don't think these groups "attack Christianity" so much as they oppose the majority...if some other religion happened to be the majority and imposed some of the same things the current majority does...they would also be opposed.

I expect this to happen at least in individual towns/cities at some point...then the Atheists and Christians will find themselves on the same side of the fight.


I would not expect to see Gideon bibles in Israeli hotels (and you won't). In fact you will only get kosher food in Israeli hotels.

OTOH, Freedom of Religion is not a founding principle of Israel, to my knowledge.

You can't get Bacon anywhere in Turkey...


Good thing Christianity doesn't have any dietary restrictions.

Well, none that are much followed anyway.


Wait, back when the Catholic church enforced a 'no meat on Friday' provision, could one obtain meat in US hotels where Catholics are the majority?

Probably. Where are Catholics the majority? Boston? Chicago?...

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 01:06 AM
I don't doubt that. I don't think these groups "attack Christianity" so much as they oppose the majority...if some other religion happened to be the majority and imposed some of the same things the current majority does...they would also be opposed.

I expect this to happen at least in individual towns/cities at some point...then the Atheists and Christians will find themselves on the same side of the fight.



OTOH, Freedom of Religion is not a founding principle of Israel, to my knowledge.

You can't get Bacon anywhere in Turkey...


So...........'bully' was perhaps not the right word and normal catering to the majority is perhaps more the issue?



...
Probably. Where are Catholics the majority? Boston? Chicago?...

Come now............you really don't believe that do you? A little tongue in cheek.

The answer is that you could always obtain meat anytime in any hotel.

technomage1
08-19-2014, 12:20 PM
Again...I don't see what the problem is with bringing your own religous material, going to the library, or borrowing from the chaplain. No need to spend money stocking materials in rooms or even at the front counter. Even if the materials are donated, it still costs the government money in terms of staff time.

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 12:55 PM
Again...I don't see what the problem is with bringing your own religous material, going to the library, or borrowing from the chaplain. No need to spend money stocking materials in rooms or even at the front counter. Even if the materials are donated, it still costs the government money in terms of staff time.

Staff time? Really? The maids are going to the rooms anyway. And once the books are there it's not like they spend a lot of time swapping them out. It's not like the staff is working overtime to put bibles in the rooms. No extra money is spent. I guess I'll use your argument then. The bibles MUST stay because to take them out would cost the government money.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 02:43 PM
So...........'bully' was perhaps not the right word and normal catering to the majority is perhaps more the issue?

Certainly there are instances where I thin bully is the right word...but, i really don't care to play another game of "what the word means" with you.

In my post, I'll use my word...you can use whatever word you choose.


Come now............you really don't believe that do you? A little tongue in cheek.

Believe what? I was just curious as to where there might be a majority Catholics in the country...I was not suggesting you couldn't get a piece of meat on Friday in these places.


The answer is that you could always obtain meat anytime in any hotel.

Sure. Trying buying a bottle of Whiskey in Tennessee on a Sunday, though.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 03:08 PM
Certainly there are instances where I thin bully is the right word...but, i really don't care to play another game of "what the word means" with you.

In my post, I'll use my word...you can use whatever word you choose.



Believe what? I was just curious as to where there might be a majority Catholics in the country...I was not suggesting you couldn't get a piece of meat on Friday in these places.



Sure. Trying buying a bottle of Whiskey in Tennessee on a Sunday, though.

Sure you can use whatever words you choose to. I can too..............hyperbole.

It really isn't a case of 'what the word means' it is a matter of it's usage in context. My guess is we both have the same meaning for 'bully'. But, again, you knew that didn't you?

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 03:38 PM
Sure you can use whatever words you choose to. I can too..............hyperbole.

It really isn't a case of 'what the word means' it is a matter of it's usage in context. My guess is we both have the same meaning for 'bully'. But, again, you knew that didn't you?

So, you don't think Christians ever bully non-Christians?

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 03:46 PM
So, you don't think Christians ever bully non-Christians?

Sure...and Christians bully Christians...and non-Christians bully non-Christians...and none-Christians bully Christians...and Tommy bullied Billy and now Billy is scarred for life.

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 03:47 PM
Sure. Trying buying a bottle of Whiskey in Tennessee on a Sunday, though.And try to smoke a cigarette anywhere in several U.S. cities at any time...

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 04:42 PM
So, you don't think Christians ever bully non-Christians?

Of course I do. I also think that so-called atheists bully Christians. In the US, almost exclusively Christians. Why is that? Could it be because they are in the majority? Seems there is a common thread developing here.

I wouldn't however apply the word bully to paint the entire group. If I were to use the word it would be judiciously and accurately. In other words, minus the hyperbole.

USAF-Controller
08-19-2014, 04:58 PM
I don't consider myself religious at all, but have never been offended by the bible. The Koran though? Yes, I'd be offended. The so-called "religion of peace," Islam, offends me. It offends me because it threatens the principles for which our constitution stands for. Give most Muslims an anonymous vote and they'd gladly replace the US Constitution with Sharia law.

Just like the religous right is trying to replace the Constitution with Biblical law.


So, you don't think Christians ever bully non-Christians?

I think bully is an accurate word in some cases but not all.

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 05:03 PM
Just like the religous right is trying to replace the Constitution with Biblical law.



Or the Socialist left is trying to replace the Constitution with The Communist Manifesto?

Every extreme has an agenda...no doubt...That's why it's called extreme.

And I'm curious to know which Biblical laws the religious right are trying to push.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 05:10 PM
Of course I do. I also think that so-called atheists bully Christians. In the US, almost exclusively Christians. Why is that? Could it be because they are in the majority?

yes...this is what I'd already stated.


Seems there is a common thread developing here.

Yes...that there is no secret attack against Christians...there is opposition to the majority.


I wouldn't however apply the word bully to paint the entire group. If I were to use the word it would be judiciously and accurately. In other words, minus the hyperbole.

Nobody painted the entire group.

Christians are the majority...as the majority they are more often in a position to bully other groups. This is why they are more often in the position of being opposed by groups that advocate freedom of religion.

Because they are the majority...

...it is Christians that have their prayers at town council meetings, football games, official military events, etc. Opposing that is not an attack on Christians, it is an attack on official sanction of religion...and when the time comes that Muslims dominate a particular town and wish to hold Muslim prayer at the town council meetings..then the atheist groups are just as likely to oppose it.

...it is Christians who fight for the right to display their Ten Commandments, at least the parts they like, in courthouses...if Muslims wanted to place whatever excerpt from the Koran, then atheist groups are just as likely to oppose them, I'm sure.

So, it's not that these atheist groups specifically target Christians...it's that, for the most part, only Christians are in a position to get official endorsement of their religion.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 05:12 PM
I think bully is an accurate word in some cases but not all.

I don't even know what this means...of course not all "cases" are bullying.

USAF-Controller
08-19-2014, 05:20 PM
Or the Socialist left is trying to replace the Constitution with The Communist Manifesto?

Exactly, except one is actually happening and the other is a collection of buzzwords that most people who use them don't actually know the meaning of.



And I'm curious to know which Biblical laws the religious right are trying to push.

Come on. You're not that stupid

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 05:21 PM
So, it's not that these atheist groups specifically target Christians...it's that, for the most part, only Christians are in a position to get official endorsement of their religion. Endorsing something and allowing something to happen are two different things. And the Ten Commandments are more of a historical marker in courthouses than they are a religious one.

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 05:22 PM
Exactly, except one is actually happening and the other is a collection of buzzwords that most people who use them don't actually know the meaning of. Right...from your point of view. Of course a liberal isn't required to see the other point of view...that's reserved specifically for criticizing conservatives.





Come on. You're not that stupidI think you overestimate me. I have no idea what biblical laws the religious right are trying to push.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 05:24 PM
Endorsing something and allowing something to happen are two different things.

I agree. Which is why I agree with there being no problem with these Bibles in the rooms.


And the Ten Commandments are more of a historical marker in courthouses than they are a religious one.

This always seems to be fall back...it's like they are saying, "Yeah, we know it's wrong, but we've traditionally been wrong, so we should continue doing that on account of tradition."

I don't think that argument stands up when a judge want to ADD them to his courtroom though.

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 05:31 PM
I agree. Which is why I agree with there being no problem with these Bibles in the rooms.



This always seems to be fall back...it's like they are saying, "Yeah, we know it's wrong, but we've traditionally been wrong, so we should continue doing that on account of tradition." I'm not saying it's because of "tradition". I'm saying that, whether one is religious or not, there is no denying that those laws are the basis for many of the laws we have, and societies before us have had. Is it based of religion? Yes. Is it pushing religion?


I don't think that argument stands up when a judge want to ADD them to his courtroom though.I don't see the harm. Again, it's not endorsing anything. It's not saying that everyone in the court room has to follow the bible. Now what is/was an issue is having someone swear in God's name on a Bible in a courtroom. But having something displayed? Don't see the issue.

USAF-Controller
08-19-2014, 05:32 PM
Right...from your point of view. Of course a liberal isn't required to see the other point of view...that's reserved specifically for criticizing conservatives.




I think you overestimate me. I have no idea what biblical laws the religious right are trying to push.

Can you show me any laws proposed reciently that are Communist laws? The religous right want to keep gays from getting married, stop birth control from being used or covered under health plans and stop abortion. All for religous reasons.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 05:33 PM
Just like the religous right is trying to replace the Constitution with Biblical law.



Here ya go MM

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 05:36 PM
Can you show me any laws proposed reciently that are Communist laws? Heathcare? Redistribution of wealth?


The religous right want to keep gays from getting married, stop birth control from being used or covered under health plans and stop abortion. All for religous reasons.Not stop birth control from being covered...give the employer an option. Big difference. And gay marriage, birth control, and abortion have nothing to do with biblical law. They may have to do with certain people's interpretation of the bible but to say it's based off of biblical law is nowhere near accurate.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 05:40 PM
yes...this is what I'd already stated.



Yes...that there is no secret attack against Christians...there is opposition to the majority.



Nobody painted the entire group.

Christians are the majority...as the majority they are more often in a position to bully other groups. This is why they are more often in the position of being opposed by groups that advocate freedom of religion.

Because they are the majority...

...it is Christians that have their prayers at town council meetings, football games, official military events, etc. Opposing that is not an attack on Christians, it is an attack on official sanction of religion...and when the time comes that Muslims dominate a particular town and wish to hold Muslim prayer at the town council meetings..then the atheist groups are just as likely to oppose it.

...it is Christians who fight for the right to display their Ten Commandments, at least the parts they like, in courthouses...if Muslims wanted to place whatever excerpt from the Koran, then atheist groups are just as likely to oppose them, I'm sure.

So, it's not that these atheist groups specifically target Christians...it's that, for the most part, only Christians are in a position to get official endorsement of their religion.

So is this a discussion about being in the majority or Christians being bullies?

Could you point out your qualifying limiter which did not paint Christians in general as bullies?


Because, so far, only Christianity in this country has enjoyed the dominant position that allows them to bully everyone else.

USAF-Controller
08-19-2014, 05:40 PM
Heathcare? Redistribution of wealth?

Not stop birth control from being covered...give the employer an option. Big difference. And gay marriage, birth control, and abortion have nothing to do with biblical law. They may have to do with certain people's interpretation of the bible but to say it's based off of biblical law is nowhere near accurate.

Healthcare is communist? That proves my point exactly that you don't actually know what communism is. What law calls for the redistribution of wealth? To say that opposing gay marrage is not based off of biblical law makes you sound like an idiot. We both know that 95% of the opposition to anything gay comes directly from the Bible.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 05:43 PM
Can you show me any laws proposed reciently that are Communist laws? The religous right want to keep gays from getting married, stop birth control from being used or covered under health plans and stop abortion. All for religous reasons.

So Christians (and to be accurate most religions) are opposed to same sex marriages and abortion and that somehow equates to 'replacing the Constitution with biblical law"?

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 05:48 PM
I'm not saying it's because of "tradition". I'm saying that, whether one is religious or not, there is no denying that those laws are the basis for many of the laws we have, and societies before us have had.

I would say about 3 out of 10 are ones we have laws on...but I would argue that the 10 Commandments were not the inventor of these... Though shall not murder, steal, lie...I think are universal human nature.

Or do you think the Jews got all the way to Sinai not knowing that murdering, stealing and lying were bad? How did they survive that long if they thought it was just fine to do so?


Is it based of religion? Yes. Is it pushing religion?

That there should be no other god before God?
That you shall not make a carved image and worship it?
That you shall not take the Lord's name in vain?
That you should keep the Sabbath?

...at least the first 4 have nothing to do with our laws and are purely religious towards one god.

Honor your father and mother? Not sure any laws are based on that one. Sure, it's a nice idea.

Murder...good one.

Adultery...sure we once had laws against this, but they are pretty much obsolete. Still a good idea in one's personal life for the most part.

Steal...sure.

Lie about your neighbor...yes.

Shall not covet your neighbors stuff...nothing wrong with wanting.


I don't see the harm. Again, it's not endorsing anything. It's not saying that everyone in the court room has to follow the bible.

I don't that it causes harm, necessarily, but it's not appropriate, IMO.


Now what is/was an issue is having someone swear in God's name on a Bible in a courtroom.

Do they still do that?


But having something displayed? Don't see the issue.

How would you feel if an excerpt from the Koran was displayed and the judge Muslim?

USAF-Controller
08-19-2014, 05:52 PM
So Christians (and to be accurate most religions) are opposed to same sex marriages and abortion and that somehow equates to 'replacing the Constitution with biblical law"?

Yes. When you make or try to enforce a law based on your religion then you are making a Biblical law.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 05:55 PM
So is this a discussion about being in the majority or Christians being bullies?

What?


Could you point out your qualifying limiter which did not paint Christians in general as bullies?

What are you talking about?

What I'm saying is that Christian, being the majority, are in a position to use their majority status to bully others and sometimes they do...as I think most any group probably would...but this is also why the "attacks" are usually against Christians...not because they are targeted because the Devil wants to defeat Christianity, but because only Christians are typically in a place of power to enact their preferences on all of us.

...while insisting on having a Christian prayer at every military official function may not be physical bullying...consider it a metaphor if you'd like...if you'd rather say it's not bullying it is using their majority status to have the laws and customs cater to themselves, then I'm okay with that, too...but no other group could get away with that because they are not in the majority....and if another group tried to do something similar, Christians would be shouting from the rooftops about how inappropriate it was to have them stand and listen to a pagan prayer.

God forbid we ever have a Muslim prayer...why, to many Christians, this would signal the end of country and proof that Obama is a Jihadist trying to turn our country into an Islamic state.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 07:03 PM
Yes. When you make or try to enforce a law based on your religion then you are making a Biblical law.

The key word I was referring to is 'replace'

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 07:17 PM
What?

We seem to be in another discussion of your word usage. I pointed out the hyperbole of your labeling Christians in general as bullies and pointed out that the consessions made are often merely because they are in the majority…………now it seems that is YOUR point.


What are you talking about?

Really don’t know or are we going down another rabbit hole?

First you said this.............


Because, so far, only Christianity in this country has enjoyed the dominant position that allows them to bully everyone else.

Then you said this...............


Nobody painted the entire group.

Those posts contradict each other.


What I'm saying is that Christian, being the majority, are in a position to use their majority status to bully others and sometimes they do...as I think most any group probably would...but this is also why the "attacks" are usually against Christians...not because they are targeted because the Devil wants to defeat Christianity, but because only Christians are typically in a place of power to enact their preferences on all of us.

...while insisting on having a Christian prayer at every military official function may not be physical bullying...consider it a metaphor if you'd like...if you'd rather say it's not bullying it is using their majority status to have the laws and customs cater to themselves, then I'm okay with that, too...but no other group could get away with that because they are not in the majority....and if another group tried to do something similar, Christians would be shouting from the rooftops about how inappropriate it was to have them stand and listen to a pagan prayer.

God forbid we ever have a Muslim prayer...why, to many Christians, this would signal the end of country and proof that Obama is a Jihadist trying to turn our country into an Islamic state.

I have attended an official Army ceremony where the opening and closing prayers were offered by a Muslim chaplain. There wasn’t an uprising or any protests that I am aware of.

Having said that…………none of the above has anything whatsoever to do with any of my posts. You always seem to quote my posts as if you are replying to WJ5 or someone else.

USAF-Controller
08-19-2014, 07:19 PM
The key word I was referring to is 'replace'

Gay marrage is legal in some states. If the religous right had their way they would "replace" these laws with Biblical law. Happy now? Splitting hairs is not the way to prove a valid point.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 07:35 PM
We seem to be in another discussion of your word usage.

Imagine that. So, you want to ban the word "bully"?


I pointed out the hyperbole of your labeling Christians in general as bullies

Yes...this is another one of those deals where you make up a point that I didn't make and argue against it.


and pointed out that the consessions made are often merely because they are in the majority…………now it seems that is YOUR point.

I made the point about the majority before you were even involved here.


Really don’t know or are we going down another rabbit hole?

First you said this.............

Then you said this...............

Those posts contradict each other.


Again...you appear to be reading into my comment something that isn't there.

Christians have the majority in the country...as such, they are empowered with the ability to use that majority to sometimes bully others...other religious groups typically do not have that power of the majority.

Where you read that "Christians in general are bullies" I can not answer.


I have attended an official Army ceremony where the opening and closing prayers were offered by a Muslim chaplain. There wasn’t an uprising or any protests that I am aware of.

Having said that…………none of the above has anything whatsoever to do with any of my posts. You always seem to quote my posts as if you are replying to WJ5 or someone else.

Well, I was originally replying to someone else entirely who asked why atheist groups always seem to attack only Christians...so my post is more or less in my general line of replying to the original point.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 07:41 PM
Gay marrage is legal in some states. If the religous right had their way they would "replace" these laws with Biblical law. Happy now? Splitting hairs is not the way to prove a valid point.


And most assuredly hyperbole is the quickest way to impugn the credibility of any point.


Just like the religous right is trying to replace the Constitution with Biblical law.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 07:50 PM
Imagine that. So, you want to ban the word "bully"?

Ban? Oh never. (you didn’t really think I would walk into that one did you?)
I would like to see less hyperbole and more credibility though.



Yes...this is another one of those deals where you make up a point that I didn't make and argue against it.

Why does that seem to happen you suppose? I quoted your posts. They seem pretty clear. Your response is to simply dismiss the premise? Ok.



I made the point about the majority before you were even involved here.

Again...you appear to be reading into my comment something that isn't there.

Christians have the majority in the country...as such, they are empowered with the ability to use that majority to sometimes bully others...other religious groups typically do not have that power of the majority.

Where you read that "Christians in general are bullies" I can not answer.

Well, I was originally replying to someone else entirely who asked why atheist groups always seem to attack only Christians...so my post is more or less in my general line of replying to the original point.

Actually the ‘bully’ post was your third on this thread.

Your first was a smart assed slam on the anti-Obama crowd. The second (and the one you should have ended with) was expressing puzzlement that anyone would complain about the bible’s placement and that anyone would complain about the complaint.

You never mentioned majority until I called you on that post and even then it was after I had mentioned Christians being in the majority explained a lot of the perceived concessions they receive.

USAF-Controller
08-19-2014, 08:00 PM
And most assuredly hyperbole is the quickest way to impugn the credibility of any point.

My statement about the religous right trying to replace the Constitution with Biblical law was in no way hyperbole. I was dead serious. I firmly believe that most Christians, if given the choice, would replace many of our laws with ones that conformed to their religion.

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 08:03 PM
Healthcare is communist? That proves my point exactly that you don't actually know what communism is. What law calls for the redistribution of wealth? To say that opposing gay marrage is not based off of biblical law makes you sound like an idiot. We both know that 95% of the opposition to anything gay comes directly from the Bible.It may come from the bible...but it's not biblical law...

I mention healthcare because it's all about redistribution of wealth. edit: Not heathcare in general, but "Universal healthcare" where it is required to pay into something...or be fined...whether you want to or not.

Now, if you want to get technical here, I'd say that the liberals are pushing tenets of the bible more than conservatives. Jesus was all about taking care of the poor, rich being bad, etc...so why are all you liberals pushing Jesus' teachings on the rest of us?

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 08:14 PM
I would say about 3 out of 10 are ones we have laws on...but I would argue that the 10 Commandments were not the inventor of these... Though shall not murder, steal, lie...I think are universal human nature.

Or do you think the Jews got all the way to Sinai not knowing that murdering, stealing and lying were bad? How did they survive that long if they thought it was just fine to do so? Not knowing something is wrong and having it be law are two different things.




That there should be no other god before God?
That you shall not make a carved image and worship it?
That you shall not take the Lord's name in vain?
That you should keep the Sabbath?

...at least the first 4 have nothing to do with our laws and are purely religious towards one god.[/QUOTE] Ok? Not sure I see your point. I wasn't aware that nothing religious base (though not an "endorsement") is allowed in government buildings.



I don't that it causes harm, necessarily, but it's not appropriate, IMO. If something causes no harm then why would it be inappropriate?




Do they still do that? Don't know. I'd bet there are some (probably somewhere that doesn't allow you to purchase alcohol on a Sunday...oh dear...).




How would you feel if an excerpt from the Koran was displayed and the judge Muslim?I don't care...one single bit. Hell, let the judge put a Buddha statue on his bench.

Your question here falls into the stereotypical zone. People assume that since a Christian thinks that Christian symbols are ok that we would have an issue about other religions doing the same. That's just not so. I don't care! What I do care about is that, day by day, simple freedoms are taking way because the may be "offensive"...and these freedoms are taken away from everyone.

Freedom FROM religion means that the government is going to force you into a religion and that you won't be beheaded if you choose to abstain. It doesn't mean that one can have the expectation of never being around anything religious.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 08:34 PM
My statement about the religous right trying to replace the Constitution with Biblical law was in no way hyperbole. I was dead serious. I firmly believe that most Christians, if given the choice, would replace many of our laws with ones that conformed to their religion.

Yeah, it was hyperbole. Hyperbole based on your opinion which applies a hugely wide assertion to a narrowly defined set of circumstances. If you had said some Christians instead of most there would be some validity to your opinion.

Conversely if some of the Christians who post here were to say that some self-declared atheists are conducting a war on Christianity that would be a credible opinion instead of lumping all of a group (or 'most' of a group) together.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 08:36 PM
Ban? Oh never. (you didn’t really think I would walk into that one did you?)
I would like to see less hyperbole and more credibility though.

Well, on another thread your argument was that replacing Word A with a more approprieate Word B was, in effect, a ban on Word A...so I figured your logic would have remained consistent. Or should I say, your illogic.


Why does that seem to happen you suppose? I quoted your posts. They seem pretty clear. Your response is to simply dismiss the premise? Ok.

No...you quote my posts that say nothing that you indicate it does and then say "see"...


Actually the ‘bully’ post was your third on this thread.

Your first was a smart assed slam on the anti-Obama crowd. The second (and the one you should have ended with)

...what and miss out on another one of your insane word games? Ha!


was expressing puzzlement that anyone would complain about the bible’s placement and that anyone would complain about the complaint.

Amusement.


You never mentioned majority until I called you on that post and even then it was after I had mentioned Christians being in the majority explained a lot of the perceived concessions they receive.

Right...I used the term "dominant position"

Called me out? LOL. Yes, you indicated that Christians are the majority and that was the reason for this behavior/privilege and I agreed with that point...and agreed with the second time you brought it up also. I still agree with it.

So...just to be "clear" here...at no time did I say that Christians in general are bullies. I said that they (not in general, but on occasion) bully...and that enjoying the majority provides them with this ability....I also think this is a tendency of a lot of majorities and has nothing to do with Christianity specifically...thus, as a reply to the poster who asked the question...it's not that atheists specifically attack Christianity...it's that Christianity has the privilege of the majority in this country, so they are more likely to have overstepped bounds deserving of an "attack"

So your point is that Christians never bully? Is that what you're trying to say?

Because I said several times that they don't always bully but do sometimes....so unless your point is that they never do, then you are also agreeing that they bully sometimes, right?

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 08:40 PM
My statement about the religous right trying to replace the Constitution with Biblical law was in no way hyperbole. I was dead serious. I firmly believe that most Christians, if given the choice, would replace many of our laws with ones that conformed to their religion.

I am a Christian...I know several Christians...and I don't know any of them who would do so. Now you are generalizing the Extreme Christian Right with the other 98% of us. I didn't think liberals did that. And, if you want proof that the majority of us don't fall in with that 2%, why do you think candidates like Palin and others never actually grab a foothold, except with a small (though loud speaking) group?

Though I will say this. I'm pretty sure most people would change laws to fall in line with their personal beliefs, whether religious or not.

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 08:46 PM
I also think this is a tendency of a lot of majorities and has nothing to do with Christianity specifically...thus, as a reply to the poster who asked the question...it's not that atheists specifically attack Christianity...it's that Christianity has the privilege of the majority in this country, so they are more likely to have overstepped bounds deserving of an "attack"

I guess it's not a good thing to live in a society where the "majority" is the basis for electing leaders, then, since it seems you believe the majority is likely to overstep the bounds.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 08:55 PM
Not knowing something is wrong and having it be law are two different things.

:spider

Did I misunderstand you? I thought your assertion was the these "laws" originated with the Ten Commandments. If the Jews already knew they were wrong before the Ten Commandments were issued, then they did not originate there...

I could be misunderstanding you personally...but, many people seem to feel that morality is defined by the Judeo-Christian God, and that were in ot for God, we would have no moral code. Perhaps, I falsely attributed that belief to you, then...

...but, if I did...then our that shalt not murder, steal and lie laws are not based on or derived from the Ten Commandments, they are parallel to them and that pretty much every moral code, even those predating the Bible contained these rules...which are simply self-evident for society to function.


Ok? Not sure I see your point.

You seem to think that the Ten Commandments are the basis for many of our laws...I'm just point out that most of the commandments have nothing to do with laws and are purely religious commandments to followers of that religion.


I wasn't aware that nothing religious base (though not an "endorsement") is allowed in government buildings.

Me neither, and this was not the basis for my reply.


If something causes no harm then why would it be inappropriate?

There could be a million things that are inappropriate that cause no harm...seriously?

Would it harm anyone if one of the lawyers showed up to court in cutoff Daisy Dukes and a Jack Daniels t-shirt?


Don't know. I'd bet there are some (probably somewhere that doesn't allow you to purchase alcohol on a Sunday...oh dear...).

I'm not sure either...a google seems to indicate it is optional.


I don't care...one single bit. Hell, let the judge put a Buddha statue on his bench.

I think small personal religious things that belong to the judge is fine...if he wants to keep his Bible in his desk drawer...or a little buddha of his that doesn't bother me much...but a big permanent monument paid for by taxpayers? I don't think so.


Your question here falls into the stereotypical zone. People assume that since a Christian thinks that Christian symbols are ok that we would have an issue about other religions doing the same. That's just not so.

Guilty as charged.

I would have just as much a problem with a Koran monument in a courtroom though.


I don't care! What I do care about is that, day by day, simple freedoms are taking way because the may be "offensive"...and these freedoms are taken away from everyone.

Freedom FROM religion means that the government is going to force you into a religion and that you won't be beheaded if you choose to abstain. It doesn't mean that one can have the expectation of never being around anything religious.

I am all for individual freedoms...I just don't think that extends to people using their government offices and positions to promote their religion.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 08:58 PM
I guess it's not a good thing to live in a society where the "majority" is the basis for electing leaders, then, since it seems you believe the majority is likely to overstep the bounds.

It's fine to have elected leaders...but it's even better to have a Constitution that provides for individual freedoms and rights regardless of what the majority want.

This is one of the things that makes our country great....that our founding principles include individual rights

BENDER56
08-19-2014, 09:13 PM
Wait, back when the Catholic church enforced a 'no meat on Friday' provision, could one obtain meat in US hotels where Catholics are the majority?

Not sure about what hotels did, and it wouldn't matter anyway since hotels are non-government entities run by individuals/corporations who can serve whatever they think their clientele most wants. (Although, ironically, this thread started out about events regarding government-run lodging.)

But I do know the Chicopee, MA public school system did not serve red meat on Fridays during the '60s. Every Friday we had breaded fish sticks. And, yes, Catholicism was the city's majority religion in back then. Probably still is.

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 09:13 PM
:spider

Did I misunderstand you? I thought your assertion was the these "laws" originated with the Ten Commandments. If the Jews already knew they were wrong before the Ten Commandments were issued, then they did not originate there... I never said they originated with the Ten Commandments...only that the Ten Commandments are the first "written" sample that we have in our society.


I could be misunderstanding you personally...but, many people seem to feel that morality is defined by the Judeo-Christian God, and that were in ot for God, we would have no moral code. Perhaps, I falsely attributed that belief to you, then... Interesting statement...I'll reply this way. Since I believe that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator than it's only fair to say that I believe everything originated with him. But I don't think that you have to believe in God to have morales. And I'm not saying that there were no morals before the Commandments. Just that the Commandments is the point that it became written.


...but, if I did...then our that shalt not murder, steal and lie laws are not based on or derived from the Ten Commandments, they are parallel to them and that pretty much every moral code, even those predating the Bible contained these rules...which are simply self-evident for society to function.Again...not derived from the Commandments...just the point at which they were recieved as a reminder to the Jews in writing. To go further, as a Christian, the Commandments are not my "religious law". The teachings of Jesus are my religious law...of course those teachings were based on the Commandments.




You seem to think that the Ten Commandments are the basis for many of our laws...I'm just point out that most of the commandments have nothing to do with laws and are purely religious commandments to followers of that religion. Nope...I'm saying, again, that they are a historical point for laws being written down.




There could be a million things that are inappropriate that cause no harm...seriously?

Would it harm anyone if one of the lawyers showed up to court in cutoff Daisy Dukes and a Jack Daniels t-shirt? Nope..it wouldn't...and don't get me started on dress codes. I'd have no issue with it. Does the guy do his job well?


I think small personal religious things that belong to the judge is fine...if he wants to keep his Bible in his desk drawer...or a little buddha of his that doesn't bother me much...but a big permanent monument paid for by taxpayers? I don't think so. This relates to an earlier point. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that your tax money might not go towards something. That's no different than someone who is against welfare paying taxes that go to it. That's like saying that paying taxes that go to healthcare that pays for abortion is taking my freedom of religion away. The government isn't endorsing abortion. They are endorsing ones right to act freely, whether it be religious or not.



Guilty as charged.

I would have just as much a problem with a Koran monument in a courtroom though.Why?




I am all for individual freedoms...I just don't think that extends to people using their government offices and positions to promote their religion.This is where we are on different pages. I don't think it's promoting their religion. I think it's freedom of expression. One must be able to express religious beliefs just as they must be able to express views about everything else.

As long as the government doesn't come out (as ISIS is doing) and say you will be this religion or else then they are not endorsing, nor infringing, on any right for or against religion.

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 09:15 PM
It's fine to have elected leaders...but it's even better to have a Constitution that provides for individual freedoms and rights regardless of what the majority want.

This is one of the things that makes our country great....that our founding principles include individual rightsIt is...individual "rights" are awesome...and me doing something based on my beliefs, as long as it doesn't affect the outcome of someone elses choices, is on of the individual "rights".

USAF-Controller
08-19-2014, 09:24 PM
Yeah, it was hyperbole. Hyperbole based on your opinion which applies a hugely wide assertion to a narrowly defined set of circumstances. If you had said some Christians instead of most there would be some validity to your opinion.

Conversely if some of the Christians who post here were to say that some self-declared atheists are conducting a war on Christianity that would be a credible opinion instead of lumping all of a group (or 'most' of a group) together.

Hyperbole is defined as: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. My statement was meant to be taken literally. I firmly believe what I said.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 09:34 PM
Well, on another thread your argument was that replacing Word A with a more approprieate Word B was, in effect, a ban on Word A...so I figured your logic would have remained consistent. Or should I say, your illogic.



No...you quote my posts that say nothing that you indicate it does and then say "see"...



...what and miss out on another one of your insane word games? Ha!



Amusement.



Right...I used the term "dominant position"

Called me out? LOL. Yes, you indicated that Christians are the majority and that was the reason for this behavior/privilege and I agreed with that point...and agreed with the second time you brought it up also. I still agree with it.

So...just to be "clear" here...at no time did I say that Christians in general are bullies. I said that they (not in general, but on occasion) bully...and that enjoying the majority provides them with this ability....I also think this is a tendency of a lot of majorities and has nothing to do with Christianity specifically...thus, as a reply to the poster who asked the question...it's not that atheists specifically attack Christianity...it's that Christianity has the privilege of the majority in this country, so they are more likely to have overstepped bounds deserving of an "attack"

So your point is that Christians never bully? Is that what you're trying to say?

Because I said several times that they don't always bully but do sometimes....so unless your point is that they never do, then you are also agreeing that they bully sometimes, right?

Actually what I said was that a law that specifically says that Word(s) A (and B) will no longer be used and instead Word C will be used in effect is a ban on Word(s) A (and B). You claimed that there was no ban whatsoever. The inference being that Word(s) A (and B) could still be used officially. That just isn't true.

Now how exactly did I say there was a ban here? I never said you could never use 'bully'. I merely and correctly pointed out that labeling Christians as bullies without qualifying statements is just plain wrong (and hyperbole).

So you now say that some Christians bully some of the time. I get that. Unfortunately you didn't say that until after you painted Christians in general as bullies. We now get what you really meant.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 09:35 PM
Hyperbole is defined as: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. My statement was meant to be taken literally. I firmly believe what I said.

Should have quoted the first definition.

"obvious and intentional exaggeration.'

Whether you believe what you wrote isn't the point. It is however part of your problem.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 09:38 PM
I never said they originated with the Ten Commandments...only that the Ten Commandments are the first "written" sample that we have in our society.

Okay, I get it.


Interesting statement...I'll reply this way. Since I believe that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator than it's only fair to say that I believe everything originated with him. But I don't think that you have to believe in God to have morales. And I'm not saying that there were no morals before the Commandments. Just that the Commandments is the point that it became written.

Alright.


Again...not derived from the Commandments...just the point at which they were recieved as a reminder to the Jews in writing. To go further, as a Christian, the Commandments are not my "religious law". The teachings of Jesus are my religious law...of course those teachings were based on the Commandments.

Nope...I'm saying, again, that they are a historical point for laws being written down.

Got it.


Nope..it wouldn't...and don't get me started on dress codes. I'd have no issue with it. Does the guy do his job well?

Pretty sure he would be booted from court and told to dress apprpriately...but what is and isn't appropriate is a matter of opinion. I would disagree with you that everything that as long as it doesn't harm anyone, it is appropriate.

Let's say, the Wing Commander going around selling Scentsy to his troops. Doesn't harm anyone...they don't have to buy it, and if they do it's only because they want it more than they want that amount of money, so they actually benefit...

MSgt wearing his uniform to work as a bartender off-base. Doesn't harm anyone, really...except maybe the reputation of the AF.


This relates to an earlier point. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that your tax money might not go towards something. That's no different than someone who is against welfare paying taxes that go to it.

No, it is different...there is no amendment to the Consitution specifically providing protection govt. endorsing of welfare programs


That's like saying that paying taxes that go to healthcare that pays for abortion is taking my freedom of religion away. The government isn't endorsing abortion. They are endorsing ones right to act freely, whether it be religious or not.

I think there is a solid argument to be made against taxpayer funded abortions. Being "free" does not imply govt. has to pay for it...but again, there is no amendment that specifically bars the govt. from doing this, so it is different. Religion is special...in that our founding fathers thought it especially important enough to address by amendment.


Why?

It would be inappropriate, IMO. Same reason as the Ten Commandments.


This is where we are on different pages. I don't think it's promoting their religion. I think it's freedom of expression. One must be able to express religious beliefs just as they must be able to express views about everything else.

Personal expression yes...but not as a function of the official office. If ol' judge what's his name want to erect a 30 ft Ten Commandments in his front yard, I'm all for it, so long as it's okay with his HOA...but to say "As judge in the courtroom, I prefer to have this monument here in the county court" I don't think that's right.


As long as the government doesn't come out (as ISIS is doing) and say you will be this religion or else then they are not endorsing, nor infringing, on any right for or against religion.

I disagree with that...I think even the "little things" violate the 1st Amendment.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 09:40 PM
Actually what I said was that a law that specifically says that Word(s) A (and B) will no longer be used and instead Word C will be used in effect is a ban on Word(s) A (and B). You claimed that there was no ban whatsoever. The inference being that Word(s) A (and B) could still be used officially. That just isn't true.

Now how exactly did I say there was a ban here? I never said you could never use 'bully'. I merely and correctly pointed out that labeling Christians as bullies without qualifying statements is just plain wrong (and hyperbole).

So you now say that some Christians bully some of the time. I get that. Unfortunately you didn't say that until after you painted Christians in general as bullies. We now get what you really meant.

Whatever...

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 09:42 PM
Whatever...

Well, at least you didn't throw a homoerotic insult at me.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 09:49 PM
Well, at least you didn't tell throw a homoerotic insult at me.

Yeah...and you didn't call me a racist.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 10:01 PM
Yeah...and you didn't call me a racist.

I would only do that if you were a racist.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 10:07 PM
I would only do that if you were a racist.

..and I would never call you a homoerotic insult. Not that that would be an insult.

sandsjames
08-19-2014, 10:14 PM
Let's say, the Wing Commander going around selling Scentsy to his troops. Doesn't harm anyone...they don't have to buy it, and if they do it's only because they want it more than they want that amount of money, so they actually benefit...

MSgt wearing his uniform to work as a bartender off-base. Doesn't harm anyone, really...except maybe the reputation of the AF. They fall under the UCMJ. Big difference.




I think there is a solid argument to be made against taxpayer funded abortions. Being "free" does not imply govt. has to pay for it...but again, there is no amendment that specifically bars the govt. from doing this, so it is different. Religion is special...in that our founding fathers thought it especially important enough to address by amendment. Right...and that amendment is saying that the government will not sponsor any religion. An individual, though, is completely different.




Personal expression yes...but not as a function of the official office. If ol' judge what's his name want to erect a 30 ft Ten Commandments in his front yard, I'm all for it, so long as it's okay with his HOA...but to say "As judge in the courtroom, I prefer to have this monument here in the county court" I don't think that's right. I'd imagine it's a shared courtroom. Not sure how they all work but I'd assume most judges share with others. That changes things. But if it's his and he wants to put a freakin' troll doll, an Easter Bunny, or a copy of the Ten Commandments then who cares? Really...I can't understand why it's an issue.




I disagree with that...I think even the "little things" violate the 1st Amendment.Yes, but protecting it one way is violating it another way. I don't lose my first amendment "right" just because someone else doesn't like it. Well, actually I do, as you have pointed out. And that's why it's not a "right", but we won't get back into that discussion.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 10:21 PM
They fall under the UCMJ. Big difference.

I still think many things are inappropriate that harm no one...but if you think it's fine for your attorney to represent you in court wiht cutoffs and a greasy t-shirt...fine. I just disagree. It's a personal opinion, nothing more.


Right...and that amendment is saying that the government will not sponsor any religion. An individual, though, is completely different.

Correct...and govt. officials need to recognize when they are acting as an individual and when they are acting as a representative of the govt.


I'd imagine it's a shared courtroom. Not sure how they all work but I'd assume most judges share with others. That changes things. But if it's his and he wants to put a freakin' troll doll, an Easter Bunny, or a copy of the Ten Commandments then who cares? Really...I can't understand why it's an issue.

Yes, but protecting it one way is violating it another way. I don't lose my first amendment "right" just because someone else doesn't like it. Well, actually I do, as you have pointed out. And that's why it's not a "right", but we won't get back into that discussion.

Yes, I think this is the problem...you don't seem to understand the difference between an individual acting within his capacity as an individual vs. him acting as an official representative of the govt.

TJMAC77SP
08-19-2014, 10:58 PM
..and I would never call you a homoerotic insult. Not that that would be an insult.

I fixed it. All better? I originally was going to quote the last such post by that poster. Decided that wasn't necessary.

I know you wouldn't do that.

Measure Man
08-19-2014, 11:09 PM
I fixed it. All better? I originally was going to quote the last such post by that poster. Decided that wasn't necessary.

I don't know what you fixed and why it should make it all better...this entire thing doesn't make sense to me.


I know you wouldn't do that.

Which is why I didn't know why you said that...and why I replied in kind with something you wouldn't have said to me either.

I thought maybe you had me confused with Rusty this time instead of Absinthe

sandsjames
08-20-2014, 01:37 AM
Yes, I think this is the problem...you don't seem to understand the difference between an individual acting within his capacity as an individual vs. him acting as an official representative of the govt.

I think it's more important that people get over the idea that someone displaying their own beliefs somehow impacts everyone else. The biggest problem is our society is the "walking on eggshells" that we all do because someone, somewhere, might be offended.

TJMAC77SP
08-20-2014, 01:42 AM
I don't know what you fixed and why it should make it all better...this entire thing doesn't make sense to me.



Which is why I didn't know why you said that...and why I replied in kind with something you wouldn't have said to me either.

I thought maybe you had me confused with Rusty this time instead of Absinthe

Now it doesn't make sense to me..............

So you had no idea that I was making a reference to Rusty?

So you weren't referencing the grammatical error I made when you responded with.................

"and I would never call you a homoerotic insult. Not that that would be an insult. "


Exactly what does one say in response to 'whatever'?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-20-2014, 01:56 AM
Just like the religous right is trying to replace the Constitution with Biblical law.



I think bully is an accurate word in some cases but not all.

Let's start worrying about the religious right when they decide to fly airliners into skyscrapers, behead innocent civilians, while vowing to wipe countries (Israel) off the map and impose their brutal sharia law on the rest of the world's populace.

Measure Man
08-20-2014, 03:17 AM
I think it's more important that people get over the idea that someone displaying their own beliefs somehow impacts everyone else. The biggest problem is our society is the "walking on eggshells" that we all do because someone, somewhere, might be offended.

Perhaps...but, this is a separate issue from government offices/officials

Measure Man
08-20-2014, 03:36 AM
Now it doesn't make sense to me..............

So you had no idea that I was making a reference to Rusty?

Well...I thought you might be, but had no idea why you would be doing so while replying to me...then I thought, well, you might have us confused as you confused me with Absinthe before and I sometimes confuse different posters, also.


So you weren't referencing the grammatical error I made when you responded with.................

"and I would never call you a homoerotic insult. Not that that would be an insult. "

No...had nothing to do with the grammar which i simply overlooked as I know you do often with me...not that i have poor grammar...but I have poor typing skills on here for some reason.

You said something about me not replying with a homoerotic insult...which I thought strange, because I've never done that...
so I replied in kind with the racist, fully expecting you to say "well, I don't do that"...which you did...

...to which I would then reply..."neither do I throw homoerotic insults at you"...which I did, maybe poorly worded...but, then I felt like adding the Seinfeld "not that there is anything wrong with that" disclaimer. Basically trying to elude to the fact that calling someone gay is not an insult.

...but, then I expected you might say, "oh, I had you confused with Rusty"...but when you replied instead with "there I fixed it. All better now?" I wasn't sure what you meant because I looked back at the original and saw no significant difference other than correction of an obvious mistype that I pretty much ignored the first time anyway.


Exactly what does one say in response to 'whatever'?

It does not require a response...it signals that I've grown tired of silly word games while you continue to attribute meaning to my comments that isn't there, in order that that you may craft a clever retort in pursuit of some mysterious internet bonus points or whatever you motivation. You make the same point over and over as if repeating it somehow makes it valid. Presumably, so that I grow tired of it and you feel some sort of self-aggrandizing satisfaction at having "called out" the Measure Man with your superior intellect.

I don't find anything entertaining or stimulating about your pointless carrying on and no longer wish to engage with you...at least not on this point...only to hear you say once again say that I claimed Christians in general are bullies...blah blah blah...the post a quote that doesn't say that and say "see, its clear" when it is plain to the most casual observer that it isn't even in there, let alone "clear."

I do occasionally find some of the threads on here entertaining and/or stimulating...but your word games are not among them...they are merely an irritant that detracts from the point of the thread and the reason I come here. Only so you can tell me one more time what I really meant to say...so you can tell me why it's wrong. Oh, I'm sorry, so you can "call me out"...LOL. You're a loon.

The really crazy part is...if you would listen to your own signature advice and "Read Carefully"...you will see that I've agreed with you on most every substantive point and the whole of our disagreement is what you say my post meant...

So....whatever....

TJMAC77SP
08-20-2014, 04:34 AM
Well...I thought you might be, but had no idea why you would be doing so while replying to me...then I thought, well, you might have us confused as you confused me with Absinthe before and I sometimes confuse different posters, also.



No...had nothing to do with the grammar which i simply overlooked as I know you do often with me...not that i have poor grammar...but I have poor typing skills on here for some reason.

You said something about me not replying with a homoerotic insult...which I thought strange, because I've never done that...
so I replied in kind with the racist, fully expecting you to say "well, I don't do that"...which you did...

...to which I would then reply..."neither do I throw homoerotic insults at you"...which I did, maybe poorly worded...but, then I felt like adding the Seinfeld "not that there is anything wrong with that" disclaimer. Basically trying to elude to the fact that calling someone gay is not an insult.

...but, then I expected you might say, "oh, I had you confused with Rusty"...but when you replied instead with "there I fixed it. All better now?" I wasn't sure what you meant because I looked back at the original and saw no significant difference other than correction of an obvious mistype that I pretty much ignored the first time anyway.



It does not require a response...it signals that I've grown tired of silly word games while you continue to attribute meaning to my comments that isn't there, in order that that you may craft a clever retort in pursuit of some mysterious internet bonus points or whatever you motivation. You make the same point over and over as if repeating it somehow makes it valid. Presumably, so that I grow tired of it and you feel some sort of self-aggrandizing satisfaction at having "called out" the Measure Man with your superior intellect.

I don't find anything entertaining or stimulating about your pointless carrying on and no longer wish to engage with you...at least not on this point...only to hear you say once again say that I claimed Christians in general are bullies...blah blah blah...the post a quote that doesn't say that and say "see, its clear" when it is plain to the most casual observer that it isn't even in there, let alone "clear."

I do occasionally find some of the threads on here entertaining and/or stimulating...but your word games are not among them...they are merely an irritant that detracts from the point of the thread and the reason I come here. Only so you can tell me one more time what I really meant to say...so you can tell me why it's wrong. Oh, I'm sorry, so you can "call me out"...LOL. You're a loon.

The really crazy part is...if you would listen to your own signature advice and "Read Carefully"...you will see that I've agreed with you on most every substantive point and the whole of our disagreement is what you say my post meant...

So....whatever....

If only you had stopped with your second post.....................

Measure Man
08-20-2014, 04:46 AM
If only you had stopped with your second post.....................

Then I would've missed a few good exchanges with SandSJames...but, yeah, not much else.

technomage1
08-20-2014, 11:05 AM
Staff time? Really? The maids are going to the rooms anyway. And once the books are there it's not like they spend a lot of time swapping them out. It's not like the staff is working overtime to put bibles in the rooms. No extra money is spent. I guess I'll use your argument then. The bibles MUST stay because to take them out would cost the government money.

The books are still on the maid's checklist...which means they need to check them at least when the patron checks out, possibly every day. At minimum,you add up 20 seconds per room, per checkout, at every single DoD lodge in the inventory, over years and that adds up fast.

According to the DoD lodging website, there are 32,000 rooms in the AF, 8,300 for the Army, and 24,000 for the Navy (Marine numbers not available). That's 64,300 rooms. Assuming the maid only checks the books upon checkout, and assuming that takes 20 seconds, and assuming that 1% of the inventory checks out on any given day, that equals 1,304 hours of labor a year. Housekeeping salaries vary - but based on a quick internet search of available positons it looks like the salary is somewhere in the $8-$9 an hour range. Going with $8.50 an hour, that's $11.1K a year the government is paying checking on bibles. And I believe this is a conservative estimate. It may very well be they need to check the bibles daily or the check out rate is higher.

Taking them out would be a one time cost of $3K, assuming it took 20 seonds to throw the books on a cart. So taking them out would save over $8K in the first year. Granted, I'm making some assumptions here but I don't think they're highly unreasonable ones, in fact I'd say they are conservative if anything.

sandsjames
08-20-2014, 12:22 PM
The books are still on the maid's checklist...which means they need to check them at least when the patron checks out, possibly every day. At minimum,you add up 20 seconds per room, per checkout, at every single DoD lodge in the inventory, over years and that adds up fast.

According to the DoD lodging website, there are 32,000 rooms in the AF, 8,300 for the Army, and 24,000 for the Navy (Marine numbers not available). That's 64,300 rooms. Assuming the maid only checks the books upon checkout, and assuming that takes 20 seconds, and assuming that 1% of the inventory checks out on any given day, that equals 1,304 hours of labor a year. Housekeeping salaries vary - but based on a quick internet search of available positons it looks like the salary is somewhere in the $8-$9 an hour range. Going with $8.50 an hour, that's $11.1K a year the government is paying checking on bibles. And I believe this is a conservative estimate. It may very well be they need to check the bibles daily or the check out rate is higher.

Taking them out would be a one time cost of $3K, assuming it took 20 seonds to throw the books on a cart. So taking them out would save over $8K in the first year. Granted, I'm making some assumptions here but I don't think they're highly unreasonable ones, in fact I'd say they are conservative if anything.

20 seconds to open a drawer and close it?

Dude, you are really stretching on this thing. I can see you having an issue with the bible being in there but this BS you're trying with the cost savings is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'm just curious which it is...are you concerned with the bible or the money?

I'll throw out a scenario as ridiculous as yours. If the bibles are removed from the rooms, that means that people will have to pack their own. Assuming most people pack their bags to the weight limit of the airline when they travel, the bible will push it over that weight. That means, when travel vouchers are filed, the government will be paying more excess baggage fees for travel.

Now, I know that's a ridiculous scenario, but no more ridiculous than yours. Just say that you are worried about religion rubbing off on you because there is a bible in the room and leave it at that.

sandsjames
08-20-2014, 12:23 PM
Then I would've missed a few good exchanges with SandSJames...but, yeah, not much else.Good exchanges? I'm a little bit hurt by that...they are GREAT exchanges.

technomage1
08-20-2014, 02:08 PM
20 seconds to open a drawer and close it?

Dude, you are really stretching on this thing. I can see you having an issue with the bible being in there but this BS you're trying with the cost savings is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'm just curious which it is...are you concerned with the bible or the money?

I'll throw out a scenario as ridiculous as yours. If the bibles are removed from the rooms, that means that people will have to pack their own. Assuming most people pack their bags to the weight limit of the airline when they travel, the bible will push it over that weight. That means, when travel vouchers are filed, the government will be paying more excess baggage fees for travel.

Now, I know that's a ridiculous scenario, but no more ridiculous than yours. Just say that you are worried about religion rubbing off on you because there is a bible in the room and leave it at that.

Fine, if you don't like 20 seconds as an assumption then 10. Still costs $5.5K a year or so. If you don't like 10 seconds then 5...and it still costs $2.7K per year. And I stated on my very first post that the government shouldn't have bibles in the room because it indicates a government endorsement of that religion. You came back with a point about how it didn't cost anything, I countered with a proof that it does. Is it my main argument? No. But to say it's free and doesn't cost anything is absolutely untrue.

I'm not worried religion will "rub off on me"...that isn't going to happen. I do worry about the government endorsement of religion I see. Example...my deployed location has mandatory briefs twice a week. The chaplain opens with a prayer - exclusively christian - every time. No others need apply. And yes, others have asked and been refused.

I just read an article the other day about Travelodge in the UK removing bibles from the rooms and keep them behind the desks instead. They started to remove them in 2007 and the story is just now hitting the press. The predictable outcry ensured...5 years after the policy started. In 5 years no one noticed, or, if they did, cared enough to complain about it. Honestly, if you're the type that is going to read your bible every day or look to it for guidance, you're proabably going to carry a personalized copy anyway...negating your travel expense theory, by the way. I've never seen one of those bibles that looked used. What's the big deal about removing them?

TJMAC77SP
08-20-2014, 02:29 PM
Then I would've missed a few good exchanges with SandSJames...but, yeah, not much else.

And yet, once again you didn't.

BTW. Could you tell me why a homoerotic insult would not be an insult?

TJMAC77SP
08-20-2014, 03:18 PM
Fine, if you don't like 20 seconds as an assumption then 10. Still costs $5.5K a year or so. If you don't like 10 seconds then 5...and it still costs $2.7K per year. And I stated on my very first post that the government shouldn't have bibles in the room because it indicates a government endorsement of that religion. You came back with a point about how it didn't cost anything, I countered with a proof that it does. Is it my main argument? No. But to say it's free and doesn't cost anything is absolutely untrue.

I'm not worried religion will "rub off on me"...that isn't going to happen. I do worry about the government endorsement of religion I see. Example...my deployed location has mandatory briefs twice a week. The chaplain opens with a prayer - exclusively christian - every time. No others need apply. And yes, others have asked and been refused.

I just read an article the other day about Travelodge in the UK removing bibles from the rooms and keep them behind the desks instead. They started to remove them in 2007 and the story is just now hitting the press. The predictable outcry ensured...5 years after the policy started. In 5 years no one noticed, or, if they did, cared enough to complain about it. Honestly, if you're the type that is going to read your bible every day or look to it for guidance, you're proabably going to carry a personalized copy anyway...negating your travel expense theory, by the way. I've never seen one of those bibles that looked used. What's the big deal about removing them?

Well, once upon a time, hookers used to leave their numbers on the inside covers. Restraint of trade?

BTW: What deployed location refused to allow non Christian chaplains to offer a prayer? That needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities.

sandsjames
08-20-2014, 03:22 PM
I've never seen one of those bibles that looked used. What's the big deal about removing them?There is no big deal about removing them. There is also no big deal about not removing them. That's my point.

Measure Man
08-20-2014, 03:27 PM
And yet, once again you didn't.

Nor do I care when you think I should and shouldn't post.


BTW. Could you tell me why a homoerotic insult would not be an insult?

It presumes homosexuality is worthy of ridicule.

TJMAC77SP
08-20-2014, 05:01 PM
Nor do I care when you think I should and shouldn't post.

Of course you don't. Nor should you. I was merely pointing out that it would have saved us both pages of posts.



It presumes homosexuality is worthy of ridicule.

Haha. Interesting. So if someone were to say to you for example............"bite me dick" you wouldn't consider that an insult? Regardless of the silliness of saying such a thing of course.

Measure Man
08-20-2014, 05:15 PM
Of course you don't. Nor should you. I was merely pointing out that it would have saved us both pages of posts.

Haha. Interesting. So if someone were to say to you for example............"bite me dick" you wouldn't consider that an insult? Regardless of the silliness of saying such a thing of course.

I'm sure I would...but, let's just say I endeavor to rise above that.

technomage1
08-20-2014, 05:40 PM
Well, once upon a time, hookers used to leave their numbers on the inside covers. Restraint of trade?

BTW: What deployed location refused to allow non Christian chaplains to offer a prayer? That needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities.

It was reported on unit climate assessment survey, they still continue. I don't like prayers before a briefing in the first place - it's entirely inappropriate. Chaplains didn't try but non christian members of the unit offered to stand in and were denied. Not just atheists but Jews and a Buddhist as well. Typical BS. If atheists seem angry to you...this kind of stuff is why.

TJMAC77SP
08-20-2014, 06:47 PM
I'm sure I would...but, let's just say I endeavor to rise above that.

Sure, I understand that but it is an insult nonetheless. How we react to an insult of course is an individual thing.

TJMAC77SP
08-20-2014, 06:49 PM
It was reported on unit climate assessment survey, they still continue. I don't like prayers before a briefing in the first place - it's entirely inappropriate. Chaplains didn't try but non christian members of the unit offered to stand in and were denied. Not just atheists but Jews and a Buddhist as well. Typical BS. If atheists seem angry to you...this kind of stuff is why.

Denying any religion from offering a prayer is inappropriate. I understand it is your opinion that any prayer is inappropriate. As to the denials, again, reportable. IG channels is appropriate.