|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Canada11349 Posts
And only unprincipled Christians should be able to work in the army given that the only true Christian stance is pacifism,
I'm okay with this- the first 300 years Christianity was deeply pacifist, which is really only carried on by certain Anabaptist groups today. Christians in North America have become altogether too comfortable with the idea that government and Christianity will align. This was certainly not the case when Christianity started- no one was in government that was a Christian, and even in Augustine's time, his mother did NOT wish for her son to get baptized because it meant quitting any sort of path in government. Again, the Anabaptist tradition is rather used to not having anything to do with government. What has been done will be done again.
|
I wonder if as many people would be backing Kim Davis and suggesting special dispensation needs to be made for her to hold her position if she was a newly elected official saying her faith made her feel unable to issue marriage licenses with her name on them for straight couples.
The only difference is that there wasn't a change allowing straight marriage, but if we were in a universe where the above was changed I wouldn't expect someone in the above situation to keep their job.
|
On October 08 2015 14:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder if as many people would be backing Kim Davis and suggesting special dispensation needs to be made for her to hold her position if she was a newly elected official saying her faith made her feel unable to issue marriage licenses with her name on them for straight couples.
The only difference is that there wasn't a change allowing straight marriage, but if we were in a universe where the above was changed I wouldn't expect someone in the above situation to keep their job.
or even worse:
if she was a newly elected official saying her non-christian faith made her feel unable to issue marriage licenses with her name on them for straight couples.
|
Someone should start a ban on non-virgins getting married. I'm sure several people will get behind that and you can back it up with religious justification. Of course Kim Davis was married 4 times and had her children out of wedlock, but who's listening to what the scriptures say about such things right.
|
Her marriage and childbearing reads like one of those super convoluted logic teasers:
Davis has been married four times to three different men.The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008. She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, who were adopted by her second husband, Joe Davis, who is also her fourth and current husband;he supports her stance against same-sex marriage. One of Davis' twin sons, Nathan, works in her office as a deputy clerk and has taken the same position of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
|
On October 08 2015 12:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 07:50 Cowboy64 wrote:On October 07 2015 08:47 Yoav wrote:On October 02 2015 05:21 Plansix wrote:Assholes are not a protected group. Tell that to Kim Davis? Still not exactly sure why it's wrong to give her the reasonable religious accommodation she is guaranteed under the Constitution. She wants her name removed from all legal documents relating to gay marriage or anything she religiously doesn't approve of. She is a clerk of the court and is supposed to execute court orders and documents. Literally a core part of the job. Do it or resign. Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 12:26 Ravianna26 wrote:
What I'm getting from this conversation is that only unprincipled/fake Christians should be able to work in government.
Just an observation. I hope no one is actually saying that. As a real Christian, nope. But this stawman is pretty strong.
Well there are non-marriage related documents that she issues, and there supposedly are other clerks that could issue the licenses (with their name on it).
If she was the only person whose name could be put on licenses OR if she was a "county marriage license clerk" then its an undue burden.
I agree her personal life is a mess, and she would not get significant public support for her activities if she was not issuing marriages to straight couples, or men who wore pants instead of full robes, etc. However, whether or not the law Should support her is independent of whether or not the public agrees.
If the public really disagrees enough they can Amend the Constitution to cancel the First amendment and say "Freedom of speech except for Nazis and Homosexuals, Freedom of religion for people with popular beliefs, and Freedom of the press for the two official political parties and their subsidiary newspapers"
But until the public changes the law, the law should apply to unpopular and popular people alike.
While a 'won't issue licenses to non-virgins' stance would be hard to enforce (most people aren't showing paper work that they are virgins or not), I could see someone taking the unpopular position of not issuing marriage licenses to divorced individuals (since normally you have to prove that previous marriages are void).
|
Corrections officials in Oklahoma used the wrong drug to execute Charles Warner back in January.
The revelation was included in Warner's autopsy report, which was just made public by the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. According to the report, officials used potassium acetate — not potassium chloride, as state protocol calls for — to stop Warner's heart.
Warner, 47, had been scheduled to die on the same night as Clayton D. Lockett. If you remember, Lockett's 2014 execution was also botched. A report issued after his death, found that a phlebotomist misplaced the IV line intended to deliver the lethal cocktail of drugs directly into Lockett's bloodstream. Instead, the cocktail was delivered to the surrounding tissue and Lockett eventually died of a heart attack.
Source
|
On October 09 2015 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Corrections officials in Oklahoma used the wrong drug to execute Charles Warner back in January.
The revelation was included in Warner's autopsy report, which was just made public by the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. According to the report, officials used potassium acetate — not potassium chloride, as state protocol calls for — to stop Warner's heart.
Warner, 47, had been scheduled to die on the same night as Clayton D. Lockett. If you remember, Lockett's 2014 execution was also botched. A report issued after his death, found that a phlebotomist misplaced the IV line intended to deliver the lethal cocktail of drugs directly into Lockett's bloodstream. Instead, the cocktail was delivered to the surrounding tissue and Lockett eventually died of a heart attack. Source
At least we can be comforted by the fact that the DP deters crime and is less expensive than than life in prison.
Oh wait...
|
Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed into law a bill requiring California to produce half its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, a goal he said was key to combating global climate change.
"A decarbonized future is the reason we're here," Brown said at a signing ceremony in Los Angeles. "What we're doing here is very important, especially for low-income families."
The bill also requires a doubling of energy efficiency in buildings by 2030.
Brown insisted that the world needs to wean itself off fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
"What has been the source of our prosperity now becomes the source of our ultimate destruction, if we don't get off it. And that is so difficult," Brown said at a signing ceremony at the hilltop Griffith Observatory, overlooking the haze of downtown Los Angeles, which try as it might cannot claim to have invented smog. A London resident coined the term in 1905.
California already has some of the world's toughest air quality standards, and set a mandate in 2006 to derive a third of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal by 2020. State regulators say they already hit 25 percent last year, as huge solar farms sprouted in the desert and towering windmills went up along mountain passes.
Source
|
On October 08 2015 23:12 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 12:28 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2015 07:50 Cowboy64 wrote:On October 07 2015 08:47 Yoav wrote:On October 02 2015 05:21 Plansix wrote:Assholes are not a protected group. Tell that to Kim Davis? Still not exactly sure why it's wrong to give her the reasonable religious accommodation she is guaranteed under the Constitution. She wants her name removed from all legal documents relating to gay marriage or anything she religiously doesn't approve of. She is a clerk of the court and is supposed to execute court orders and documents. Literally a core part of the job. Do it or resign. On October 08 2015 12:26 Ravianna26 wrote:
What I'm getting from this conversation is that only unprincipled/fake Christians should be able to work in government.
Just an observation. I hope no one is actually saying that. As a real Christian, nope. But this stawman is pretty strong. Well there are non-marriage related documents that she issues, and there supposedly are other clerks that could issue the licenses (with their name on it). If she was the only person whose name could be put on licenses OR if she was a "county marriage license clerk" then its an undue burden. I agree her personal life is a mess, and she would not get significant public support for her activities if she was not issuing marriages to straight couples, or men who wore pants instead of full robes, etc. However, whether or not the law Should support her is independent of whether or not the public agrees. If the public really disagrees enough they can Amend the Constitution to cancel the First amendment and say "Freedom of speech except for Nazis and Homosexuals, Freedom of religion for people with popular beliefs, and Freedom of the press for the two official political parties and their subsidiary newspapers" But until the public changes the law, the law should apply to unpopular and popular people alike. While a 'won't issue licenses to non-virgins' stance would be hard to enforce (most people aren't showing paper work that they are virgins or not), I could see someone taking the unpopular position of not issuing marriage licenses to divorced individuals (since normally you have to prove that previous marriages are void).
Why do you think the law would support sole county clerks retaining their position while saying their religion prevents them or any of their deputies from issuing marriage licenses to interracial couples, or gay couples, or straight couples? I am genuinely curious, because I am pretty sure any person bringing that suit would lose.
I'm not sure any court has held that the First Amendment allows individuals in government to not only not perform their duties because of their religious beliefs but also prevent the other people in their office from performing their duties. Indeed, the fact that she is no longer doing the latter makes me think the incredibly obvious solution of just not putting her name on them or condoning them was the solution after all (whether the licenses are "valid" is immaterial).
|
On October 09 2015 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Corrections officials in Oklahoma used the wrong drug to execute Charles Warner back in January.
The revelation was included in Warner's autopsy report, which was just made public by the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. According to the report, officials used potassium acetate — not potassium chloride, as state protocol calls for — to stop Warner's heart.
Warner, 47, had been scheduled to die on the same night as Clayton D. Lockett. If you remember, Lockett's 2014 execution was also botched. A report issued after his death, found that a phlebotomist misplaced the IV line intended to deliver the lethal cocktail of drugs directly into Lockett's bloodstream. Instead, the cocktail was delivered to the surrounding tissue and Lockett eventually died of a heart attack. Source
Didn't we just hear a few days ago about an execution being stayed because the department received potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride? Was that also Oklahoma?
|
On October 09 2015 01:14 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Corrections officials in Oklahoma used the wrong drug to execute Charles Warner back in January.
The revelation was included in Warner's autopsy report, which was just made public by the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. According to the report, officials used potassium acetate — not potassium chloride, as state protocol calls for — to stop Warner's heart.
Warner, 47, had been scheduled to die on the same night as Clayton D. Lockett. If you remember, Lockett's 2014 execution was also botched. A report issued after his death, found that a phlebotomist misplaced the IV line intended to deliver the lethal cocktail of drugs directly into Lockett's bloodstream. Instead, the cocktail was delivered to the surrounding tissue and Lockett eventually died of a heart attack. Source At least we can be comforted by the fact that the DP deters crime and is less expensive than than life in prison. Oh wait...
And lets not forget that amazing 2-3% error rate. Lets add an permanent penalty to a system we know is flawed.
|
It's a miracle! Carson is stealing spotlight from Trump by out Trumping him. Is there still space available in Greenland?
|
On October 09 2015 01:25 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Corrections officials in Oklahoma used the wrong drug to execute Charles Warner back in January.
The revelation was included in Warner's autopsy report, which was just made public by the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. According to the report, officials used potassium acetate — not potassium chloride, as state protocol calls for — to stop Warner's heart.
Warner, 47, had been scheduled to die on the same night as Clayton D. Lockett. If you remember, Lockett's 2014 execution was also botched. A report issued after his death, found that a phlebotomist misplaced the IV line intended to deliver the lethal cocktail of drugs directly into Lockett's bloodstream. Instead, the cocktail was delivered to the surrounding tissue and Lockett eventually died of a heart attack. Source Didn't we just hear a few days ago about an execution being stayed because the department received potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride? Was that also Oklahoma?
I don't see why it would make much of a difference. It's the potassium that kills you.
|
I'm against the death penalty, but there are much easier, efficient and humane ways to "administer" it than these ridiculous drug cocktails.
|
On October 09 2015 01:41 JumboJohnson wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 01:25 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 09 2015 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Corrections officials in Oklahoma used the wrong drug to execute Charles Warner back in January.
The revelation was included in Warner's autopsy report, which was just made public by the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. According to the report, officials used potassium acetate — not potassium chloride, as state protocol calls for — to stop Warner's heart.
Warner, 47, had been scheduled to die on the same night as Clayton D. Lockett. If you remember, Lockett's 2014 execution was also botched. A report issued after his death, found that a phlebotomist misplaced the IV line intended to deliver the lethal cocktail of drugs directly into Lockett's bloodstream. Instead, the cocktail was delivered to the surrounding tissue and Lockett eventually died of a heart attack. Source Didn't we just hear a few days ago about an execution being stayed because the department received potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride? Was that also Oklahoma? I don't see why it would make much of a difference. It the potassium that kills you.
Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, what's the difference.
|
On October 09 2015 01:42 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 01:41 JumboJohnson wrote:On October 09 2015 01:25 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 09 2015 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Corrections officials in Oklahoma used the wrong drug to execute Charles Warner back in January.
The revelation was included in Warner's autopsy report, which was just made public by the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. According to the report, officials used potassium acetate — not potassium chloride, as state protocol calls for — to stop Warner's heart.
Warner, 47, had been scheduled to die on the same night as Clayton D. Lockett. If you remember, Lockett's 2014 execution was also botched. A report issued after his death, found that a phlebotomist misplaced the IV line intended to deliver the lethal cocktail of drugs directly into Lockett's bloodstream. Instead, the cocktail was delivered to the surrounding tissue and Lockett eventually died of a heart attack. Source Didn't we just hear a few days ago about an execution being stayed because the department received potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride? Was that also Oklahoma? I don't see why it would make much of a difference. It the potassium that kills you. Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, what's the difference.
An oxygen atom.
Anyway I think they should just use helium or nitrogen asphyxiation.
|
On October 09 2015 01:41 JumboJohnson wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 01:25 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 09 2015 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Corrections officials in Oklahoma used the wrong drug to execute Charles Warner back in January.
The revelation was included in Warner's autopsy report, which was just made public by the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. According to the report, officials used potassium acetate — not potassium chloride, as state protocol calls for — to stop Warner's heart.
Warner, 47, had been scheduled to die on the same night as Clayton D. Lockett. If you remember, Lockett's 2014 execution was also botched. A report issued after his death, found that a phlebotomist misplaced the IV line intended to deliver the lethal cocktail of drugs directly into Lockett's bloodstream. Instead, the cocktail was delivered to the surrounding tissue and Lockett eventually died of a heart attack. Source Didn't we just hear a few days ago about an execution being stayed because the department received potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride? Was that also Oklahoma? I don't see why it would make much of a difference. It's the potassium that kills you.
Well, I don't know the difference between potassium chloride and potassium acetate, so I can't form any sort of informed opinion in that regard beyond the fact that there is probably some non-ignorable difference. But I do remember that in the earlier case, the scientists claimed that they both are effectively the same for the purpose of execution.
I just find it interesting that it popped up again. It's mentioned because the potassium acetate is against state protocol. Although, again, I don't know enough to know what the criteria for said protocol would be.
|
McCarthy drops out of House Leadership race.
|
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) stunned lawmakers Thursday by abruptly announcing that he was withdrawing from the race to become the next House speaker.
The California Republican, who was having trouble convincing GOP conservatives to support him, said the party needs a fresh face to take over after current Speaker John. A. Boenher steps down later this month.
Lawmakers had settled in for a long session over BBQ sandwiches when McCarthy stood up told his peers he wasnt the right candidate at this moment for the speakers job.
"He simply said that he didn't want it to be divisive and when it came to running for speaker, [that] he’s not the guy," said Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, member of the Freedom Caucus.
With Congress on recess next week, another round of nomination voting is not expected until the week of Oct 19 at the soonest.
McCarthy's stunning withdrawal leaves the House GOP in disarray. Though it averts what could have been a nasty, contested leadership fight, it leaves unanswered the question of who might step in to unite the party.
McCarthy's bid for the post was hurt after a high-profile TV stumble in which he appeared to suggest that the GOP-led House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack was partly aimed at weakening Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Critics capitalized on the remark.
"That wasn't helpful,'' McCarthy said Thursday at a press conference. "I could have said it much better."
But mostly many GOP conservatives were worried the would be hard pressed to explain to voters back in their districts that they had supported McCarthy, who was seen as too closely aligned with the current GOP leadership.
Some Republicans were hoping recruit Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former GOP vice presidential candidate. But Ryan has repeatedly said he is not interested in the post.
He repeated that in a statement Thursday.
"Kevin McCarthy is best person to lead the House, and so I’m disappointed in this decision," Ryan said. "Now it is important that we, as a conference, take time to deliberate and seek new candidates for the speakership. While I am grateful for the encouragement I’ve received, I will not be a candidate. I continue to believe I can best serve the country and this conference as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.”
Source
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
