Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by martyb on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the it-is-not-the-law...-yet dept.

Alabama lawmakers have voted 24-4 to allow Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham to establish a police department. The church has over 4,000 members and is also home to a K-12 school and a theological seminary with 2,000 students and teachers:

"After the shooting at Sandy Hook and in the wake of similar assaults at churches and schools, Briarwood recognized the need to provide qualified first responders to coordinate with local law enforcement," church administrator Matt Moore said in a statement, referring to the mass murder of 20 first graders and six teachers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut by a deranged man with an AR-15 style rifle just before Christmas 2012. "The sole purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide a safe environment for the church, its members, students and guests." The church would pay the bill for its officers.

[...] "It's our view this would plainly be unconstitutional," Randall Marshall, the ACLU's Acting Executive Director, told NBC News. In a memo to the legislature, Marshall said they believe the bills "violate the First Amendment or the U.S. Constitution and, if enacted, would not survive a legal challenge." "Vesting state police powers in a church police force violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment," his memo states. "These bills unnecessarily carve out special programs for religious organizations and inextricably intertwine state authority and power with church operations."


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:08AM (32 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:08AM (#493181)

    * Which - or whose - laws will they be empowered to enforce?
    * Can they arrest someone for a law that only they recognize?
    * Who are they accountable to?
    * Under what circumstances will they have jurisdiction over other law enforcement agencies and what can or will they cover up?
    * Will they have the same levels of immunity as local or state police, county sheriffs, etc?
    * What could possibly go wrong?
    * WTF are these people thinking?

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:10AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:10AM (#493183)

      Mosques need not apply.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:35AM

        by davester666 (155) on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:35AM (#493290)

        Yeah, I can see R's exploding heads now if this had been a story about Muslims instead of Presbyterians. And they would be thrown out of the lawmakers officers. And probably arrested for suggesting the idea.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:20AM (21 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:20AM (#493191)

      Funny, that a Christian church should be questioned when they want a police force - but Muslims aren't questioned at all. As has been pointed out multiple times, Islam is not a "religion", but a political, judicial, AND religious movement. By definition, Islam empowers it's own police force, it's own court, it's own judges. But, do you ask any rhetorical questions about Islam's presence in the United States?

      I agree - WTF are people thinking?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:42AM (14 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:42AM (#493197)

        And Christianity is not a political, judicial, AND religious movement? 10 commandments at courthouses? "In god we trust" on all your money? Have you never heard an American politician speak? I admit they are hard to understand sometimes cause they are gargling Jesus' balls pretty hard.

        Full disclosure: I'm an Atheist and think people are free to believe in whatever nonsense they want, but no religion should be endorsed or given preferential treatment by the state.

        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:14AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:14AM (#493213)

          You're not paying attention to history at all. At one point in time, The Church ruled supreme throughout most of Europe. At a later point in time, The Church ruled - but less supremely - throughout Europe and the New World. Since then, the authority of The Church has been eroded drastically.

          Now, if you're worried about a Christian church creating it's own police force, then you MUST reject the presence of Islam in the US, or you are a hypocrite. At least Christian churches have that "render unto Caesar" teaching. Islam has nothing similar. Islam DEMANDS that all governments submit to Islam and Sharia law. Islam does not recognize any government's legitimacy.

          Make up your mind here. Either Islam is permitted to subvert the American government, or they are not. The same decision must apply to both. Anything else, and you are a hypocrite.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:24AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:24AM (#493222)

          "Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. … Islam doesn’t care about the land or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfill that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is Jihad.” -- Sayeed Abdul A’la Maududi, founder of Jamaat-e-Islami.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Hairyfeet on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:13AM (11 children)

          by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:13AM (#493247) Journal

          Christian nutballs have killed less people in 30 years than Islam dirtbags have killed in the last 6 months. When the Christians start racking up triple digits damned near every month? THEN you might have a point...oh wait except you wouldn't even then (which just FYI is never gonna happen) because the Christians all rush to CONDEMN the nutballs that kill in the name of Jesus, not cut a check to their families for their service to God and treat them as martyrs instead of the shitstains they really are.

          Why stupid fucking middle class white people can't seem to grasp this is beyond me, but its REALLY simple...the other religions grew the fuck up, Islam didn't. And this is a really big deal because when the other religions were stoning women and chopping hands off of thieves? The most dangerous weapon they had was slings and arrows, not Sarin gas and dirty bombs. Until Islam grows the fuck up like the other religions they need to be treated just like the communists were, they need to be isolated with as little contact with them as humanly possible. Let them keep their oil and sit in the sand and rot until they grow the fuck up and accept that other people have the right to not believe their bullshit and be left alone.

            Until the day comes when they are not stoning rape victims and throwing gays off of roofs? No contact should be the rule of the day.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:19AM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:19AM (#493260)

            Christian nutballs have killed less people in 30 years than Islam dirtbags have killed in the last 6 months.

            Do we count the Irish Republican Army or the US Army in those numbers? Are we taking into account all of the civil wars in the Middle East where they mostly kill each other, mostly caused by the US destabilizing those countries? Or do we only count mass shootings and other "terrorist" attacks, which ones do we count, and which ones do we not since they are not caused by Muslims and are therefore "not really terrorist attacks, you know"?

            Looking from outside of the US, it sure looks like the most deadly, irrational, destabilizing influence in the world today is the US :/

            World police, my ass.

            • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:34AM (2 children)

              by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:34AM (#493263) Journal

              Not this fallacy again. Are the IRA or US Army killing people for the purpose of advancing Christianity? No.

              • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:13AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:13AM (#493283)

                Not this fallacy again. Are the IRA or US Army killing people for the purpose of advancing Christianity? No.

                The Lord's Resistance Army sure the fuck is and the Pope just apologized for the catholic church's complicity in the Rwandan genocide.
                Don't forget the Bosnian genocide of muslims at the hands of christians either.

                Meanwhile ISIS is mostly killing other muslims, regular muslims who aren't killing anyone for the purpose of advancing anything.
                When the vast majority of muslims think ISIS are unislamic assholes, [pewresearch.org] deciding that they are representative of islam is just motivated innumeracy.

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday April 14 2017, @08:22AM

                by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Friday April 14 2017, @08:22AM (#493874) Homepage
                Straw man - he was countering "have killed less" not "have killed for the purpose of advancing their religion less".
                --
                I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
            • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:16PM

              by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:16PM (#493529) Journal

              I'll just leave this here [youtube.com] completely debunking your argument but protip: The IRA didn't have diddle shit to do with religion, they didn't target civilians, and again killed less in 30 years than the Islamists do in 6 months.

              --
              ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:44AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:44AM (#493280)

            Christian nutballs have killed less people in 30 years than Islam dirtbags have killed in the last 6 months.

            Meh..ISTR Christians and their stooges directly killing about 100,000 people in the Iraq debacle, 26,000 in the Afghan debacle, if you want to talk figures deaths caused indirectly by the shit-stirring actions of your 'Christian nutballs', well, Iraq the total jumps to 250,000 or so, Afghanistan you get 91,000, by destroying Libya you get around 400,000.

            Point is, fine, followers of Islam are nutjobs, but so are Christians..I also feel the need to point you to 33,000 people being killed each year, something like 3 per hour shot dead in that fine upstanding Christian country that is the US, maybe because that's nominally-Christians killing fellow nominally-Christians in your eyes that's somehow 'different' or 'acceptable', maybe the last thought that goes through their head is 'well, thank fuck at least I wasn't murdered by a fucking Islamic dirtbag..'

            Christians all rush to CONDEMN the nutballs that kill in the name of Jesus...

            John 8:7, their book, and I don't see a lot of people in allegedly Christian governments practising that one...

            ...not cut a check to their families for their service to God and treat them as martyrs instead of the shitstains they really are.

            I refer you to the way you turn state paid thugs (aka Military) into 'heroes' when they get killed, and hell, they've even got a whole welfare infrastructure supporting them and their families as well.

            Why stupid fucking middle class white people can't seem to grasp this is beyond me, but its REALLY simple...the other religions grew the fuck up, Islam didn't.

            If we're going to play the 'grow the fuck up' card, it took Christianity 2000 years (give or take, lets round it) to get to this point, Islam started 700 years later (again, rounded date), so, lets see a summary of where Christian countries were 700 years or so ago... [wikipedia.org], well, lookie see, Christians killing other Christians, the church splitting, Jews getting it in the neck for being Jews..and, let's not forget, the rolling party that was the Inquisition started to pick up the pace, peaking somewhere in the 1500s and only finally ran out of steam in the 1800s..wasn't a good time to be a heretical Christian either.

            And this is a really big deal because when the other religions were stoning women and chopping hands off of thieves?

            Last heretic killed by the Inquisition?, 1826 in Christian Spain
            Last of the 50,000 or so 'witches' killed in Europe?, 1782 in Christian Switzerland.
            Historically speaking, not that long ago.

            The most dangerous weapon they had was slings and arrows, not Sarin gas and dirty bombs.

            Oh, look here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org] FFS!, or track down some books on the subject..

            Until the day comes when they are not stoning rape victims and throwing gays off of roofs? No contact should be the rule of the day

            I refer you to the way rape victims are treated by the system in the west (Disclaimer: one of my sisters was raped, and not a fuck was given by the system, so I'm slightly bitter here), as for gays, I refer you to Alan Turing and his forced Chemical Castration, way back in the mists of time, or the 1950s if you prefer.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:40AM (4 children)

            by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:40AM (#493293) Journal

            I demand to know, who killed Hairyfeet? Obviously he has been killed, killed dead and non-existent, since the person posting under this nom-de-internet is clearly not the original hippy geek that enjoyed fixing computers for the straights. I prefer to think that Hairfeet is dead, than to admit that old age can so violently twist a liberal leaning normal person into a Right-wing _Nut-job. So, who ever you are, I suggest you relinquish control of Hairyfeet's account, and let him rest in peace. Because right now, even this Hairyfeet cannot pass the Hairyfeet Challenge.
            .
              Hairyfeet, you are dead. I know, since I see dead people, and they do not even know they are dead. But this is one of the first signs: if you find yourself agreeing with Bill O'Reilly, you may already be dead. They are just keeping you alive, technically, so you can vote in the next elections. Do not let yourself be used in this way, Hairyfeet! Next thing your know, necrophilia and spare parts harvesting. Did I not tell you to stay away from the alt-right? Poor bastard, Hairyfeet. If only he still had a Challenge. If you fail the Challenge, Hairyfeet used to throw you off the roof, no homosexuality required! Only not being a Micro$oft shill.

            --
            #freearistarchus!!!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:46AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:46AM (#493297)

              Even liberals can't ignore the San Bernardino and Pulse nightclub attacks. But I guess you didn't notice those particular 63 dead people.

              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:33AM (1 child)

                by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:33AM (#493302) Journal

                Oh, dear, my precious AC! Yes, people have died. They sometimes die for really stupid reasons. You memory, however, is very, very short term. As a 2400 year old philosopher, let me remind you of some more recent atrocities, to allow you to balance your perspective.

                Just hearing a lot on the radio (Alright, NPR, you might not hear of this if you are listening to Hannity, but if you are, there is your problem) about Jim Jones and his People's Temple: 900 people drank the Koolaid. (Funny, the radio reports keep saying something like "dried powdered fruit punch": It was Koolaid, People's of the Temple! This is where we get the phrase "Drank the koolaid" as in "jmorris has drank the koolaid". And Hairyfeet? He drank the Microsoft Koolaid, and then he got "better", but it hasn't made a difference on his wacko political positions.

                .
                Speaking of Waco, The Branch Davidian! Koresh was the re-incarnation of Jesus, which as I understand it, means you were obligated to have sex with him, and stockpile automatic weapons. Alright, it was Texas, so to the neighbors it was not all that unusual. But still, a lot of folks, many of them children, died in the standoff, one that did not have to happen if the leader had not been batshit-nutjob-insane. 86 dead.
                .
                Oklahoma City, right-wing nut-job vet. 168 casualties. Evil bastard blew up a day care. Babies. Even the Donald recognizes that this is wrong.
                .
                Kent State? Only four.
                .
                Haymarket?
                .
                Homestead Strike? Pinkertons, the "Blackwater" of the day.

                .
                So what is your point, AC? A very few religious crazies have killed a very few number of Americans? Kind of like totaling up the Lord's Resistance Army's number of kill of abortion doctors, isn't it? Or as I prefer to do, the number of deaths of church groups in buses going to or from the casinos or whorehouses that are killed by some idiot Christian Texan in a Dually who is texting so hard as to cross the centerline? What is your point, AC? Do I have to come over there and point out to you that I will not kill you, today? But that God may well kill you tomorrow, for no goddamned reason. God is like that. Ask not, for he works in mysterious ways, and one of those mysterious ways may be just killing you, or giving our dear Hairyfeet some well deserved dementia. Helps him sleep at night, after he has got all those youngers off his damn lawn. And trust me, having been alive as long as I have, I have seen this go down many, many times. You should pray for mercy, so you do not end up like Hairyfeet. Poor, poor bastard.

                --
                #freearistarchus!!!
                • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:15PM

                  by HiThere (866) on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:15PM (#493528)

                  Your rant would have been more impressive if it had been based in the same time-frame that you were responding to. And it could have been.

                  --
                  Put not your faith in princes.
              • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 17 2017, @07:58PM

                by butthurt (6141) on Monday April 17 2017, @07:58PM (#495459) Journal

                Yes, and how can anyone espouse liberalism after the Charleston church shooting?

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:48AM (#493201)

        Yes, but unlike in Dearborn, MI, this time they actually can enforce Christian-branded Sharia law.

        I'm not aware of a Mosque that's managed to get a status like this in the USA.

        If you like bacon, run for the hills!

      • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:14AM (4 children)

        by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <{axehandle} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:14AM (#493248)

        ...Islam is not a "religion", but a political, judicial, AND religious movement. By definition, Islam empowers it's own police force, it's own court, it's own judges...

        In the US?

        --
        It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:57AM (3 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:57AM (#493299) Journal

          In the US?

          Yes. But of course, it is not possible. But we have many cowards and pansies, like jmorris (I spit upon his buttocks!) and Runaway 1992 (may he be covered in paisley! ) who are so afraid of what they do not understand, that they think that another thing they do not understand (the US Constitution) would allow Sharia law to be imposed in the America, so that Runaway, for example, would have to get all gay married and wear a hijab, but as I said, these people are idiots.
          .
          Do you know who else has it's own law, and courts? Yes! Christians! The Bastards? These fucking Christians are trying to impose their law upon the rest of us, saying that if a Priest rapes a young boy, it is a religious experience (right? Runaway? Why did you runaway? You have only told half of the story. . . ), and that women cannot control their own bodies, and that if the Pope says a war is unjust, like Bush's adventure in Irag, then America is a war criminal. But we knew all of that already.
          .
                Did you know that the Church (not you, you pretend protestants! And especially not you, you Mormons who are not even Christian!) has it's own Ecclesiastical Courts, that follow Canon Law, which claims to have universal jurisdiction? You, jmorris and Runaway, are probably already condemned to eternal hellfire, just for not being Catholic. Of course, maybe th Mormons have baptised you into their own version of Church law, so you are alright, as long as you have never drank alcohol, used tobacco, or had sex with a horse. On the other hand, it could be that the Mormon Law, or the Canon Law, or the Sharia Law, have absolutely not standing as Law under the Constitution of the United States of America, so all your cowering cowardice is for nought, you pathetic coward.

          --
          #freearistarchus!!!
          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:28PM (2 children)

            by HiThere (866) on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:28PM (#493539)

            The point isn't that it's the Christians, but rather that it's the religions. The Christians aren't really any worse than the Muslims, they just have access to more power.

            That said, while I don't like the religions being in power, I'm not totally sure that they're any worse than the Corporations (or any other centralized economic group, so say companies, but these days that's usually the Corporations, but historically that wasn't true). Their abuses are different, but that doesn't inherently make them worse. Of course, you could consider the centralized economic power as the religion of Mammon. And the worship of centralized authority could be considered the religion of Jupiter. So most of the groups that I don't think should hold power can be attributed to one religion or another, if you're willing to be flexible about your definitions.

            The problem is that centralized power inevitably becomes corrupt, even in its own terms. And this is because the people in charge are self-centered. In society this is inevitable as those who are driven to seek power always have an advantage over those who aren't in the acquisition of power. So over time the top position becomes more and more frequently occupied by some loon whose main goal in life is to grab power. Sometimes for his own advantage, as thats the most sane reason to seek power, but also sometimes just to hold and exercise power. This is the main reason I think a lottery might be be near-optimal form of office selection. You'd need a bunch of safeguards to decentralize power, as occasionally you might get a real winner, but look around the world today and say that it would actually be worse.

            --
            Put not your faith in princes.
            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday April 15 2017, @07:14AM (1 child)

              by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 15 2017, @07:14AM (#494327) Journal

              The problem is that centralized power inevitably becomes corrupt, even in its own terms.

              Ah, Lord Acton: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!" (Look it up, Here. [phrases.org.uk]

              Usually, I like to combine this observation with that of Sir Francis Bacon, who said: "Scientia est potentia." Or he did not, but only something similar. [wikipedia.org] So we end up with a tag line that I have seen on the internets, so it must be correct:

              Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil.

              Such poetry, it could have been Steve Bannon!

              And this is because the people in charge are self-centered.

              I will have to disagree with you here, Soylentil There, I think that those who are merely self-centered are not nearly as dangerous as the "true believers". Take President Trump (please!!!), if he is just in this to make money, the entire downfall of the United States might just go against his own self-interest. And I am sure that Jared and Ivanka will explain this to him in words he can understand. But those who think that they are part of some great plan? Those who are willing to sacrifice themselves, and all the rest of us, for what they perceive as some absolute value, like VP Pence does? Those are the ones that are the most truly corrupt, the most dangerous, the least able to see their hubris and folly, and therefore the ones to keep far away from the levers of power. These are the Anti-social Injustice Deplorables, the AIDs, and they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be dissuaded, they will just keep coming, and coming, especially if they dine alone with a woman who is not their wife.

              --
              #freearistarchus!!!
              • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday April 15 2017, @05:42PM

                by HiThere (866) on Saturday April 15 2017, @05:42PM (#494498)

                You are only considering the person at the top rather than the entire bureaucracy. But it's true that an ideology is a potent means of centralizing control. Still, consider the difference between Lenin and Stalin.

                --
                Put not your faith in princes.
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:50AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:50AM (#493202)

      > * Which - or whose - laws will they be empowered to enforce?

      God's.

      > * Who are they accountable to?

      God.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:53PM

        by DannyB (5839) on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:53PM (#493367)

        But don't worry. God will deliver his will and guidance exclusively through the church's leaders who will be his sole representatives in this and all other matters.

    • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:06AM (1 child)

      by Whoever (4524) on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:06AM (#493211)

      What do pupils do when they want to report sexual harassment (or worse) by a teacher? Go to the in-house police? Somehow I don't see that having a good outcome, but then, perhaps I am just a cynic.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:56PM

        by DannyB (5839) on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:56PM (#493369)

        What if pupils want to report sexual assault done by the church's private police?

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:49AM (#493243)

      * Which - or whose - laws will they be empowered to enforce?

      God's. It's all right there in the Bible.

      * Can they arrest someone for a law that only they recognize?

      Of course. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You do read the Bible, don't you?

      * Who are they accountable to?

      God.

      * Under what circumstances will they have jurisdiction over other law enforcement agencies...

      Any time God tells them they can.

      ...and what can or will they cover up?

      Everything, because God.

      * Will they have the same levels of immunity as local or state police, county sheriffs, etc?

      No, they won't be the same. These will be worse.

      * What could possibly go wrong?

      We could run out of popcorn.

      * WTF are these people thinking?

      about:blank [about]

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by deathlyslow on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:20PM (1 child)

      by deathlyslow (2818) <wmasmith@gmail.com> on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:20PM (#493470)

      This really is no different than public schools or hospitals with their own police agencies. Do you have the same issues with non-government groups having police powers or are biased due to it being a religious entity that has both primary and secondary education on campus? I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm truly interested your reasoning. My thoughts are if they abide by the same rules and regs as all other accredited agencies there's really no problem.

      • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:54PM

        by SomeGuy (5632) on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:54PM (#493622)

        The problem should be obvious.

        It is fair to say that most private police forces have some agenda - usually enforcing laws that normal government law enforcement cant be arsed with. They must still operate within the law. Most companies recognize reality and most of the time work within the laws of the real world.

        But when you have a bunch of wackjobs who seriously believe in some imaginary magic sky fairy, especially a magic sky fairy that is perceived as having some kind of authority and ocasionally hands down its own "laws" (usually the result of someone getting high, or making up their own laws and putting magic sky fairy's name on it), then it becomes almost a certainty that they will eventually make up and enforce their own laws - such as making a law to rape all non believers.

    • (Score: 2) by driverless on Friday April 14 2017, @10:26AM

      by driverless (4770) on Friday April 14 2017, @10:26AM (#493898)

      I'm waiting for a publisher like MacMillan to create a police force. Then we'd have literal Grammar Police.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:09AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:09AM (#493182)

    Isn't a police officer, by definition, a person whose job is funded by a government? There's nothing legally questionable about a church hiring armed guards, but they would be private security, not police.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:17AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:17AM (#493216)

      No. There are plenty of private police departments in the US (Officers work for a corporation/organization, not the Government). They usually have to meet their states' law enforcement training standards and be established by law or other state specific procedures. If someone is acting in a law enforcement capacity then they're going to be "sworn" to uphold the Constitution of the US and State Constituton/Laws, regardless if they're being paid by the government or a private employer. Each State can pass a law defining who can call themselves Police and enforce laws. How do you think private (non-state) colleges/universities have Campus Police departments?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:22AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:22AM (#493240)

        You are right:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

        Its still skeevy as shit though. Way too easy for private organizations to co-opt the power of the state for their own purposes.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday April 15 2017, @07:34AM

          by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 15 2017, @07:34AM (#494330) Journal

          "Police" has it's roots in πόλις, which is Greek for "city". If the police are not municipal law officers, they are not police. Sometimes we name things by analogy, so might might call "rent-a-cops" "cops" for short, or refer to MPs as "police", but neither of these would be strictly correct. Private in Greek is "ἴδιος", from whence English gets the word "idiot". So I would suggest, if you are going to allow private security forces, you call them "Idiotes", not "police".

          --
          #freearistarchus!!!
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:00PM

      by DannyB (5839) on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:00PM (#493374)

      Disney World has it's own private police. Disney World hires off duty law enforcement to work for them. And pays higher rates than the minimum "consulting" rates. So officers are inclined to work for Disney. The off duty police are always on-property and available. Arrests are all above board and done by real law enforcement.

      Gee, I can't imagine any possible conflict of interest for a vast money making machine to hire off duty officers, in uniform and official vehicles, who probably have a standing arrangement with their regular employer to have enough extra hours to make a hefty income from Disney.

      Maybe the church should examine this approach more closefully.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:15AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:15AM (#493186)

    Remember when the Pope had authority over kings?
    Remember when Bishops had standing armies?
    Remember the Inquisition?
    Remember the constant (ab)use of religious authorities' power?
    People who remember history do!
    Mandatory bible check, kids, open your backpacks!

    • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:52AM

      by Magic Oddball (3847) on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:52AM (#493269) Homepage Journal

      I'd really wonder about anyone who claimed to remember the Crusades or Inquisition…that is, unless they were referencing Monty Python. I do, however, remember learning about them in school, along with the reality that authorities of all types eventually abuse power if given enough for it to matter.

      --
      How many bananas do we need to qualify as a banana republic?
  • (Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:16AM (23 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:16AM (#493188)

    Are Christians involved?
    The ACLU is against it.

    Are Muslims involved?
    The ACLU is for it.

    Are police involved?
    The ACLU is against it.

    Are illegal immigrants involved?
    The ACLU is for it.

    Are conservatives being prevented from speaking on college campuses?
    The ACLU doesn't care.

    Are minorities not being given preferential treatment especially for them?
    The ACLU cares a lot.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:21AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:21AM (#493192)

      Baiting for replies, are we? Not very subtle.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:40AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:40AM (#493194)

        I'm sorry. I ran out of guns to clean and Sunday school lessons to write, got really bored and wrote that troll post.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:03PM

          by DannyB (5839) on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:03PM (#493375)

          "The voices told me that I should clean the guns today." says church spokesdroid.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:42AM (#493196)

      Whaaa! Whaaa! Moan! Whaaa!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:45AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:45AM (#493199)

      Hypocrisy is so easy - just make up your mind that some end result is good, then you can justify any inconsistencies in policies.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:52AM (#493203)

      ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:15AM (6 children)

      by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:15AM (#493214)

      Are conservatives being prevented from speaking on college campuses?
      The ACLU doesn't care.

      Actually, the ACLU has made the right noises in support of banned speakers on campuses. Did they airdrop lawyers in? No. So give them a half-assed C for at least making a nominal effort to uphold their stated principles when it hurt the Narrative.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:08AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:08AM (#493245)

        Did they airdrop lawyers in? No.

        Once again juhmoris proves himself to be a liar:

        Defending Freedom of Speech for Everyone, ACLU Sues UCSD to Enforce First Amendment Rights of the Student Press [aclu.org]

        June 1, 2016

        Acknowledging that speech may sometimes provoke and offend, the San Diego ACLU filed a lawsuit today against UCSD administrators to enforce core First Amendment rules against targeting the press or taking action based on the viewpoint of speech.

        The Koala publishes a satirical newspaper that routinely provokes outrage and offense. In response to a Koala article mocking “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” UCSD’s student government eliminated all funding for student media.

        ACLU Sues District Over Barring Anti-Islamic Shirts [campussafetymagazine.com]

        November 29, 2009

        The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 23 against the Alachua County School District charging that school administrators unlawfully censored students’ free speech on multiple occasions when high school, middle school and elementary school students were suspended and/or threatened with suspension for wearing t-shirts promoting their religious beliefs about Christianity and Islam in school and at school events earlier this school year.

        And they've been doing so for decades.

        This boy's lawsuit: Alan Newsom's $150,000 t-shirt [readthehook.com]
          Thursday Jan 29th, 2004

        Alan Newsom looks like a pretty typical 13-year-old. He wears standard eighth-grade garb– the backwards baseball cap, baggy, low-slung jeans, and a t-shirt.

        It's the latter item of apparel that propelled Newsom into court and provoked a precedent-setting decision on school policy and the First Amendment.

        Two years ago, when he was in the sixth grade at Jack Jouett Middle School, Newsom spent the weekend at an NRA Shooting Sports Camp learning about rifle target shooting and gun safety. Jazzed about the camp, he wore its bright purple t-shirt to school on April 29, 2002.

        But once he got there, he was asked to remove it. That request led to a lawsuit against the Albemarle County School Board, the superintendent, and principals at Jouett. Backed by NRA legal muscle, Newsom claimed his First Amendment rights had been violated and sued for $150,000.

        The two sides lined up amicus briefs. Those agreeing with Alan's First Amendment argument included the ACLU of Virginia and the state attorney general's office, which noted that the school's policy would ban many Virginia symbols, such as the state seal (with its semi-nude female warrior holding a spear), and UVA's crossed-saber sports logo.

        Iota Xi v. GMU, 1992 [gmu.edu]

        United States Court of Appeals,
        Fourth Circuit.

        Victor Michael Glasberg, Victor M. Glasberg & Associates, Alexandria, VA, argued, Jeanne Goldberg, Victor M. Glasberg & Associates, Alexandria, VA, Michael P. McDonald, Center for Individual Rights, Washington, DC, Stephen B. Pershing, ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for plaintiffs-appellees.

        ...
          Sigma Chi has for two years held an annual "Derby Days" event, planned and conducted both as entertainment and as a source of funds for donations to charity. The "ugly woman contest," held on April 4, 1991, was one of the "Derby Days" events. The Fraternity staged the contest in the cafeteria of the student union. As part of the contest, eighteen Fraternity members were assigned to one of six sorority teams cooperating in the events. The involved Fraternity members appeared in the contest dressed as caricatures of different types of women, including one member dressed as an offensive caricature of a black woman. He was painted black and wore stringy, black hair decorated with curlers, and his outfit was stuffed with pillows to exaggerate a woman's breasts and buttocks. He spoke in slang to parody African-Americans.
        ...

        Conservative lawmaker, ACLU back ban on campus curbs on 'hate speech' [baltimoresun.com]
        March 13, 1991

        With ACLU leaders standing at his side at a news conference, the Illinois lawmaker denounced what he called a wave of "thought control" on an increasing number of campuses in response to a rising incidence of student verbal attacks on blacks, Jews, Asians, women, the disabled and gays.

        He said such attacks were "deplorable" and commented that "I don't think people should make hate or racist comments." But, ZTC he said, the time had come to ensure free speech rights on all campuses when they get federal funds.

        Nadine Strossen, ACLU president, said the Hyde bill would provide "a means to challenge efforts at enforced orthodoxy."

        • (Score: 1, Redundant) by jmorris on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:32AM (4 children)

          by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:32AM (#493252)

          Ok, fair enough. Hadn't seen those so good on them! However I knew they used to be more aggressive defending the rights of anyone. I was thinking of the recent big splashy cases where they said the right stuff but didn't do more, letting organizations like FIRE do the actual work. And did you notice that you only found the one example from Obama's election forward to now? And it was defending a student newspaper, not a high profile speaker. When UC Berkley went up in flames to shut Milo up, where was their lawyer drop? How about any of the other speakers being silenced in the $current_year? Do you see -anything- on aclu.org right now that isn't perfectly aligned with the Democratic Party's agenda?

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:21AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:21AM (#493286)

            When UC Berkley went up in flames to shut Milo up, where was their lawyer drop?

            Just who exactly do you think the ACLU should be suing, the rioters? What specific policy was the cause of the 'flames?'

            How about any of the other speakers being silenced in the $current_year?

            Yeah, more vagueness. Name one of these speakers that was silenced. Not disinvited after protest but still free to stand in the quad and say their shit, actually silenced.

            I don't think you really understand what the ACLU does, they are just a generic liberal boogeyman to you. How come they don't live up to your strawman expectations? Because they are strawman expectations.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by Magic Oddball on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:30AM (1 child)

            by Magic Oddball (3847) on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:30AM (#493289) Homepage Journal

            It would've made no sense for the ACLU to be involved in the UC Berkeley case, as the campus had fully backed his right to appear and had provided campus security (who also acted as armed escorts to & from the location). He was in the student union building waiting to speak when masked anarchists (who have become a huge problem at Bay Area protests) showed up at the peaceful student protest outside and essentially began rioting — smashed the student union's massive windows, threw fireworks, etc. They evacuated him for safety reasons at that point, put the whole campus on "shelter in place" lockdown and called in help from local police & other campuses.

            --
            How many bananas do we need to qualify as a banana republic?
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:56AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:56AM (#493308)

              So. What you are saying is. Its all the ACLU's fault and they should sue themselves into non-existence?

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:40PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:40PM (#493404)

            This is why we denigrate you jLo, you are proven to be incredibly wrong about the ACLU but you double down with a more recent story that doesn't really apply. At least you acknowledged the ACLU did defend conservatives, but that doesn't stop you from trying to land your original point. Brainwashed fool.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by goody on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:08AM (7 children)

      by goody (2135) on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:08AM (#493236)

      In 1978 the ACLU defended the rights of the Nazis' free speech, so there's an example of the ACLU caring about conservatives speaking.

      • (Score: 3, Disagree) by jmorris on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:36AM (6 children)

        by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:36AM (#493254)

        No, National Socialists aren't Conservative; Pretty much the opposite in point of fact. Find anything in the Conservative Canon that supports any other opinion. Start with Kirk's The Conservative Mind, include National Review or any other widely read material in the Conservative movement. Or just go straight to Burke if you want. I'll wait. [Jeopardy music plays]

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:00AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:00AM (#493310)

          At first glance it looks like you are defending conservatives from the accusation of being nazis.
          But in fact you are a (((nazi]]] [soylentnews.org] who does not want to be associated with conservatives.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by goody on Thursday April 13 2017, @11:33AM (4 children)

          by goody (2135) on Thursday April 13 2017, @11:33AM (#493328)

          I'm not sure why you're using the "National Socialists" term, but I presume it's because that's the literal German term for Nazis, and some US conservatives often use this to claim Nazis are socialists and therefore leftist and/or liberal. They're not. The German term means nationalist. Note that I'm using the common US meaning of liberal and conservative which aligns more with left and right, and not the textbook one. Libertarians are essentially liberal right-wingers, but don't use that L word in front of them.

          My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and conservatives aren't Nazis, but there are plenty of Nazis that agree with and align themselves with conservatism or consider themselves conservatives and totally reject liberalism. Proper and educated conservatives like Kirk, Brooks, Buckley, and others may reject Nazism but the fact is many rank and file conservatives quietly agree with it. "Proper conservatives" for the most part rejected Trump, but you see what happened there, and Trump did get the Nazi vote out.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:57PM (#493460)

            He hopes that the only reason we think Nazis are deplorable is because they're called National Socialists.

            Perhaps he actually believes we've been brainwashed (by (((them)))) to hate only the name Nazi.

            Then he feels that he's justified in being a deplorable because he's not in an organization called National Socialism.

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:30PM (2 children)

            by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:30PM (#493479)

            No there aren't. There are government educated morons who neither know what a Nazi or a Conservative is, who LARP online. There are some in the Alt-Right however, although most of them are also just LARPing, they are the 1488 types who hang out at Stormfront and get abuse from all sides, because the real Nazis at Stormfront know they aren't on the Right and the rest of the Alt-Right knows Hitler was a Socialist and that Nazis are losers. Don't waste time feeling sorry for em though because they are f*ckin' Nazis.

            The German term means nationalist.

            No it doesn't. Nazi is a acronym and it means exactly what it says, National Socialist German Workers Party. You can find their official political Platform online with a click these days so ignorance is not excusable. Leave out the jew hate planks and Bernie Sanders would only object that the remainder doesn't go far enough. WWII was a fight between International Socialism (Russia, U.S. and England) and the heresies of National Socialism (Germany, sorta Italy) + Fascism ( Japan, sorta Italy).

            You guys really need to evolve your vocabulary beyond just calling anyone who isn't a Progressive a Nazi. It isn't working anymore.

            • (Score: 2) by goody on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:19PM (1 child)

              by goody (2135) on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:19PM (#493500)

              The Nazis weren't true socialists in the way we use the term in the US today. It's a typical conservative tactic to stress the word "Socialist" and deceive people into linking socialism in the US with Nazism. I'd like to say that isn't working anymore, but it's working quite well. If you pick and choose planks from their platform you can find compatibility with both left and right views in the US. But for some reason they're real keen with the right and Trump. You have to ask yourself, why is that?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:05PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:05PM (#493607)

                Because Trump is a socialist just as surely as they are.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:31PM (#493541)

      Better be an illegal Muslim minority then :-)

      American Chaos Lawyer Union?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:07PM (#493608)
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by system32 on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:57AM

    by system32 (5465) on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:57AM (#493205)

    The National Cathedral (private organization/church) in Washington, DC has had private "Special Police" for years. Their Officers work for the church and have full Police powers on their property, granted by the DC government and their laws.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:57AM (16 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:57AM (#493206)

    Paul says to obey secular authority. And what happened to turning the other cheek, huh? Good grief, I know atheists who are better Christians than these Christians.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:40AM (13 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:40AM (#493225) Journal

      Turn the other cheek, and when you're hit a second time, whip out the AR-15 and blow the sumbitch into eternity. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius - Arnaud Amalric

      --
      #Hillarygropedme
      • (Score: 4, Funny) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:38AM (1 child)

        by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:38AM (#493292)

        You seem jealous we have the best sorting algo.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:01PM (10 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:01PM (#493419)

        Care to point me to which translation of which verse says that? In all the years I've studied this stuff, in English and Latin and Koine, I've *never* seen any passage stating that if you're hit a second time you have permission to go Rambo on the attacker...and, oddly, not a single mention of semiautomatic weapons in the entire Bible.

        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:21PM (9 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:21PM (#493435) Journal

          1 Samuel 15:3 They all look alike to me, how do I know which are Amalekites?

          Don't be so literal. The same God who says to love your neighbor did command a number of genocide-like slaughters. And, if the silly Jews had just obeyed their commander, things would have been vastly different. Those Jew boys thought some of those Canaanite girls were nice looking, so they saved some of them for weekend entertainment. See where it got them? Look at Palestine today!

          I can see by your frowny face that you insist on being serious. Well, fek it - I've never told you that I'm a "good Christian", I've only told you that I'm Christian. I agree with the Muslims on one thing. There are many ways to hell, and I'll take my own way, thank you very much.

          Oh - wait. You're not one of those who actually believes any of that fairy tale crap about streets paved with gold, and being given angel's wings, sitting on marble benches and playing harps while praising God? If that be paradise, I'd rather kick puppies and eat kittens for breakfast here on earth, and then go to hell.

          Oh yeah - one more kinda serious point. You want a number of assaults that you must withstand, before you respond in kind? Matthew 18:22 Some of us can't count that high, so we take a shortcut at two. ;^p

          --
          #Hillarygropedme
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:24PM (8 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:24PM (#493439)

            Oh good grief, that you call yourself a Christian at all with your worldview and (lack of) morals is a sick joke. You've chosen your own path to Hell all right. And you've got maybe 10 or 20 years left before you end up in it.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:34PM (7 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:34PM (#493445) Journal

              Uh-huh - and listen to YOU. Judge not, lest ye be judged? Who set you up as the gate keeper?

              Life is just to damned short to take seriously. It's all a bad joke. I don't understand the joke, but at least I realize it's just a joke.

              --
              #Hillarygropedme
              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:29PM (6 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:29PM (#493478)

                Congratulations, you're an atheist! Stop pretending to be a Christian. I am most definitely not one, and will never be a member of ANY of the Abrahamic death cults.

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 14 2017, @01:45AM (5 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 14 2017, @01:45AM (#493761) Journal

                  Agnostic, maybe - atheist no. While you're trying to figure things out, you might read up on any number of more famous popes, bishops, or whoever else. They've all questioned their faith. They've questioned whether God is real. Whatever you think you are, you've also had those times. "WTF is life all about? Do I have any idea? Is what I believe for real? What if it's all bullshit?"

                  And, stop trying to put round people into square holes, fat people into skinny holes, and screwy people into straight holes. That's a big part of what's wrong with all religions, and all governments. I am exactly what I am, and not the way you like to see me be (Linda Ronstadt song there) and I'm perfectly happy with that. YOU don't get to define what a Christian is, you don't even get to define what a good Christian is. You're just like every other asshole in the world, with your own opinion. And, you know what they say about opinions.

                  And, oh yeah. 42. Don't forget, 42.

                  --
                  #Hillarygropedme
                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 14 2017, @02:21AM (4 children)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 14 2017, @02:21AM (#493783)

                    Yeah, what they ought to say about opinions is "they're all opinions, but the more they draw from and comport with observable reality the better they are." What they DO say, unfortunately, is a dangerous fallacy. "One opinion is as good as any other" is *false,* plain and simple, end of story, the exception being purely aesthetic judgments.

                    And you are not going to get away with that fallacy here, Runaway. I would say a Christian who doesn't do what Jesus says is a pretty fucking poor Christian, and supposedly, so does Jesus. And, if one is a Christian, it's his opinion (heh) that matters, isn't it?

                    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 14 2017, @01:57PM (3 children)

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 14 2017, @01:57PM (#493962) Journal

                      Fallacy? What fallacy? You don't believe that 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything? You can't be serious. Even the pope believes in 42!

                      http://www.americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/jesuit-priest-offers-hints-media-working-papal-visit [americamagazine.org]

                      --
                      #Hillarygropedme
                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 14 2017, @05:36PM (2 children)

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 14 2017, @05:36PM (#494097)

                        No no, the fallacy of one opinion being as good as any other. This is not the case, and anyone with even the smallest capacity for critical thought will realize this.

                        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 14 2017, @05:53PM

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 14 2017, @05:53PM (#494111) Journal

                          But, I didn't say that one opinion is as good as any other. What I referred to was, "Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one, and they all stink." Of course one opinion isn't as good as another, because mine are superior to yours. Even you recognize that, because you keep reading my opinions. Do you waste time reading your own opinions?

                          --
                          #Hillarygropedme
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @08:01PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @08:01PM (#494173)

                          Never argue with runaway. He drags you down to his level, and it will never end.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:50AM (1 child)

      by dyingtolive (952) on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:50AM (#493268)

      Why would you expect organized religion, particularly Christianity, to suddenly start practicing what they preach now, of all times?

      What absolutely fucks my brain about this is that if this winds up creating legal precedent for religious police, then they just opened the door for sharia law enforcement, which I thought was the boogy-man de jure. Of course, it's also Alabama: There's a reasonable possibility they just haven't thought their cunning plan all the way through.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:54PM (#493368)

        Sharia law is OK when it's Christians taking your bacon at gunpoint.

        Gays only matter when it's Moslems who want to stone them.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:11AM (9 children)

    by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:11AM (#493212)

    Sounds like they want the same Campus Police that most large colleges and universities have. They should be permitted to have it subject to the same regulations that any other educational institution would be. Anything else is religious bigotry, straight up. Remember the 1st Amendment only forbids the government establishing a State Church, it does not, and certainly was not intended to, discourage or forbid religious institutions from enjoying -every- right and privilege any other person or group of people enjoy.

    So they get 'police' that are more than mall cops, less than real cops until they get big enough to incorporate as a town in its own right, but that WOULD have consequences since a real town can't be a church. That would require a government entity with an 'established church' and that would be out of bounds. They would gave to run the town government under purely secular rule, assuming they could even pull it off at all. But 'real cops' have to be hired by a government entity so they be sworn agents of the State, have sovereign immunity, have the lawful right to initiate the use of force, etc.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:34AM (#493224)

      The fact that any college would have police with arrest powers is pretty broken. The same goes for Disneyworld. I have to wonder how the money plays out... are these places still paying for regular police? If so, does the local municipality try to cause this situation (saving money on cops while collecting taxes) on purpose? Do insiders and outsiders get equal treatment, or at least as well as a town would do? It sure looks like use of force and immunity would be part of the deal, otherwise I don't see why this requires legislative action.

      Also, we do sadly have non-secular towns. There is one by a Mormon splinter group, and there is a Jewish one in New York, and some Muslim ones seem to be forming up near the Great Lakes. Non-believers are hounded out of town by unfair policing, purposeful interference with stuff like city water hookup and various permits, and "interesting" public schools. For example, public schools in the Jewish one are 100% special education. (normal kids go to religious school, the town doesn't really fund the public school, but there is federal money for special needs students)

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:10AM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:10AM (#493246)

      Sounds like they want the same Campus Police that most large colleges and universities have.

      Maybe they should start paying property tax like most large colleges and universities do.

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:01AM (6 children)

        by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:01AM (#493258)

        Find a degree granting university that pays taxes. They don't pay property tax, they don't pay income tax, their endowment is tax exempt on both the principle and the income it generates from investments in the stock market, they don't pay sales tax. Of course we aren't even counting the ones that are actual government entities, since obviously they don't pay taxes. They all get plenty of tax money though. At least the religious ones that are still actually religious don't tend to suckle the government teat very much.

        Of course the above takes as given the lie that Progressivism / Cultural Marxism isn't itself a religion, that one qualifies for plenty of government money and is even taught openly at government operated institutions. Basically it is our Established State Religion.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:29AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:29AM (#493287)

          Find a degree granting university that pays taxes.

          MIT is the single largest tax payer in the city of Cambridge. [mit.edu]

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:15PM (1 child)

            by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:15PM (#493466)

            You must be government educated. Reading is fundamental.

            Economic impact and innovation catalyst. MIT has a far-reaching impact on the economy of the region. The Institute is Cambridge’s second largest employer and largest taxpayer, representing 14% of the city’s revenue stream. MIT pays taxes on its commercial property and provides an annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for property that is used for academic purposes and is legally tax exempt. In fiscal year 2016, the Institute made a voluntary PILOT contribution of approximately $2 million to the City of Cambridge and paid approximately $50 million in real estate taxes.

            I bolded the important part for you. They operate in a nest of Democrat politicians who saw the large sacks of cash at MIT and found a way to get a taste, despite their tax exempt status. Which I can sorta understand; when the biggest industry in your city is tax exempt it strains the ability to supply the Blue College Town amenities those same MIT types will be demanding. Places like MIT have used their endowments to buy up a LOT of commercial real estate and spin out whole businesses and for a long time they managed to keep all of that tax free. Even with the Blue Hell property tax rates that one finds in MA, imagine how much real estate and how developed it is for them to be paying $50Mil per year on it. That is a seriously large chunk of a city.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:48PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:48PM (#493590) Journal

              provides an annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for property that is used for academic purposes and is legally tax exempt. In fiscal year 2016, the Institute made a voluntary PILOT contribution of approximately $2 million

              You do realize that's saying they voluntarily pay more than they're actually legally obligated to, right?

              Nah.....nevermind.....keep digging that hole!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:50AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:50AM (#493305)

          Wow.
          You really think churches and universities are opposites.
          No wonder you are so dumb, instead of going to school, you went to church!

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:45PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:45PM (#493409)

          It has been a real treat the last few weeks watching you steadily fall into madness. Ii knew it was there, but you have been outdoing yourself almost daily!

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:03PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:03PM (#493422)

            I've spent the last year at least loudly and publicly ridiculing him (and The Shitey Uzzard, and to a lesser extent Runaway) for this crap, and it is *so* gratifying to see everyone else, even ACs, catching on finally. Thank you for this; it means all that lonely, blood-pressure-raising work wasn't in vain. It's time he and his kind got exactly what they deserve.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Lagg on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:49AM (2 children)

    by Lagg (105) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:49AM (#493230) Homepage Journal

    Only way to remove the terrified pants shitting coward mindset is - I personally believe - much like how I "cured" my OCD. Exposure therapy.

    I will need a prayer mat, a turban, eye shadow, a baggy of mescalin, 26 mexicans, 8 ounces of weed and 2 days.

    After that. We will discuss the implementation of the treatment.

    --
    http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
    8DF5 7CC6 9572 2282 4BD7 CC2C 1316 E8D2 AB04 0CBD
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:18AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:18AM (#493238)

      It's either that or the making of one hell of a weekend.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by dyingtolive on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:53AM

      by dyingtolive (952) on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:53AM (#493270)

      Fuck, I'm not Mexican, but volunteer to participate or witness as needed. Sounds like a weekend to be there for.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:17AM

    by turgid (4318) on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:17AM (#493285) Journal

    They have religious police in Saudi Arabia. They're a bit like the Central Scruitinizer, but much worse. They go around intimidating people, especially women, for silly things. Once they had a bunch of school girls burn to death in a fire. They wouldn't let them out of the building because they weren't wearing their veils or something. Congratulations America. Enjoy your return to the Mediaeval era.

    --
    Don't let Righty keep you down.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:29AM (44 children)

    by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:29AM (#493288)

    day 1. Christians form their police.
    day 2. Scientology and Islam form their police using the same laws.

    Nobody inspired by the Christ could come up with this idea. Do not allow.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:13PM (43 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:13PM (#493431)

      Oh please, the Abrahamic religions are the very model of fascism. You think in Yahweh's "kingdom" there's anything like toleration of dissent? No, the guy runs an eternal, inescapable concentration camp full of fear and fire and pain and torture for what amount to his political prisoners. The fact that it *is* a church doing this is the least surprising thing about this, because they're taking their inspiration from their God himself...and, lest you forget, by the magical math of the church that says 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, Jesus IS Yahweh.

      You have a massive blind spot concerning religion, morality, logic...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:57PM (#493461)

        Oh please, the Abrahamic religions are the very model of fascism.

        Note he wrote "inspired by the Christ", not "Christian". If you look in the bible, you'll see that Jesus very explicitly violated the rules of religion whenever he decided that following those rules does more harm than good. I'm sure most churches wouldn't like it if you decided to really follow him by doing as he did.

      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by Hairyfeet on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:20PM (2 children)

        by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:20PM (#493534) Journal

        When was the last time you saw a Baptist church stoning rape victims? Or pushing gays off of roofs?

        Again I give NOT TWO SHITS to what ANY of them believe, I care about what they DO and the evidence is so clear only Ray Charles (or a regressive) couldn't see what is plainly shoved in your face, the other religions grew the fuck up and accepted others are allowed to not believe their bullshit, Islam didn't.

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:44PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:44PM (#493549)

          I point you to, as others have, the Lord's Resistance Army. Christianity did not "grow the fuck up," its God died after a 300-year-long binge on Enlightenment thinking and the only reason it's not still in full Inquisition mode is foce of secular law. And how long THAT'S gonna last is anyone's guess, given that the John Birch society and its ilk appear to have pulled off a 50+-year-in-the-making coup.

          You're fucking naive, you know that? No one your age ought to be this ill-informed.

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:05PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:05PM (#493624) Journal
          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:05PM (38 children)

        by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:05PM (#493625)

        Jesus = God is one of the things that make your interpretation fail, so, thank you for bringing it up. The other is not considering the eternal torment as beyond time, so the concentration camp is not accurate. Luke 16 speaks about torment, but it is before the final judgment. But hey, free to picture the technically inconceivable afterlife however you prefer.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 14 2017, @01:34AM (35 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 14 2017, @01:34AM (#493754)

          Oh hell, anyone who studies this stuff and has a shred of honesty left will admit, at least in private, that Jesus did not consider himself one being with Yahweh. We even have earlier versions of the mss. that say "But of the hour, and of the day, no one knows but the Father, not even the Son" which pretty well shoots that one down via lack of omniscience on Jesus' part (and not just when he's wearing his human suit...).

          Also, "eternal torment" is a triply-inaccurate translation of the words aionios (age-during) and kolasis (discipline, moral improvement through punishment). Most of the pre-Nicene church fathers I can name (Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory Nazianzen) were Universalists, and it seems like only the ugly Latin-speakers like Tertullian were in favor of literal eternal torment--which, in proper Koine, would be something along the lines of "aidios timoria."

          Personally I suspect the correct view was either Universalism or Annihilationism, taking into account the usage of terms like "second death" and Koine words like "olethros" (utter destruction).

          In any case, you've shown yourself to be another conscienceless bootlicker for Christ with your "consider that the torment is outside time" excuse. The duration or the (a)temporal framing is not at issue here; the problem is this God of yours essentially tortures dissidents, people whose only "crime" is not kissing his ass. THAT is what I take issue with. If you don't have a problem with that, do me a favor and get the hell out of the US and go somewhere like Iran where that view is tolerated.

          • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:57PM (34 children)

            by marcello_dl (2685) on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:57PM (#494402)

            > Oh hell, anyone who studies this stuff and has a shred of honesty left will admit, at least in private, that Jesus did not consider himself one being with Yahweh. We even have earlier versions of the mss. that say "But of the hour, and of the day, no one knows but the Father, not even the Son" which pretty well shoots that one down via lack of omniscience on Jesus' part (and not just when he's wearing his human suit...).

            Read again what you cited. no one knows but the Father not even *the son*. Problem 1, it is not written "not even *me*" and in many other places Jesus refers to himself in third person. Problem 2, the Jesus that takes great care in not saying once *I AM God* while never correcting those who imply that, does that for a reason. The believer is supposed to follow his example, therefore relating to the divinity as He did. See the "Yet I want your will to be done, not mine."

            Your very same argument is used by Muslims in their tirades against the trinity, citing some 20 biblical passages. Guess what I looked all of them up, none of them offered a logically sound foundation to deny the trinity, nor even the total identity between Jesus and God which even catholics consider heresy.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:24PM (33 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:24PM (#494440)

              *facedesk*

              This is all moot to begin with, Marcello. As you well know by now, I am not an atheist; I believe in God. You, however, if you are a Christian (or a Jew, or a Muslim) do not; this Yahweh character is obviously an evil spirit. He doesn't meet the qualifications for what it is to *be* God, not to mention half that list of attributes conflicts with the other half and with observable reality. Not to mention, also, that if any such being *did* exist, nothing else would, as there would be literally no reason to create, this being already being self-sufficient, perfect, and having the property of complete, divine aseity (i.e., non-contingency).

              And you seem to have forgotten that we don't have one single blessed word written by the hand of the man himself. I disagree with the mythicist position (that there never was even a human Jesus), but I believe Richard Carrier rather well deconstructs evidential apologia for Jesus-as-God. My conclusions are closer to those of Bart Ehrman, for the reason that people like Jesus were a dime a dozen for a hundred years in either direction of his birth, and we even have records of other people named Jesus (Ye[ho]shua) who spread end-times messages and ran afoul of the ruling Romans.

              You're doing nothing but masturbating here. Cut it out.

              • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:41PM (32 children)

                by marcello_dl (2685) on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:41PM (#494931)

                Our beliefs are irrelevant, we are discussing whether one thing is logically implied in some text. You want to trust that text or not, it's your business. I said you made the same argument of muslims, that does not imply anything about the argument itself or your belief. To me it would be a heads up, however.

                I have said elsewhere I don't accept reasoning based on undefined terms made with inapplicable logic. That is, they are not arguments but opinions.

                You don't have a written word from Jesus, nor you have the scripture printed in the sky for all to obey. It is an interesting topic but ultimately has no power to prove or disprove anything, nothing else can either. Trust or distrust, the end.

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:33PM (31 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:33PM (#494982)

                  From the sound of it, you trust it. And yet you admit you have no logical reason to. This means you're either 1) a fideist or some similar animal such as a van Tillian presuppositionalist, or 2) naively taking Pascal's Wager. Neither of these reflect well on you.

                  • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Tuesday April 18 2017, @05:35PM (30 children)

                    by marcello_dl (2685) on Tuesday April 18 2017, @05:35PM (#495925)

                    > ..admit you have no logical reason to.

                    it is like admitting that not working with uninitialized variable is a good way to program, so, yes.

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 18 2017, @08:09PM (29 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 18 2017, @08:09PM (#495992)

                      Quit dodging. Are you a fidest, presupper, or something along those lines or what? Because let me tell you something: kissing up to the biggest bully on the playground is a shit insurance policy. If you really think someone with Yahweh's character won't turn on you at some point in eternity, or however you want to think of time or not-time after you're dead, you're not only evil, you're dumb as (heh) hell.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:13PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:13PM (#496860)

                        You don't see the point yet, I reject as flawed any logical assertion in the domain of a hypothetical transcendent god. Logic system is not defined, concepts are not defined. There are two categories of believers. The first one "God told somebody that..." are perfectly logical. The second one "god exists/does not exist because..." are perfectly illogical. Any pastafarian is more correct than any atheist that doesn't simply choose to not believe.

                        You want to know my faith? Christian-but-all-went-downhill-after-313-AD. Given that belief implies not knowing, and given that a god that does not behave as promised is not my god, I think most problems are not inherent in the act of belief as you seem to imply.

                      • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:14PM (27 children)

                        by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:14PM (#496861)

                        see other AC comment, it's mine

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 20 2017, @05:52PM (26 children)

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 20 2017, @05:52PM (#496963)

                          Good, so you at least know how massively wrong things went at Nicaea, though you're a little early---IIRC the Council was in 325AD.

                          Now, do you at least know what the early beliefs were? They look very little like what you probably believe; that Council was basically the death of the religion, though arguably Paul strangled it in the cradle more than 250 years prior to that.

                          Here's a hint: most of the early thinkers like Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory of Nyssa, etc, were Universalists or Annihilationists. Latin does not gloss the Koine "aion[ion/s]" properly, and doesn't make a proper distinction between "kolasis/n" and "timoria."

                          • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday April 21 2017, @02:45PM (25 children)

                            by marcello_dl (2685) on Friday April 21 2017, @02:45PM (#497422)

                            You see the theological perspective, but I was about the practical aspect of mixing religion with state which Constantin did in 313 IIRC. But no antipope or recycled pagan priest succeeded in subverting the message IMHO. As for universalism, annihilationism, I don't basically care, in fact even with no afterlife at all I would behave in the same way, you do what you think is right because it is right, not because of carrots and sticks. I just interpret the words True Life in a general sense, the kingdom of God and the True Life are already here for those who mind its message. Given that my choices are made on myself, I don't also have the problem of inducing other people to err if I were in error.

                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 21 2017, @03:44PM (24 children)

                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 21 2017, @03:44PM (#497458)

                              Congratulations, you're a Christian-flavored Deist :) Sounds like me about 10 years ago.

                              • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Monday April 24 2017, @03:11PM (23 children)

                                by marcello_dl (2685) on Monday April 24 2017, @03:11PM (#498879)

                                You are making unnecessary implications. The transcendence of God does not prevent God from interacting with the creation, in fact it does not even imply the separation between god and creation. Stating the opposite is like saying a chess player cannot move, only because he transcends the abstraction called game of chess.

                                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 24 2017, @05:27PM (22 children)

                                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 24 2017, @05:27PM (#498951)

                                  You're going off the fucking rails again, Marcello. This is not about transcendence; this is the simple fact that if this God were truly perfect and self-sufficient, *nothing else would exist,* period. There is no reason for a truly perfect, self-sufficient, non-contingent God to create, and what's more, if perfection creates imperfection, it is not perfect. Any being that demands worship is by definition not worthy of it.

                                  Face it: your God is either a myth or an evil spirit, and in either case deserves exorcism.

                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:28PM (21 children)

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:28PM (#500092)

                                    I am merely pointing out problems. For example, your latest assertion unnecessarily implies creation as being able to stand up by itself separate from God, which is a meaningless assertion, neither right nor wrong. It is questionable in light of John 1:3 and 1:11 too. A dreamer dreaming is a still meaningless but better approximation for a transcendent and immanent god, and your latest assertion in that context would pose a limit to the omnipotence of the dreamer/god.

                                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:53PM (20 children)

                                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:53PM (#500112)

                                      Uh, no, no it doesn't. Sit the fuck down and pay attention to what's being said to you. Read for comprehension.

                                      If. A. Being. Is. Absolutely. Perfect. Then. There. Is. Literally. No. REASON. For. It. To. Create. ANYTHING.

                                      Got that? And if you're going to say "but he's just dreaming!!!11111one But that's totally just a metaphor!!111" then you're accusing this thing of having some sort of power incontinence. Face it, you fucked up. You want to be a Deist, that's fine, that's what I am, but Christianity (and Judaism, and Islam) are inconsistent internally and externally.

                                      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:51AM (19 children)

                                        by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:51AM (#500564)

                                        Apply what I have been saying since joining the green site:

                                        >There. Is. Literally. No. REASON

                                        "reason" requires cause and effect requires time. Your theological implication NEEDS something, time, in which god operates, an arrow of time superior to god itself. ABSURD.

                                        > And if you're going to say "but he's just dreaming!!!11111one But that's totally just a metaphor!!111"

                                        nope, I say that if something does not compute when discussing dreams, or programmers vs simulation, it cannot be thought as a strong argument for the god vs world situation. An additional problem for an already faulty assertion.

                                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 27 2017, @09:13PM (18 children)

                                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 27 2017, @09:13PM (#500883)

                                          You've retreated into absurdity. Even if one grants you do not need time per se, you do still need some sort of ordered causality. And, again, you are discussing a Deist God, not the bronze-age devil at the heart of the Abrahamic religions.

                                          And you're dodging the second part here, again: the Christian God is not said to be purposeless or simply leaking power, but rather made a conscious decision to create. Again, if you wish to be a Deist, be my guest, but what you believe is not Christianity of any sort.

                                          • (Score: 1, Redundant) by marcello_dl on Friday April 28 2017, @01:29AM (17 children)

                                            by marcello_dl (2685) on Friday April 28 2017, @01:29AM (#500986)

                                            > you do still need some sort of ordered causality

                                            I don't. Most vocal atheists do, and many theologians do. I think that, outside time, effect is like cause is like correlation, but since we are also outside space we don't have objects correlated or independent. But this is only my model, yours is IMHO naive but equally arbitrary, both are assertions in the domain where assertions can't be made for sure.

                                            > the Christian God is not said to be purposeless or simply leaking power, but rather made a conscious decision to create
                                            And the nature of creation vs. the nature of God is not knowable from the inside of creation with absolute certainty.
                                            And Conscious Decision implies a time before time itself, where options are evaluated and discarded. Now, God itself might proclaim in some scripture: I decided to do this. Does it implies a particular model of his dimension or is it a way to communicate with to us using concepts we can relate to? "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" is a good example, conveys an idea without even attempting to explain the mechanics behind the incarnation.
                                            So, discussing the purpose or the choices of an omni-potent guy is interesting, but deriving religious dogma from that is arbitrary.

                                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 28 2017, @07:43PM (16 children)

                                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 28 2017, @07:43PM (#501287)

                                              Are you stupid or just evil? Your God either doesn't exist or is some kind of horrifying demon if it does, regardless of all this masturbation over what causality would mean for a being like it. Do you really think the Hebrews had any idea of all this space-time twisting? No! They thought the fucking rain came out of literal holes in a solid firmament! You can trace the evolution of your God off the walls of Ugarit if you know where to look!

                                              You're pretty twisted, Marcello. I don't know what you think you stand to gain by kissing up to this Yahweh thing, but I can guarantee you it won't last. If he's real he's crazier than a shithouse rat, and if you think kissing his ineffable ass is going to keep you safe around someone like that for all eternity you're even more delusional than I thought.

                                              • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday April 29 2017, @07:51PM (15 children)

                                                by marcello_dl (2685) on Saturday April 29 2017, @07:51PM (#501648)

                                                Hole in the firmament? so what? for ages we believed wrong things as scientific truth and we likely still do. So what?
                                                A star fell from the sky in the apocalypse, yet it can be a symbol for a nuclear reactor. The mark of the beast could be an implant, yet it can be a symbol for a new religion (parallel for the tefillin), the reference to the waters above might be idiomatic (oral tradition needs symbols and metric), or not.

                                                As for the rest, I don't see the problems you see, the OT god is the same of the NT Jesus, or everything is fluff. Problem, whatever proof of a difference between OT and NT god is based on theorems on fluff. So you can go as deep as you want in theology if you need answers to existential questions, personally I don't need them.

                                                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 29 2017, @08:42PM (14 children)

                                                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 29 2017, @08:42PM (#501663)

                                                  So you're one of those people who not only doesn't know, but doesn't care to know, as long as you can say "fuck you i got mine." That's not a coherent religion, and if your God is anything like what you're obligated to believe, you've earned yourself an eternity on fire. Good grief, you're one of the intellectually laziest people I've ever run across.

                                                  • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday May 05 2017, @12:12PM (13 children)

                                                    by marcello_dl (2685) on Friday May 05 2017, @12:12PM (#504795)

                                                    The rat who realizes he is in a labyrinth is likely the laziest one too, so what.
                                                    The eternity on fire is luckily to be decided by the hypothetical perfectly just judge, which I don't fear. Not because I guess I am saved or not, but because either nothing happens or whatever happens is, guess what, just.

                                                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 06 2017, @04:32AM (12 children)

                                                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 06 2017, @04:32AM (#505318)

                                                      That's not even wrong, holy shit. I think I've pinpointed your problem though: define "just."

                                                      • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:28PM (11 children)

                                                        by marcello_dl (2685) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:28PM (#506992)

                                                        Just judge in this world is giving each one according to what s/he deserves. Obviously Undefinable outside this world by us. If you wanted a theological definition IIRC matthew 21 gives some pointers.

                                                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 09 2017, @09:49PM (10 children)

                                                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 09 2017, @09:49PM (#507142)

                                                          Way to circular logic there, bro.

                                                          Define what "deserves" is. And while you're at it, explain to me how the hell a finite being's limited, temporally-circumscribed, spatially-circumscribed, vastly ignorant sins can possibly merit infinite punishment.

                                                          For bonus funsies, tell me if you know what the early Church fathers believed about that.

                                                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @02:31PM (9 children)

                                                            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @02:31PM (#507553)

                                                            Logical answer: your question is, how does a defined action earn you (undefined) because (somebody outside) (undefined)? I dunno. What I do know is that this is not basis for any kind of judgement, not because i like to censor, but because I like people not to make fools of themselves.

                                                            Theological answer:The MEANING of what you do resides in the domain of meaning, like true and false values are not bound by time or space. Eternity is not necessarily defined as an infinitely long time (the universe could be infinitely extending in both past and future yet have a creator and a judgement and a heaven and a hell). It can simple be beyond time. In fact a god bound by time is not creator of time itself so easily. So it is perfectly doable to have punishment of prize in the domain of god. Let's say you run a successful sim resulting in aware beings (which I argue should happen given the right parameters) So there are beings that you deem worthy to share your reality so you give them an array of sensor, a motor and you tell them what they see now is your own dimension. They still live in their so they still have to trust, aka believe you on that. There are other clearly defective beings which you cannot trust to behave in your reality. You leave them in the sim, you don't destroy them because Matthew 13:29. Or you do destroy them when the sim is over. Have you done anything morally reprehensible?

                                                            Practical answer: How can winning a 90 minutes final match earn you the first place in the competition forever? clearly sports do not exist or if they do, they do not award championships.

                                                            • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Wednesday May 10 2017, @02:33PM

                                                              by marcello_dl (2685) on Wednesday May 10 2017, @02:33PM (#507556)

                                                              comment above is mine.

                                                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 10 2017, @04:12PM (7 children)

                                                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 10 2017, @04:12PM (#507611)

                                                              Comment above is all kinds of false equivalence because you're implying this God does not, as it is stated, "know the end from the beginning." Why is it that you True Believers (TM) are the ones most likely to blaspheme your God, to knock out inseparable fundamental attributes he has and needs in order to *be* God?

                                                              An omniscient being. Does. Not. Run. A simulation. What would be the point? It already knows the outcome of any and all possible sets of starting conditions, and furthermore, being atemporal, from its PoV these outcomes have already happened.

                                                              Furthermore: you're making the same category error that whatever asshole who wrote "Who is the pot to say to the potter 'what has thou wrought?'" made; that being, sims and pots are not sentient, ensouled, free-willed beings. This is the root of your evil: even if by proxy (for what else is a God-concept than a human's best guess at the universal order?) you reduce people to objects and elevate whims and guesses over reality. You have thereby made your God in your own image.

                                                              And as to your "practical answer" ("How can winning a 90 minutes final match earn you the first place in the competition forever? clearly sports do not exist or if they do, they do not award championships."): it earns you *recognition* forever as the first-place winner *in that specific finals match.* And so what? What, in the end, does it mean?

                                                              Marcello, you aren't anywhere near as intelligent--or moral--as you think you are.

                                                              • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:15AM (6 children)

                                                                by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:15AM (#507878)

                                                                > because you're implying this God does not, as it is stated, "know the end from the beginning."
                                                                Nope. In fact a god outside time sees/creates end and beginning and can have freely evolving things in the middle, all "in one go" (can't say at the same time, can we). But this is theology.

                                                                > to knock out inseparable fundamental attributes he has and needs in order to *be* God?
                                                                Still theology. There is no fundamental attribute of god other than transcendence, and that only because it is part of the modefinition. Immanence already is a theological matter.

                                                                > An omniscient being. Does. Not. Run. A simulation.
                                                                Read again what I wrote. "Let's say you run a successful sim". YOU, not an omniscient being. I do NOT NEED to imply that this world is a simulation by an omniscient god for my argument. All I need is to bring to the table ONE example that says it is perfectly doable to have consequences in the domain of the creator for the acts done in the domain of the created.

                                                                My impression is that you reply on autopilot, lumping together my ideas with those of others. For example, a self aware thing is like I am, qualitatively speaking. Yet the right of the guy who runs the sim to MAKE THOSE THINGS ENTER HIS OWN WORLD trumps whatever right they have.

                                                                But You were probably discussing the right of the sim things to keep existing. It is not there, if resources are limited, for obvious reasons. If resources are unlimited? Still there is no right. It is a privilege. If you think those things should be saved, since resources are unlimited, you can take a backup. Still it's a privilege conceded by your magnanimity, right? or a cruelty inflicted on all the other aware things, that will be affected by your decision, depending on the kind of simulation. Tricky, huh.

                                                                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:09AM (5 children)

                                                                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:09AM (#507904)

                                                                  Just curious, is English your first language? There's something weird I can't quite place about your sentence structure that makes my brain squeak a bit trying to look at it.

                                                                  Your bigger problem, though, is that you don't actually seem to be paying attention to anything that's being said to you. I am saying this for the fourth or fifth time now; try and get it through your head: any being that actually had the qualities or attributes necessary to be God would be the *only thing that exists.*

                                                                  You seem to have trouble with this concept, as the last couple of times I brought it up you deflected with some irrelevant bullshit and went right on righting on. What are you not understanding about it?

                                                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @05:56PM (4 children)

                                                                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @05:56PM (#508759)

                                                                    #500092 already replied. Yours is a theorem. If god is X then does Y (or does not do it) because Z. I have already pointed out that the theorem is inapplicable from the POV because absence of time => absence of the same concept of causality we have. It is like the sim creature asking us how what kind of RAM is our world using.
                                                                    Valid for theology. Cannot be formulated outside it. Also incompatible with Christianity but who cares. I am not a native English speaker too.

                                                                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 12 2017, @06:35PM (3 children)

                                                                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12 2017, @06:35PM (#508785)

                                                                      Er, no, it is not a question of time or causality. This is a simple definition of what it means to BE GOD. Perfection, complete aseity, and utter self-sufficiency entail that nothing else would ever be created. It has nothing to do with the flow of time or causality and everything to do with plain logic.

                                                                      • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday May 13 2017, @09:41PM (2 children)

                                                                        by marcello_dl (2685) on Saturday May 13 2017, @09:41PM (#509261)

                                                                        > BE God
                                                                        note "What it means to be god" is in the domain of meaning of the domain of god.
                                                                        > entail
                                                                        Entail is causality. But let's pretend it is not, you are likely not making your own theology but telling me the Christian one is inconsistent because perfection is (according to some ad hoc mental model which I could challenge if I had not already won) logically at odds with omnipotence. Now, remember the principle of no contradiction is invalid in one domain, like U={}, so our logic system is not universe-independent (which is banal if you think how it came to be). You call it a matter of definition, but you cannot "define" where the principle of no contradiction is not necessarily valid. Definition means separating A from not A. Such a separation needs the principle of no contradiction to be valid in that domain, which is not proved now nor likely provable ever. The end.

                                                                        You are making theology dressed up as logic, and no matter how you keep calling it logic you don't make it so.

                                                                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 14 2017, @04:14AM (1 child)

                                                                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 14 2017, @04:14AM (#509341)

                                                                          Hey, dipshit, I didn't say perfection is at odds with omnipotence. I said if a being is perfect AND self-sufficient AND possesses complete aseity AND transcends space/time/causality, nothing else but that being would exist. You have not "already won," you lost before you even started.

                                                                          Thanks, by the way, for fatally undermining your entire argument; you are working from the assumption of the law of noncontradiction being invalid, which means instant game over for you as you can no longer say anything with any meaning, as anything you say may mean itself and not-itself at the same time. Jeez, you *suck* at this. This is *not* how you do apophatic theology.

                                                                          • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Sunday May 14 2017, @08:02AM

                                                                            by marcello_dl (2685) on Sunday May 14 2017, @08:02AM (#509388)

                                                                            > I didn't say perfection is at odds with omnipotence.
                                                                            So could he create a reality external to him and consubstantial WRT him or not? your theorem, or application of definiton as you put it, says no.

                                                                            > nothing else but that being would exist
                                                                            you simply reformulated the theological "god is one". You do not deny creation, you deny a particular creation standing external and at the same level of god which is not part of christian theology.
                                                                            Define existence. I did, experience is what you are doing right now, real is what can be directly or indirectly experienced, existing is what belongs to the set of real things. How does that apply to god? theologically only. What is real at one level is abstract in another.

                                                                            > you can no longer say anything with any meaning.
                                                                            I can, I do in fact, but: whatever I end up with has no meaning necessarily, this is my entire point. I am not putting forward ideas, I am defining the limits of others'. You want to sick with coding using maybe uninitialized vars? your choice. In the case of your theorem there are other problems in the code. Such as implying an imperfect world precludes a perfect and immanent god, but matthew 5 already offers a working model for it.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday April 16 2017, @12:13PM (1 child)

          by Justin Case (4239) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 16 2017, @12:13PM (#494786)

          considering the eternal torment as beyond time

          There you go again! What does "beyond time" even mean?

          undefined + meaningless = NULL

          --
          When the government can crack your encryption, criminals can crack your encryption and drain your bank account.
          • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:35AM

            by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:35AM (#500561)

            >What does "beyond time" even mean?

            Look it up in the dictionary.

            >undefined + meaningless = NULL

            defined as external to an understood concept, time + inconceivable = SOMETHING

            Note I don't tell anything about eternity itself, just like I tell nothing about gods, you are saying one cannot even bring god or eternity forth as a definition?

(1) 2