Trolls and Attention Whores

[Nick_A]

do you remember saying

"No one with a soul can be happy when selective bigotry is licensed to dominate."

so I was just wondering if you had a soul
or
if you were happy

No. I am in the process of nurturing a seed. For those like me we are happy at times and yet experience the returning feeling of emptiness for someone that realizes that there is more to human existence than life in society.

If a person can blindly accept bigotry and not be repulsed by it means that they have not begun to nurture a certain something in themselves that opens them to inner morality or the feelings of the Good Samaritan.

"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams." Simone Weil
-- Gravity and Grace

I am no Simone. I am more like the rich man in the Bible unable to give up attachments that provide transient happiness in exchange for the joys from becoming oneself by acquiring the courage to experience reality without rose colored glasses.

Something in me is called to the "pearl of great price." Have you ever experienced this or are you just content with happiness as the ultimate goal?

 

[Town Heretic]

The issue is simple.

No, but your approach is...so that's something then.

If the courts decide that it is OK to attack Christian women and children on the steps of the supreme court bowing their heads in a prayer of support for the court as an "assemblage"

It occurs to me that you have an additional problem in all of this. How would the guard know anything about the particular beliefs of the people involved in this if they weren't drawing attention to something that distinguished them from any other prayerful or meditative group? One of these days you'll need to decide that element of your story.

Now if the Court ever decides that a guard saying Ma'am and please in the exercise of his duty (however much I'd hope for a new obligation with greater latitude) amounts to an attack then we're going to all need new dictionaries.

with the potential for creating attention, it means that all people walking together while chatting will be prohibited.

Doesn't mean anything of the sort and you've been corrected on this, so you're simply being....simple.

It means families communicating must be kicked off as well.

No. It also doesn't mean the Justices will be arrested. lain:

No one with a soul can be happy when selective bigotry is licensed to dominate.

That may be your mantra, but it it's hardly your practice. Rather, you foster and promote a very particular sort of bigotry and call it by another name.

 

[Nick_A]

No, but your approach is...so that's something then.

It occurs to me that you have an additional problem in all of this. How would the guard know anything about the particular beliefs of the people involved in this if they weren't drawing attention to something that distinguished them from any other prayerful or meditative group? One of these days you'll need to decide that element of your story.

Now if the Court ever decides that a guard saying Ma'am and please in the exercise of his duty (however much I'd hope for a new obligation with greater latitude) amounts to an attack then we're going to all need new dictionaries.

Doesn't mean anything of the sort and you've been corrected on this, so you're simply being....simple.


No. It also doesn't mean the Justices will be arrested. lain:


That may be your mantra, but it it's hardly your practice. Rather, you foster and promote a very particular sort of bigotry and call it by another name.

You don't want to see the obvious. I am glad that at least the ADF does. The students gathered as they did not to attract attention. they could only attract the condemnation of a bigot.

How did the guard recognize Mrs. Rigo leading her students on a class trip? There are many possible reasons including ID pins students could wear.

Perhaps if it were young Jewish students wearing yamakas an anti-semitic guard would kick them off.

The point is when we allow selective kicking off steps it is bigotry. So either the court apologizes to the class or it goes to court to get a legal ruling if selective religious bigotry is allowed. Sanctioned selective religious or racial bigotry may be OK for you but not for me.

http://www.christianlawjournal.com/...m-praying-on-steps-of-supreme-court-building/

A group of Christian students was told to cease their prayers while they stood on the public steps leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court building, because a court police officer said it was against the law.

On May 5, a teacher, Maureen Rigo, along with students from her American History class at Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona, gathered to a side location on the bottom steps of the High Court building where they formed a circle and quietly began to pray.

As they prayed, in a conversational tone so as to not attract attention, the Court officer approached the group and told them to stop praying in that public area immediately. The prayer was stopped based on a statute, 40 U.S.C. §6135, which says:

It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

“Christians shouldn’t be silenced for exercising their beliefs through quiet prayer on public property,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Nate Kellum, who sent a letter to Supreme Court officials Thursday requesting that their police officers stop prohibiting people from quietly praying outside the court building.

“Mrs. Rigo was not engaging in a parade, procession, or assembly. She was speaking in a conversational level to those around her with her head bowed,” the ADF letter to Court officials explains. “There is no reason to silence Mrs. Rigo’s activities since these activities do not attract attention, create a crowd, or give off the appearance of impartiality. The ban on public prayers cannot hope to survive First Amendment scrutiny.”

Kathy Arberg, the public information officer for the Court told FOX News Radio that the Marshal of the Court will look into the events alleged by the Alliance Defense Fund. She added that the “Court does not have a policy prohibiting prayer.”

Kellum said the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court should be the last place to find a disregard for the First Amendment. “But that’s what happened.”

Nothing can be more clear for anyone free of anti-Christian bigotry.

 

[Town Heretic]

You don't want to see the obvious.

I believe you believe that, but the problem isn't what I don't see but what you don't know.

I am glad that at least the ADF does.

They haven't advanced your position and haven't actually advanced their legal argument, which won't be known unless and until they actually file something as opposed to publicizing their desire and involvement.

The students gathered as they did not to attract attention.

Then we wouldn't be having this conversation. A group standing on steps holding hands and praying aloud is not only going to attract attention, anyone participating in it should know that going in. At the very least the organizer should.

they could only attract the condemnation of a bigot.

Ridiculous and out of step with the conduct of the officer, who was firm but courteous by any account.

Perhaps if it were young Jewish students wearing yamakas an anti-semitic guard would kick them off.

By saying "please" and "Ma'am"...the equivalent to the N-bomb, apparently, to a citizen of Hyperbolia.

The point is when we allow selective kicking off steps it is bigotry.

Which you have no evidence is the case. What group distinguished themselves in some manner inconsistent with the permissible purpose for moving about the grounds and wasn't sent on their way with that same civility?

So either the court apologizes to the class

Doubtful, though it wouldn't be the worst idea for whoever was directly in charge of supervising the officer to do so subject to a fuller set out of the Court's intent that the guidelines be less rigorously applied to groups not interfering with its business or other visitors.

or it goes to court to get a legal ruling if selective religious bigotry is allowed.

An unsupported though oft repeated charge by you.

Sanctioned selective religious or racial bigotry may be OK for you but not for me.

Not to interrupt your heroic pose, but no one is advocating that, doofus.

Nothing can be more clear for anyone free of anti-Christian bigotry.

Given I'm a Christian and a lawyer and I'm telling you no, the only thing that's clear here is your desire to see this in the meanest, most self serving manner possible relative to this paranoid political view you mix into your religion.

 

[Nick_A]

TH

Do yourself a favor and make a conscious effort to escape from New Age critical thinking. It may save your sanity. Consider these to paragraphs:

As they prayed, in a conversational tone so as to not attract attention, the Court officer approached the group and told them to stop praying in that public area immediately. The prayer was stopped based on a statute, 40 U.S.C. §6135, which says:

And

Kathy Arberg, the public information officer for the Court told FOX News Radio that the Marshal of the Court will look into the events alleged by the Alliance Defense Fund. She added that the “Court does not have a policy prohibiting prayer.”

How can you tell people to stop praying if there is nothing prohibiting prayer? There is no reason for it but it is natural for anti-Christian bigotry.

Don't you realize that the INTENT to attract attention is different from just attracting attention? If the INTENT of the class was to attract attention asking others to gather around them and join them in prayer it would be one thing. That is not the case. All you are doing is justifying an attack on women and children that have attracted the attention of a bigot.

Don't you realize that since it is admitted that prayer isn't the issue that to deny Mrs. Rigo's class is to deny families gathering around a father or mother that is explaining something to their children about the building? It may attract the attention of some people that think how nice it is to see a family together like that. How horrible is that? How far do you want to sink to defend anti-Christian bigotry?

 

[Town Heretic]

Do yourself a favor and make a conscious effort to escape from New Age critical thinking.

Do yourself a favor and quit pretending there's such a thing. There's critical thought and your sort and that's the long and short of it.

It may save your sanity. Consider these to paragraphs:

I've read several accounts and I was the first one to set out the code in full and actually apply them to the situation. And?

Kathy Arberg, the public information officer for the Court told FOX News Radio that the Marshal of the Court will look into the events alleged by the Alliance Defense Fund. She added that the “Court does not have a policy prohibiting prayer.”

Right. And that wasn't the problem here. It's what you're attempting to make the issue out to be.

How can you tell people to stop praying if there is nothing prohibiting prayer?

See: my previous examination of the code (though I think a clearer guideline would probably keep everyone happy, as I set out in my last response).

There is no reason for it but it is natural for anti-Christian bigotry.

Sad that you think so and I've provided an alternative, so you're either dishonest or your fanaticism has the best of you.

Don't you realize that the INTENT to attract attention is different from just attracting attention?

This isn't and was never about that second leg, but even if you make it a necessary element then standing in a circle, holding hands and praying audibly in a large group is a bit like firing a shotgun into the air when your team scores. You may not mean to hit anyone but you should have realized and a reasonable person would realize that the conduct had that reasonably predictable consequence.

All you are doing is justifying an attack on women and children that have attracted the attention of a bigot.

In order: I'm doing nothing of the sort and you haven't set out a scintilla of support for that nonsense (either).

Don't you realize that since it is admitted that prayer isn't the issue that to deny Mrs. Rigo's class is to deny families gathering around a father or mother that is explaining something to their children about the building?

No, it isn't and I've already set out the difference.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

TH

Do yourself a favor and make a conscious effort to escape from New Age critical thinking. It may save your sanity.

What exactly do you mean by New Age critical thinking?

AMR

 

[Rusha]

And please don't forget this, I could have had any of them as my friends but they are the ones who need to get right.
So your love is liberal -- just as mine is except I accept doctrinal weaknesses while you accept vile piles of poop

You must have the members of this forum who take issue with you or just flat out dislike you for your trollish and dishonest behavior confused with people who would *want* your friendship.

 

[Rusha]

BTW Rainee, whatever happened to all of those declarations about you leaving this sight?

Your still being here makes you a martyr or a liar. Which is it?

 

[chrysostom]

I think we should thank rainee for bringing us all together

thank you rainee

 

[Nick_A]

What exactly do you mean by New Age critical thinking?

AMR

Critical thinking is a concept that is theoretically useful but easily falls victim to human nature and becomes its opposite.

Anyone with a drinking problem and who values common sense should be very careful when reading the linked page. There is so much room for elitism that it can become so frustrating and make you do something you don't want to. Here is an excerpt

http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.

Critical thinking presupposes an ability for impartiality which we do not have. It has been lost normal for the devolution and atrophy of emotional intellegence. In theory critical thinking is concerned with truth but actually being human CT becomes a tool to justify preconception.

New Age thought is often structured around the idea of creating our own reality without concern for objective reality. New Age critical thinking is the same. Where CT is theoretically impartial and dedicated to truth, you can see how there are so many loose ends that it easily becomes a tool to justify opinion through elitism. New Age critical thinking is the ability to use logic to justify opinion.

As you know there is a difference between a valid argument and truth. It depends upon the quality of the variables. New Age critical thinking is the skilful use of selective variables to create a valid argument which leads one away from truth.

For example there are two main reasons for the artificial division between religion and science. The first is religious fundamentalism and personal gods that deny the relevance of science. The second is the use of science to justify secular opinions through New Age critical thinking. Those guilty of New Age critical thinking in both religion and science seek to justify opinions rather than becoming open to truth.

It is the nature of the Beast. It does raise the question of how to become able to experience the exteral world without emotional bias that denies reality so as to logically reconcile science and religion and transcend the normal tendency to justify opinions. Not many are either capable of or open to doing it. It takes away the satisfactions of arguing and self justification.

 

[chrysostom]

don't ask him any more questions

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick

sorry for interjecting on my uhm thread here lol.

Sorry rainee but when it comes to exposing anti-Christian bigotry I don't feel it right to just run away.

Those like chrysostom are afraid of questions because they rock the boat. Those like me know that becoming open to questions contributes to our survival.

 

[chrysostom]

Sorry rainee but when it comes to exposing anti-Christian bigotry I don't feel it right to just run away.

Those like chrysostom are afraid of questions because they rock the boat. Those like me know that becoming open to questions contributes to our survival.

why don't you try asking a question?

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

why don't you try asking a question?

The person known as Nick a, only pontificates! Pontificators don't ask questions.
bybee

 

[Nick_A]

Do yourself a favor and quit pretending there's such a thing. There's critical thought and your sort and that's the long and short of it.


I've read several accounts and I was the first one to set out the code in full and actually apply them to the situation. And?

Right. And that wasn't the problem here. It's what you're attempting to make the issue out to be.


See: my previous examination of the code (though I think a clearer guideline would probably keep everyone happy, as I set out in my last response).

Sad that you think so and I've provided an alternative, so you're either dishonest or your fanaticism has the best of you.


This isn't and was never about that second leg, but even if you make it a necessary element then standing in a circle, holding hands and praying audibly in a large group is a bit like firing a shotgun into the air when your team scores. You may not mean to hit anyone but you should have realized and a reasonable person would realize that the conduct had that reasonably predictable consequence.


In order: I'm doing nothing of the sort and you haven't set out a scintilla of support for that nonsense (either).


No, it isn't and I've already set out the difference.

TH

Quote:
Kathy Arberg, the public information officer for the Court told FOX News Radio that the Marshal of the Court will look into the events alleged by the Alliance Defense Fund. She added that the “Court does not have a policy prohibiting prayer.”

Right. And that wasn't the problem here. It's what you're attempting to make the issue out to be.

Well the officer did say to stop praying:

As they prayed, in a conversational tone so as to not attract attention, the Court officer approached the group and told them to stop praying in that public area immediately. The prayer was stopped based on a statute, 40 U.S.C. §6135, which says:

The problem is either prayer or talking in general. If it is talking in general than parents cannot explain the building and its meaning to their children on the steps of the court. Signs must be posted saying "Do not gather and do not talk."

Sad that you think so and I've provided an alternative, so you're either dishonest or your fanaticism has the best of you.

If that is the case it will be explained. Right now if you tell women and children not to pray privately and without the attempt for outside attention when there is no law against it, it is anti-Christian bigotry.

This isn't and was never about that second leg, but even if you make it a necessary element then standing in a circle, holding hands and praying audibly in a large group is a bit like firing a shotgun into the air when your team scores. You may not mean to hit anyone but you should have realized and a reasonable person would realize that the conduct had that reasonably predictable consequence.

This is the same argument to justify rape by saying the girl invited it. Some girls dress to attract attention. Others just have good figures which are hard to hide and are not trying to attract attention but still do.

You can say that an attractive girl regardless of what she wears is vulnerable so should stay in safe zones. I don't buy it.

 

[chrysostom]

BTW Rainee, whatever happened to all of those declarations about you leaving this sight?

Your still being here makes you a martyr or a liar. Which is it?

I asked her to come back

hope you don't mind

 

[Nick_A]

The person known as Nick a, only pontificates! Pontificators don't ask questions.
bybee

And the person known as bybee only seeks to express wonderful thoughts while ignoring the results of those that endure racial and religious bigotry and the human condition in general. You wish to condemn those that interrupt the sleep of la la land to reveal reality.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Nick_A]

why don't you try asking a question?

Why is it said that only fools fight in a burning house? It is so obvious why bring it up?

 

[chrysostom]

while ignoring the results of those that endure racial and religious bigotry and the human condition in general.

do I need to check their religion and race
before
I put them on ignore?