I guess the next time you want to slander the hygiene standards of an entire global religion independent of any cultural or ethnic group, make sure they're not 90% percent of the adherents of that religion. So, just to keep score, you've accused Hispanic girls of being "religiously" predisposed towards pregnancies and STDs, and you've accused Indians of not taking showers.
I see. Do you have any data to back this assertion regarding disproportionate lack of participation in the political process? I see you have not completed high school civics. The disproportionate representation of smaller jurisdictions - and the corresponding devaluation of the franchise of residents of more populous areas is an inherent *feature* of our political system. Did you not know this? Or is it the concept of proportion that is causing your struggles?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/5m-new-christian-voters-can-decide-2012-election-group-says-55822/ I would love to see what 30 million more votes that are generally 80 percent conservative voters would do in national elections. Imagine if groups like Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers, Amish, and United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing (Shakers) would vote. That would be an additional 1.5 million mainly conservative voters. ... Yes a majority of people live in Urban centers but this should not hurt the value of rural voters.
Would you like to see non evangelicals vote in similarly proportional numbers? Your data lacks information thereupon. Would you like to see urban vote proportion ally represented alongside a rural vote? I think Gifford may have ascertained your problem- if you're not just being a doucheclown. Which is pretty likely, given that you are simultaneously arguing the opposite in another thread. And that you also are indeed the Summers eve Bozo that clutch fans deserves.
Not sure what you are getting at. Under Hinduism certain actions are considered clean and some considered unclean. Eating and cooking are considered clean and defecating and urinating unclean for obvious reasons. In a traditional Hindu house those activities should be kept far apart yet modern plumbing tends to put them together. Further modern building codes mandate a certain number of bathrooms with restaurants requiring more than other occupancies. My company had a project just today where it looked like we might need to add another bathroom to a restaurant project which would've made the cost of the project prohibitive. We managed to work around it but it would've been much easier just to say that the owners religious beliefs require them to keep bathrooms far away from eating so we shouldn't be required to add more bathrooms.
I have to admit I didn't know that. I've been very busy with work and haven't had time to take a look at the ruling in detail. That said if that was the case I don't agree with that law either.
I disagree with it. You don't see me pitching a hissy fit about every news hour since the decision. Obama likes the decision of the courts for Obamacare ruling but his staff tweets that Obama knows better than the SCOTUS on this one.
And, so much for the "limited" scope of the activist court's ruling: http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=171444
Actually, not really... the HL case ruled on a smaller number of contraceptives (described as "abortion drugs"). The other cases expand that to more/all the contraceptives in ACA.
A court majority of conservative, pushy, old Catholic men: What’s Next? A Ruling that Workers’ Insurance Doesn’t Have to Cover Blood Transfusions? Fri, 07/04/2014 - 12:25 by: Dave Lindorff http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/2369 The biggest one of course, is: Why if this is a decision based upon the Constitution’s separation of church and state, would it stop at contraception? How about a company owned by Jehovah’s Witness believers? They believe that the bible, by banning the ingestion of blood, makes any blood transfusions, or even for many believers, the storing of blood for later use, a sin. Should such employers be allowed to offer insurance plans to their worker that don’t cover blood transfusions, or perhaps that even deny coverage for operations that require blood transfusions -- for example dialysis, heart surgery, treatment for leukemia and bone cancer, or just emergency surgery following some injury that involves major blood loss? Or what about a company owned by a Christian Scientist, who opposes any and all medical intervention. Should such a company be able to offer a plan that only covers palliative care by a hospice nurse, or visits by a religious “healer”? The moronic conservatives on the S.Ct. have created a nightmare in their quest to please corporations, the Christian Right and the GOP line against Obamacare.
