What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Pew:Government Restictions on religion increased significantly 2009-12 (1 Viewer)

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/

If you go down to the graph at the bottom

The GRI (Government Restrictions Index) for the US went from 1.6 in 2009 to 3.7 in 2012

per Pew, we've moved from a country with low government restrictions to one with moderate restrictions, but on the cusp of high restrictions.....

thoughts?
This country does not value religious freedom as it once did. It was one of the most important freedoms when we were founded. Now people want to tax it and keep it out of all public discussions.

 
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/

If you go down to the graph at the bottom

The GRI (Government Restrictions Index) for the US went from 1.6 in 2009 to 3.7 in 2012

per Pew, we've moved from a country with low government restrictions to one with moderate restrictions, but on the cusp of high restrictions.....

thoughts?
This country does not value religious freedom as it once did. It was one of the most important freedoms when we were founded. Now people want to tax it and keep it out of all public discussions.
Why, if I didn't know any better, I might even say we the people don't want our government to play any sort of role whatsoever in establishing religion. Or something like that.

 
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/

If you go down to the graph at the bottom

The GRI (Government Restrictions Index) for the US went from 1.6 in 2009 to 3.7 in 2012

per Pew, we've moved from a country with low government restrictions to one with moderate restrictions, but on the cusp of high restrictions.....

thoughts?
This country does not value religious freedom as it once did. It was one of the most important freedoms when we were founded. Now people want to tax it and keep it out of all public discussions.
Why, if I didn't know any better, I might even say we the people don't want our government to play any sort of role whatsoever in establishing religion. Or something like that.
For our entire history, imposing any kind of tax on a religious institution was considered an infringement, now people are trying to do away with that. We are also suppose to value religious expression, but that is severely frowned upon.

 
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/

If you go down to the graph at the bottom

The GRI (Government Restrictions Index) for the US went from 1.6 in 2009 to 3.7 in 2012

per Pew, we've moved from a country with low government restrictions to one with moderate restrictions, but on the cusp of high restrictions.....

thoughts?
This country does not value religious freedom as it once did. It was one of the most important freedoms when we were founded. Now people want to tax it and keep it out of all public discussions.
Why, if I didn't know any better, I might even say we the people don't want our government to play any sort of role whatsoever in establishing religion. Or something like that.
For our entire history, imposing any kind of tax on a religious institution was considered an infringement, now people are trying to do away with that. We are also suppose to value religious expression, but that is severely frowned upon.
Settle down. The only person "trying to do away with" the exemption from taxes for religious institutions is some state legislator looking for attention. And nobody's frowning on religious expression, they just aren't kowtowing to it like they used to back when were were a homogenous nation of Christians with a couple Jews sprinkled it that we looked at kinda funny.

Put the cross away (figuratively, not literally).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I say if corporations have a "voice" in politics because they pay taxes, then churches should pay the same taxes and become corporate "voices" in politics too.

However, I would prefer if neither corporations nor churches had a voice in politics. The voice of the people has been drowning ever since the 14th amendment gave corporations "personhood". Now that many of those corporate "personhoods" are international entities, we've essentially got foriegn interests with louder voices in politics than US citizens do.

 
You guys do realize the restriction issue doesn't apply to just Christians right?
Sure, but the irony of Christians whining about being persecuted works on multiple levels. It's just too good to pass up.
I just hope that someday we will live in a country where we occasionally elect a an avowed Christian. .
My hope is that someday they can find a role model who can teach them some of the finer points of suffering persecution with strength and dignity.

 
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/

If you go down to the graph at the bottom

The GRI (Government Restrictions Index) for the US went from 1.6 in 2009 to 3.7 in 2012

per Pew, we've moved from a country with low government restrictions to one with moderate restrictions, but on the cusp of high restrictions.....

thoughts?
This country does not value religious freedom as it once did. It was one of the most important freedoms when we were founded. Now people want to tax it and keep it out of all public discussions.
Why, if I didn't know any better, I might even say we the people don't want our government to play any sort of role whatsoever in establishing religion. Or something like that.
For our entire history, imposing any kind of tax on a religious institution was considered an infringement, now people are trying to do away with that. We are also suppose to value religious expression, but that is severely frowned upon.
So I assume you were in favor of allowing the mosque in Manhattan?

 
You guys do realize the restriction issue doesn't apply to just Christians right?
Sure, but the irony of Christians whining about being persecuted works on multiple levels. It's just too good to pass up.
:goodposting:

See the stupid "no alcohol sales on sunday" thread for one example of MANY regarding how the religious types have annoyed the piss out of secular folks by projecting their morality into law. Payback's a #####.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I say if corporations have a "voice" in politics because they pay taxes, then churches should pay the same taxes and become corporate "voices" in politics too.

However, I would prefer if neither corporations nor churches had a voice in politics. The voice of the people has been drowning ever since the 14th amendment gave corporations "personhood". Now that many of those corporate "personhoods" are international entities, we've essentially got foriegn interests with louder voices in politics than US citizens do.
:lol: Good one.

 
Sidebar: Situation in the United States

The United States was among the 16 countries whose scores on both the Government Restrictions Index and the Social Hostilities Index increased by one point or more in the year ending in mid-2010. This was the first time scores for the U.S. increased on both indexes during the four-year period covered in this study.

Rising Government Restrictions

Based on the information in the sources consulted for this study, the U.S. score on the Government Restrictions Index rose from 1.6 in the year ending in mid-2009 to 2.7 in the year ending in mid-2010, moving the U.S. from the low category of restrictions to the moderate category for the first time in the four years studied. (GRI scores 2.4 or higher are categorized as moderate by this study, while scores 4.5 or higher are categorized as high.)

During the period from mid-2009 to mid-2010, a number of the sources used in the study reported an increase in the number of incidents at the state and local level in which members of some religious groups faced restrictions on their ability to practice their faith. This included incidents in which individuals were prevented from wearing certain religious attire or symbols, including beards, in some judicial settings or in prisons, penitentiaries or other correctional facilities. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that it was pursuing a lawsuit in federal court against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and various California officials on behalf of a Sikh prison inmate who, in March 2010, had been ordered to trim his facial hair in violation of his religious beliefs. The Justice Department said the state’s inmate grooming policy “imposed a substantial burden” on the man’s ability to exercise his faith.

Some religious groups in the U.S. also faced difficulties in obtaining zoning permits to build or expand houses of worship, religious schools or other religious institutions. For instance, in May 2010, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the Boulder County Commissioners had discriminated against the Rocky Mountain Christian Church by denying it permits to expand its school and worship facilities even though the commissioners had issued permits to a nearby secular school for a similar expansion. The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the commissioners’ actions violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), which protects individuals and institutions from religious discrimination in land-use decisions and protects the religious rights of prisoners and other persons confined to institutions. The Justice Department — in a report marking the 10th anniversary of the passage of RLUIPA — noted that 31 of its 51 land-use investigations from 2000-2010 involved Christian groups; most of the remaining 20 investigations involved religious minorities, including Muslims (seven investigations), Jews (six), Buddhists (three) and Hindus (one).

From mid-2009 to mid-2010, at least one state sought to restrict the application of Islamic or sharia law. In the spring of 2010, Oklahoma legislators proposed an amendment to the state constitution that would have banned state courts from considering sharia law or international law in their decisions. (The constitutional change was later approved in a statewide vote, but a federal appeals court struck down the amendment in January 2012, saying it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

And, for the first time, one of the primary sources used in this study reported that some level of government in the U.S. had imposed limits on conversion. A report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief mentions an incident at the Southport Correctional Facility, an ultra-maximum security prison near Elmira, N.Y., in which a prisoner was denied the right to change his religious designation to Muslim. The inmate complained that he could not participate in Ramadan observances without an official change to his religious designation in the New York Department of Correctional Services’ records.

Rising Social Hostilities Involving Religion

The U.S. score on the Social Hostilities Index also rose, from 2.0 as of mid-2009 to 3.4 as of mid-2010, moving the U.S. from the lower end of the moderate range of hostilities to the upper end of the moderate range. (Social Hostilities Index scores 3.6 or higher are categorized as high by this study.)

A key factor behind the increase in the U.S. score on the Social Hostilities Index was a spike in religion-related terrorist attacks in the United States in the year ending in mid-2010. In November 2009, for instance, U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan – allegedly inspired by the U.S.-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki – gunned down and killed 13 people and wounded 32 others at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas. In December 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national, attempted to set off a bomb hidden in his underwear while aboard a Detroit-bound aircraft. And in May 2010, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born resident of Bridgeport, Conn., attempted to set off a bomb in New York’s Times Square.

Other forms of social hostilities involving religion also increased in the U.S. during the most recent year studied. In Murfreesboro, Tenn., for example, some county residents attempted to block the construction of a mosque in the spring of 2010 by claiming, as reported by the Justice Department, that Islam is a “political ideology rather than a religion” and that “mosques are political rather than religious in nature.” (The mosque officially opened in August 2012, but opponents are still challenging the mosque in federal court.)

The increase in social hostilities in the U.S. also reflects a rise in the number of reported religion-related workplace discrimination complaints. The number of such complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rose from 3,386 in the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30, 2009, to 3,790 in the year ending on Sept. 30, 2010. The number of cases that the EEOC determined had “reasonable cause” rose from 136 to 314 during this period.
 
I say if corporations have a "voice" in politics because they pay taxes, then churches should pay the same taxes and become corporate "voices" in politics too.

However, I would prefer if neither corporations nor churches had a voice in politics. The voice of the people has been drowning ever since the 14th amendment gave corporations "personhood". Now that many of those corporate "personhoods" are international entities, we've essentially got foriegn interests with louder voices in politics than US citizens do.
:lol: Good one.
Yes, I was biting my tongue as I typed that.

 
I say if corporations have a "voice" in politics because they pay taxes, then churches should pay the same taxes and become corporate "voices" in politics too.

However, I would prefer if neither corporations nor churches had a voice in politics. The voice of the people has been drowning ever since the 14th amendment gave corporations "personhood". Now that many of those corporate "personhoods" are international entities, we've essentially got foriegn interests with louder voices in politics than US citizens do.
:lol: Good one.
Yes, I was biting my tongue as I typed that.
I'm picturing Mr Spock talking to himself....

 
You guys do realize the restriction issue doesn't apply to just Christians right?
Sure, but the irony of Christians whining about being persecuted works on multiple levels. It's just too good to pass up.
:goodposting:

See the stupid "no alcohol sales on sunday" thread for one example of MANY regarding how the religious types have annoyed the piss out of secular folks by projecting their morality into law. Payback's a #####.
:goodposting:

 
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/

If you go down to the graph at the bottom

The GRI (Government Restrictions Index) for the US went from 1.6 in 2009 to 3.7 in 2012

per Pew, we've moved from a country with low government restrictions to one with moderate restrictions, but on the cusp of high restrictions.....

thoughts?
This country does not value religious freedom as it once did. It was one of the most important freedoms when we were founded. Now people want to tax it and keep it out of all public discussions.
I always thought we were founded on the freedom to practice our own religion freely while severely limiting the freedoms of others who don't think like we do.

 
The voice of the people has been drowning ever since the 14th amendment gave corporations "personhood"
Wat?
I said, the voice of the people has been drowning ever since the 14th amendment gave corporations "personhood".
Ahh. How has the voice of the people reacted to the 13th Amendment making omelets illegal?
Are you arguing that the 14th is not used to establish a corporations "personhood"?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

After the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, there was some question as to whether the Amendment applied to other than freed slaves, and whether its protections could be invoked by corporations and other organizations of persons.

The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was undoubtedly to protect freed slaves.[9] However, the Amendment applies to all Americans, not only freed slaves and their descendants.

Following the reasoning of the Dartmouth College case and other precedents (see below, Case law in the United States), corporations could exercise the rights of their shareholders and these shareholders were entitled to some of the legal protections against arbitrary state action. Their cause was strengthened by the adoption of general incorporation statutes in the states in the late 19th century, most notably in New Jersey and Delaware, which allowed anyone to form corporations without any particular government grant or authorization, and thus without the government-granted monopolies that had been common in charters granted by the Crown or by acts of the legislature. See Delaware General Corporation Law. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the Supreme Court held, ipse dixit, that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection.
 
The voice of the people has been drowning ever since the 14th amendment gave corporations "personhood"
Wat?
I said, the voice of the people has been drowning ever since the 14th amendment gave corporations "personhood".
Ahh. How has the voice of the people reacted to the 13th Amendment making omelets illegal?
Are you arguing that the 14th is not used to establish a corporations "personhood"?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

After the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, there was some question as to whether the Amendment applied to other than freed slaves, and whether its protections could be invoked by corporations and other organizations of persons.

The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was undoubtedly to protect freed slaves.[9] However, the Amendment applies to all Americans, not only freed slaves and their descendants.

Following the reasoning of the Dartmouth College case and other precedents (see below, Case law in the United States), corporations could exercise the rights of their shareholders and these shareholders were entitled to some of the legal protections against arbitrary state action. Their cause was strengthened by the adoption of general incorporation statutes in the states in the late 19th century, most notably in New Jersey and Delaware, which allowed anyone to form corporations without any particular government grant or authorization, and thus without the government-granted monopolies that had been common in charters granted by the Crown or by acts of the legislature. See Delaware General Corporation Law. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the Supreme Court held, ipse dixit, that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection.
You see how your blurb talks about the reasoning of Dartmouth College and other precedents? Dartmouth College was decided in 1819.

 
The voice of the people has been drowning ever since the 14th amendment gave corporations "personhood"
Wat?
I said, the voice of the people has been drowning ever since the 14th amendment gave corporations "personhood".
Ahh. How has the voice of the people reacted to the 13th Amendment making omelets illegal?
Are you arguing that the 14th is not used to establish a corporations "personhood"?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

After the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, there was some question as to whether the Amendment applied to other than freed slaves, and whether its protections could be invoked by corporations and other organizations of persons.

The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was undoubtedly to protect freed slaves.[9] However, the Amendment applies to all Americans, not only freed slaves and their descendants.

Following the reasoning of the Dartmouth College case and other precedents (see below, Case law in the United States), corporations could exercise the rights of their shareholders and these shareholders were entitled to some of the legal protections against arbitrary state action. Their cause was strengthened by the adoption of general incorporation statutes in the states in the late 19th century, most notably in New Jersey and Delaware, which allowed anyone to form corporations without any particular government grant or authorization, and thus without the government-granted monopolies that had been common in charters granted by the Crown or by acts of the legislature. See Delaware General Corporation Law. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the Supreme Court held, ipse dixit, that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection.
You see how your blurb talks about the reasoning of Dartmouth College and other precedents? Dartmouth College was decided in 1819.
The underlined is the important part.

In giving the slaves rights they did not have before, the 14th amendment also gave corporations rights they didn't have before.

It is my belief that these new rights corporations gained from the 14th amendment have over the decades turned America into a plutocracy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top