Here's a link to Chicago's review of the situation...
I hate to tell you this but 12 years ago I didn't have a clue what I was doing nor do I have any chance in art anymore
Mrs Russel Where did the ruling say only morning after pills? The ruling stated any closely held companies can opt out if its religiously opposed to that part of the law. They didnt specify. Or did I miss something? Now H. L. went ahead and allowed the regular pill but that was there choice but dont think others will. Now the part I dont get is "Closely Held" If H.L. was truly closely held would they have the personal protection afforded them by a Corporation? In other words they have no personal liability by becoming a corporation but they have demanded personal religious protection. Hows that work?
Sorry, but I'm not barking up ANY tree, Clara McKenna. You can be soooo prissy, smug and snotty. Visit Sondermann personally and check out the south half of the park. You'll see a barren, ugly, stump-ridden expanse of weeds, woodchips and dirt where there used to be swaths of green, shade, birdsong and autumnal color (I go for runs on the park trails almost daily, year-round). THAT'S an improvement? Check out the lovely, lushly-wooded part of the park. A good 85-90% of it is also comprised of stately elms. Should they, too, be "banned" (as you so quaintly put it)? I applaud your declaration of faith in Forestry and its expertise (you're a very good girl), but you're the one barking up the wrong tree, Clara McKenna. No one is questioning Forestry's "expertise;" I'm protesting what’s being done to the parks – Sondermann in particular – by way of Forestry’s mission to rid them of non-native tree species (at a million bucks in taxpayer money).
Having just now perused your history of input on these pages and elsewhere in The Independent on this and other matters -- you would seem to be a frequent contributor -- I see that you chastise others for "bile" in their discourse. But an air of arch, smug, snotty put-down runs through your own pronouncements. You adopt a mantle of superior insight and acumen, flinging it stylishly over your shoulder as you ascend the lofty elevation from which you address the misguided and bestow correctives.
I'm puzzled by your pronouncement that you "know what can be done in landscaping with natives and those that mimic them." Bully. What, though, does that have to do with what happened to Sondermann or with the price of eggs in China? We ALL "know what can be done in landscaping." Me, too! And what "landscaping" are you alluding to -- the now de-treed, denuded half of Sondermann?
In your reply to this (which is certain, given precedent), please don't repeat the b.s. maneuver of charging my discourse with "bile." Yes, you piss me off. It's not because of your argument or your position, though. What rankles me -- what prompted this response -- is the unearned smugness, the coy, arch, dismissiveness, the presumption of superior acumen with which you contour and color your argument.
There's the rub.
as full spectrum LEDs become affordable ballast will disappear. problem solved..
Just a thought... I, too, wonder what in the world is it that atheists get so angry about? I don't believe (in my 70+ years) I've ever heard of an atheist being discriminated against in any way and yet some of them lash out as if being attacked and threatened with their very lives. As one comment mentioned - if you're offended, don't read (or listen) to whatever message it is that you perceive is offensive. That's the beauty of our Constitution and living in America - each and every person has the right to CHOOSE to believe or not in whatever they want. It will be interesting to see the fallout if the United States ever mandates a specific religion - such as Baptists (HEAVEN FORBID! They among others teach brotherly love & do unto others as you would want others to treat you). Or perhaps it might be Islam which calls for the death of infidels (anyone who is NOT a practitioner of the faith) and is governed by Sharia law. Oh, by the way, Sharia law is already here in the U.S. in some areas and is being considered in some law cases. To completely negate Christianity here is nothing short of "CUTTING OFF YOUR NOSE TO SPITE YOUR FACE". Really folks, get a life. Live and let live.
The drop-off between 2012 and 2013 is obviously being driven by policy, as the results in previous years show a gradual decline that could be due to any number of reasons - such as familiarity with enforcement areas. I would suggest it is a product of having both a new police chief and the death/injury of several motorcycle officers while attempting traffic stops.
Proving Bloomberg's point -- we're out in the boonies. We'll know we've made the big time when the NY Times reports on one of their reporters being hired by the Gazette or the Independent. Not holding my breath.
I believe that teacher-free education is impossible in modern society. At lest there should a teenager, somebody, who can conduct the process and control in a classroom. Children should study at public schools and get knowledge there. A few years later they can choose an online school to study remotely, where they can learn more and probably write good paper. Do you know that dissertation is very important as it teaches students how and where to find necessary information and how to clothe thoughts and conclusions in suitable language. Here is http://dissertationwritinglab.com/, good service that can support if you want to write a dissertation and learn how to make it well-written, well-structured.
With teabaggerism devastating our infrastructure I am sure many of our valued tourists will return home to tell everyone that Colorado Springs is now the "armpit of America". Way to go teabaggers.
Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me….” is not anyway connected to the Dominionists and should never have been and should not now still be wrongly associated with them. Jesus came to save us, not to condemn us. I do not see anyway that can be construed as hate speech.
God bless America
Great stuff. I love them all.
Here is a legalistic explanation of why the religious freedom of the cadet in question was not violated. I must warn you that what follows is written entirely in jest.
Christ instructed his disciples, "Do not cast your pearls before swine." The cadet thought he was acting as a proper Christian when he wrote the Bible verse on his whiteboard. Unfortunately, all of us swine got wind of it and demanded the pearls be erased. At this point, he and his supporters ought to have realized on their own that Christ's instructions applied in this case, and happily complied. Perhaps, as an American he might claim a right to write whatever he wishes on his whiteboard, but as a Christian he is bound to follow his Lord's teachings and erase it.
I also take offense at the notion that everyone who disapproves of posting this particular passage in this particular location does so because they are offended by the Bible or mention of God. Most are just uncomfortable and concerned that the location of the verse gives the appearance of official government favoritism for one religion over all others. They also realize that the Academy offers many other venues more appropriate for such expressions.
Mr. Chitwood, your heart is in the right place, but you still do not quite get the point. It is not the doctrine itself that was the problem. It was the abuse of authority by commanding officers, who have absolute authority over the cadets.
When the MRFF first addressed this problem, these corrupt officers retaliated by branding them as "atheists" and "anti-Christian." These are the same officers whom you yourself have taken so much pain to explain are not themselves true Christians. These officers have been brought into check by their superiors. They can no longer disseminate these calumnies. But they have found allies among civilians, who are not bound by military discipline, to continue their fight, and these new allies are just brash and naive enough to take the word of these phoney "Christians" at face value.
I have no issue with anyone who wants to advocate for allowing religious expression on public whiteboards at the Academy, but I do take issue with anyone who begins by repeating the Dominionist propaganda that this is a struggle against "atheists" bent on wiping Christianity off the face of the earth--especially since they ought to be thanking the MRFF for exposing the power-mad hypocrites.
I am particularly averse to invidious comparisons of anything with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. Invariably, the purpose is to pump up some more or less trivial cause by association. Invariably, the actual result is just the opposite: instead of pumping up the trivial cause they end up trivializing Nazi crimes against humanity.
When I first commented on the "analysis" offered by the two Bucks of Hitler's rise to power, my intention was not to refute their statements, but to ridicule them. However, they seemed so disappointed I decided to take a second glance at their so-called "accurate description of what Hitler represented."
The two Bucks entire "description" consists of these two sentences: "Hitler in the 1920's through 1945, formed the Nazis and spewed hatred for Jews AND Christians and other specifically targeted groups he hated! His first big task was to redefine terms, call evil, 'good' and to call 'good,' evil."
Nonsense! Hitler's first big task in his rise to power was to play divide and conquer. He did not attack Christianity at first. He attacked Jews first, calling them traitors, Bolsheviks, and most of all, anti-Christian. Only after achieving power, with the help of a few misguided Christians and many anti-Semites who called themselves Christians, did he turn on Christianity itself.
In the very same paragraph where the two Bucks have the gall to compare Weinstein to Hitler, they shamelessly employ that same old Nazi tactic, calling him an "anti-Christian rat!" Seems to me, the two Bucks bear a much closer resemblance to the Nazis. Furthermore, if American Christians do not want to share the same fate as German Christians, they ought to be very wary of "friends" working them up into a mindless frenzy against pernicious "anti-Christians."
I had no intention of making anything I said personal and will stick to that. The comments I make are my beliefs and opinions to address the persecution of an individual who is not afraid to share his faith by posting a scripture verse. You may like or dislike my comment. I would ask anyone else to do the same and avoid personal attacks, however I will respond to some comments which have addressed me personally or those who share the same viewpoints as I. I may point out a viewpoint in which i disagree or express my opinion, but that is as far as I will go.
Here are some of the words used to describe those who have stood up for the cadet's right to share his faith with others.
disgrace - wound - bigoted - ignoble - stuck pigs - tyranny - lie, cheat, steal - contort the truth . religious extremist bullies - blind sheep - blind pigs scum bag - American Fascist Association-
hatemongering religious supremacists. dupes - stooges
One cries for civility and intelligence, then uses words like these to describe the opposition. So much for civil speech and intelligent comments.
I am not a Dominionist nor do I support forcing cadets to believe or be persecuted for believing or not believing in Christianity or any other religion. The apostle Paul went to different cities to preach and the hatred for The Gospel caused riots and chaos. It is not the messenger but the message being preached that's hated. It seems that the Bible verse is being falsely linked to the bad behavior of the Dominionists and their antics. Let me make this very clear. There is no connection between true Christianity and that group. They may claim there is, but it is not a New Testament teaching.
The word Christian means Christ like. There is no such thing as a Christian who has a different viewpoint than Christ. That is like an atheist who believes in a creator. There is no such person. Neither is there a Christian who disagrees with Christ or distorts His teachings. You are either for Him or against Him. All or nothing.
As for the cadet posting the verse, God only knows his heart. It is not my
right to judge his intent. As for others that do, they are wrong for it also.
It seems there is a lot of rebuttal going on by using "What if this?" or "What if that?". A lot of this is just to try to throw someone off the real issue of being able to openly share their faith without persecution. That is what this is all about so let's stick with the issues. As far as I can see, if the Academy had not singled out an individual for exercising his rights, we would not be having this discussion. They have their reasons and a right to defend them. Those who believe this is religious persecution have that right also. Time will tell the outcome when the investigation is complete.
God bless America,
The only way to violate the First Amendment here is to deny the Cadet their right to have the Bible Verse on their door! Consider how Political Extremism violates the second clause of the amendment by prohibiting the Cadet from free exercise of their free speech.
Perhaps those who are offended by the Bible Verse should consider how God is offended by their actions.
You hinted at it without really saying it. You're both a victim of sprawl as well. You've both overbuilt infrastructure and you don't have the tax base to maintain it in the long run. You've abandoned your core (downtown) and built consecutive ring-roads towards the plains.
One last point, Mr. Chitwood. You write, "If the Dominionists are causing the problems then go after them..." In fact, the Academy has made impressive progress in going after them. The commanding officers who had been abusing their power were reigned in by their commanders.
All of a sudden, just when the military chain of command was getting the situation under control, a civilian organization jumps into the fray, spouting, by a strange coincidence, the exact same calumnies--I will not dignify them by calling them "arguments"--and lies that the Dominionists were using before they were disciplined.
Mr. Chitwood, you plead, "let the rest of us alone." At best, the "rest of you" are dupes and stooges of the Dominionist cabal. At worst, the "rest of you" are colluding with them to reverse all of the progress that has been made to restore order and true religious freedom at the Academy.
All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation