Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

Post by echaozh » Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 3:25 AM UTC

cgranade wrote: post #63

danssig wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anyone is ok with you going to hell? What would you have them do about it? I assume your answer will be "stop believing in it", to which I'll answer: should I take the same tact if I see you smoking? Assume cancer doesn't exist?

I presume you are aware that we have an extensive amount of evidence that cancer does exist and is a real and likely consequence of smoking, but that we have absolutely no evidence of a hell, much less of which actions would lead one there.

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 3:03 AM UTC

dalke wrote: post #80

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Salvation Army is anti-gay The Salvation Army I'm sure considered themselves to be extremely for people who express themselves as "gay": this is what they say on the point. http://www.salvationarmy.org/ind%5Cwww_ind.nsf/vw-sublinks/8... It's a moral judgement. Arguing that opposing the Salvation Army's position is somehow neutral would be wrong. Considering that, I can't see how they're position impacts on me at…

That document says that all homosexual conduct is misconduct, and therefore not appropriate to "Salvation Army soldiership." That is the definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Salvation Army even refuses money from the City of San Francisco, because the city requires "any business that holds city contracts and provides spousal health insurance to married couples must do the same for the gay or…

Post by mentat » Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 5:05 PM UTC

buff-a wrote: post #79

gyardley wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, point b) is correct. I get a lot of benefit from my synagogue membership, so of course I stay a member. That's common sense. Point a) is just insulting. I do them because I choose to do them. Same with everyone who's a member of any voluntary organization. We do have free will, you know. I'm going to pass on discussing memetics, but if you're interested, Mary Midgely is the author to read.

Clearly you have free will. You have chosen to give the meme influence. Still a meme. Still influence. EDIT: And in fact, you may not have free will in this case. If you have free will, why is it that most Christian children have Christian parents? Why do most Muslim children have Muslim parents? Jewish children have Jewish parents?

Post by pbhjpbhj » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 3:37 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #84

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is the definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. // What you define is discrimination based on sexual activity, homosexual conduct, and not "orientation". > The way I read it, it's more important for them to discriminate against gay people then it is to provide "warmth, compassion, food and clothing." // I guess you'd need to ask a homosexual who has used their services in some way. If you go t…

Oh give me a break. 21 states have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that's what I'm talking about. You can't, under the law in those places, discriminate against someone just because he or she is holding hands, kissing, or even having sex with someone else of the same sex. Your distinction is not relevant, and outside the meaning of the legal definition. The case you bring up - services re…