One cannot help wondering how an Epispocal vicar can also be a judge. Surely there must be some aspect of Episcopalianism in conflict with the Separation of Church and State
but.. but.. a judge is sposed to be *above politics.
I'm not sure I've ever met anyone more capable of understanding that separation.
Peter: At present a fierce debate is underway in the highest tribunal of a religion that shall stand nameless out of Political Correctness as to whether a certain judge of a high court that shall remain unidentified for the very same reason, should not allow his religion to affect his interpretation of a significant document regarding the relationship between Church and State but which I dare not identify for fear of being accused of religious bigotry
But if we are we running the risk of PI by introducing a political issue. please accept in advance our abject apologies and feel free to delete this entire thread so as not to offend the PC
I have no idea what you were saying there, DaleH. Is this something happening in the U.S. that most folks are aware of there?
Since I don't know what you are referring to, can somebody who knows let us know if a breakdown of the facts, without any commentary as to the rightness or wrongness of them, is suitable for this forum.
It is isn't, then we shouldn't expand on it.
DaleH, who's Peter?
> who's Peter?
InselPETER.
and I was wondering at whom insel was ehing?
Now where's that "embarrassed" emoticon. Ah, voilą.
Re: insel
peter Ya, that's pretty evident. Funny eh, how you get used to calling somebody something after a few years and you don't think of them under another name.
Quote:
...can somebody who knows let us know if a breakdown of the facts, without any commentary as to the rightness or wrongness of them, is suitable for this forum.
It is isn't, then we shouldn't expand on it.
It has been decided, Belmarduke, in the interest of the civil continuation of the nature of this forum of words, that certain words are taboo. And certain subjects are taboo. It is thought that the people who post here can't be trusted to objectively discusss current events or religion without causing trouble.
They love this board.
DH:
A) Well, if you don't want to post it, send me a PM. As a matter of principle, the notion is hooey, imho.
B) MY NAME AIN'T PETER! he said sacharenely.
Quote:
B) MY NAME AIN'T PETER! he said sacharenely.
Anyone knows, it's Rock Island.
does seperation of church and state mean that only atheist or agnostics are suitable people for public life?
i don't think so.
are there times when people's personal moral standards vary with the laws of the land? sure..
here in NYS, we've had both catholic and epispicalian governer's who have made it clear they are opposed (personally) to both the death penalty and abortion.
One, veto'd every death penalty bill the NYS assembly passed, and for years, there was no death penalty in NYS.
but--he did nothing (didn't lobby, didn't campaign, didn't try to enact rules and regulations about abortion-since he came into office and this was (post roe vs.wade) the law of the land.
(there were no efforts in the NYS assembly to do anything to modify, or make abortions more difficult to abtain, so there was no legislation to veto)
since then, a second (openly religious man, who has personally stated he, too is personally against the death penalty)has been governer.
and since then NYS assembly has enacted (and the governer let pass) a death penalty law. he did not veto it, even though he was personally against the law.
(curiously, there have not been anyone convicted and sentenced with death--)
so its possible (at least in NYS!) for people to have moral convictions that are at odds with the law of the land, and for them to recognize that they have sworn to uphold the laws of the state
and since such laws currently allow for both the death penalty and for extremely free access to abortions, they do as they have sworn to do. (not as they would personaly do)
I think it is quite possible for reasonable people to recognize there is both secular law (and be a judge) and canon law (and be a active member of a church).
there is an element of christianity that says, render unto cesear that which is cesear's, and unto god, that which is god. Part of our tradition is to recognize (but keep seperate) relegion and law.
like wise here, we can talk about religion, but we general find the idea of prostilitizing unacceptable. (likewise, we do not mock or denigrade any religous belief's)
we also find the idea of political rallying to be off limits.
i won't incur any wrath for talking about the political history of the process of enacting a death penalty law in NYS.. but my own opinions, (should we have the death penaly as an option, in the law?) are not generally welcome.
its is difficult often to discuss these often emotional subjects with out expressing our personal philosophies. so, like good company, in many places, we don't discuss religion or politics here, or at the dinner table (with guests)
some might know (or think they know) my opinions on these subjects, and they may (or may not) be right. living in NY, i could be classified as a 'typical liberal'--but then again, i was raised catholic, and i am irish, and the family is filled with cops and members of law enforcement.(one generation all cops, the next,a mix of cops and Ast DA's) so am i typical liberal? or a law and order person?
it doesn't matter. this forum is not a place we discuss such philosophies.
Is this something happening in the U.S. that most folks are aware of there?
Any answer to that would be discussing politics, no?
Quote:
It has been decided, Belmarduke, in the interest of the civil continuation of the nature of this forum of words, that certain words are taboo. And certain subjects are taboo. It is thought that the people who post here can't be trusted to objectively discusss current events or religion without causing trouble.
They love this board.
This is a board about words and language, not politics and religion. As before, I would be happy to direct you to boards about politics and religions, Milo.
You're so much more human below the fold, where we talk about birds
Helen: Thank you for your comprehensive On-Topic followup, proving conclusively that there are a few of us who are willing to navigate my windy sentences
Insel: Sorry, but what shoud I post
DH: see your post starting "Peter"
A) Well, if you don't want to post it
(by "it" do you mean my followup above addressing you),
send me a PM
(most abject apologies, but still don't know what a PM is)
As a matter of principle, the notion is hooey, imho
(you might be right, but which notion, precisely)
Insel, I'm sincerely not trying to be obtuse, it just isn't clear to this old, decrepit non-ggeek at the onset of Alzheimer's, what you need
Dale, PM means "private message." You can tell if you have one by the flashing icon underneath "Welcome, dalehileman" at the top of your page. Click on that.
> flashing icon underneath
or next to.
Peter: Forgive, but I'm still not quite sure what it is I'm to forward by the PM. But I'm certain it's not so personal that I can't say it here
Quote:
I'm not sure I've ever met anyone more capable of understanding that separation.
Agreed. And I'm sure he lives with it easily, too.
Quote:
This is a board about words and language, not politics and religion. As before, I would be happy to direct you to boards about politics and religions, Milo.
And of course, Betsy, I would be more than happy to direct you to a place where you could be happy but you being happy would make me unhappy so I won't.
Dale, have you noted--this board is at wordsmith DOT org?
Anu needs some support to keep it going, (and has low key ads) but its largely a commercial free space.
we (oops, me, myself, i) like that.. so i (and a whole bunch of other people) tend not to post links to commerical sites (ok, so dictionaries sites are exceptions) if some one has an interest in something, (like say a rice cooker)
and someone else has a suggestion.. its likely to be done by PM--we--oops, there i go again being imperial!--don't often post links to stores, or suppliers, or other commercail sites.
Its not carved in stone (there are exceptions) but its sort of general rule.. (man oh man, i must be tired, we don't have no stinkin rules..)
well that the idea anyway.. (but being human, i am sure i have made a mistake or two... and posted something inappropriate once in a while.. and.. well..
Quote:
(but being human, i am sure i have made a mistake or two... and posted something inappropriate once in a while.. and.. well..
Now Helen, you are being much too apologetic.
The only times I've ever noticed that you have posted something inappropriate are the times that you have haughtily presumed your right to use the imperial "I".
But in your case and to your credit you use the imperial "I" in the lower case and i think that that habit is most endearing.
Quote:
Quote:
This is a board about words and language, not politics and religion. As before, I would be happy to direct you to boards about politics and religions, Milo.
And of course, Betsy, I would be more than happy to direct you to a place where you could be happy but you being happy would make me unhappy so I won't.
I'm sure this is not a reflection on your esteem for the lovely AnnaS and is merely based on your knowledge that making her happy would contribute to making me happy, a consequence which I am sure would lead to your greater unhappiness.
It would make me happy if you were to disabuse me of this notion.
Make someone happy,
Make just one someone happy;
Make just one heart the heart you sing to.
One smile that cheers you,
One face that lights when it nears you,
One girl you're ev'rything to.
Fame if you win it,
Comes and goes in a minute.
Where's the real stuff in life to cling to?
Love is the answer,
Someone to love is the answer.
Once you've found her, build your world around her.
Make someone happy,
Make just one someone happy,
And you will be happy, too.
Ja, wer auch nur eine seele
sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund
und wer's nie gegkonnt der stellet
weinend sich aus diesem Bund
Quote:
Dale, have you noted--this board is at wordsmith DOT org?
*******Yes I am aware of the dot. But why--did I address it wrong somewhere
Anu needs some support to keep it going, (and has low key ads) but its largely a commercial free space.
*******Forgive an old, un-hip non-geek, but is a commercial free space a space for free commercials or a space free of commercials; and to what space do you have reference, and in what way does this space relate to my followups; or in fact does it
we (oops, me, myself, i) like that.. so i (and a whole bunch of other people) tend not to post links to commercial sites (ok, so dictionaries sites are exceptions) if some one has an interest in something, (like say a rice cooker)
and someone else has a suggestion.. its likely to be done by PM--we--oops, there i go again being imperial!--don't often post links to stores, or suppliers, or other commercial sites.
*******It appears you're suggesting that somehow somewhere I must have made reference to a site having a commercial basis, and that you and Peter are suggesting that such comments be transmitted by PM. Where is this comment or link, and in what way does it seem commercial
********Is it in this thread or another--by chance, does it have to do with tapioca
Its not carved in stone (there are exceptions) but its sort of general rule.. (man oh man, i must be tired, we don't have no stinkin rules..)
well that the idea anyway.. (but being human, i am sure i have made a mistake or two... and posted something inappropriate once in a while.. and.. well..
*****I am sure that I too have made a mistake of some sort somewhere, and that all of this constitutes an effort to call it to my attention. If so and I said something inappropriate I apologize profusely but I hope you will satisfy my abysmal ignorance, as demonstrated above, in order that I may not repeat the transgression
Quote:
Make someone happy,
make someone else unhappy.
It is incomplete to say that some people achieve happiness by making other people unhappy. (Expressed another way, to love to hate is not a form of love.) It is more precisely correct to say that some people enjoy a momentary feeling of power and/or importance by making other people unhappy. Many psychologists working to help such folks move promptly to the issues of impotence, powerlessness and low self-esteem which underpin this sort of behaviour, rather than dwelling on the behaviour itself.
I know somebody like that FS. Whenever somebody is feeling particularly happy, she always manages to say something seemingly benign that is hurtful. It'll be a little comment, that looks like a compliment, but isn't, like, "How nice that you can still pull off that hemline even if it is really out of fashion."
She looks really confident, but when you really get to know her, you find that she has really low self-esteem.
Who said anything about achieving happiness by making other people unhappy?
Quote:
Who said anything about achieving happiness by making other people unhappy?
I think it was Sigmund Freud's nephew Chad N. Freud that wrote a book about that.
I think it was Sigmund Freud's nephew Chad N. Freud that wrote a book about that.
Wife ... is calling ... 911 ... to get medics ... to stop .. .uncontrollable laughter.
Here's an interesting angle on the whole church and state argument that I found in an ancient tome on English common law:
(Click here for article; warning -- it's kinda long and complicated)