The Faith & Religion mega Thread

"In Shurtleff v. Boston, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Boston violated the First Amendment in refusing to allow a Christian group to hoist a flat[g] outside of City Hall. This [is] one of the blockbuster cases of the term." https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/s...53682909315073

Edit: Credit where credit is due - the Biden admin supported overturning the lower court decision.

sundialsvcs, It is provably true that Pharma hid evidence of negative results essentially placing rose-coloured glasses on everyone but those few within the respective corporations B U T there have NOT been 45,000 deaths from vaccine complications let alone "hundreds of thousands: as you stated, IIRC. The number is considerably less than 10,000 (closer to 6k) compared to many millions who were not harmed, who didn't and won't die, and who have avoided long term disability. Yes it sucks that there weren't 0% negative results but 0.006% isn't too shabby in the real world.

Wow! mjolnir, that's a "touchy" one. On one hand it can be viewed that letting any organization (I wonder if commie and nazi flags are allowed at City Hall?) raise a flag at City Hall is a statement of endorsement of Free Speech, in itself a good thing in my view or it can also be viewed, especially by ANY exclusion, as an endorsement of what the flag actually represents.

Considering the political division that seems to exist these days, as well as my sincere doubt that just anybody can hoist a flag representing literally anything, I think upholding "Separation of Church and State" to be more wise. Sure, hoist your flag on your own property, unless it violates some law, but at City Hall is a whole other Can Of Worms.

Originally Posted by enorbet Wow! mjolnir, that's a "touchy" one. On one hand it can be viewed that letting any organization (I wonder if commie and nazi flags are allowed at City Hall?) raise a flag at City Hall is a statement of endorsement of Free Speech, in itself a good thing in my view or it can also be viewed, especially by ANY exclusion, as an endorsement of what the flag actually represents. Considering the political division that seems to exist these days, as well as my sincere doubt that just anybody can hoist a flag representing literally anything, I think upholding "Separation of Church and State" to be more wise. Sure, hoist your flag on your own property, unless it violates some law, but at City Hall is a whole other Can Of Worms.

A small part of the synopsis - I haven't yet read the entire document.

"Just outside the entrance to Boston City Hall, on City Hall Plaza, stand three flagpoles. Boston flies the American flag from the first pole and the flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the second. Boston usually flies the city’s own flag from the third pole. But Boston has, for years, allowed groups to hold ceremonies on the plaza during which participants may hoist a flag of their choosing on the third pole in place of the city’s flag. Between 2005 and 2017, Boston approved the raising of about 50 unique flags for 284 such ceremonies. Most of these flags were other countries’, but some were associated with groups or causes, such as the Pride Flag, a banner honoring emergency medical service workers, and others. ..." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1800_7lho.pdf

Thanks, mjolnir, but I got that... thus the "Can Of Worms" assessment. Obviously the approval of some 50 other flags implies a value judgment, a process of selection and rejection. So if a Christian organization gets approval, but Quakers, Hare Krishnas, Nation of Islam, Hindu, and Church of Satan do not that demonstrates a clear bias. It's not that I'm promoting anyone of them. It's just that choosing any one over rejecting any others puts the government in awkward and very sensitive position. I think they'd be wise to avoid religion altogether on the grounds of Church vs/ State. I don't see how striking down the local governments decision can do anything but open the door to serious concern and endless conflict unless it is All or None.

Originally Posted by enorbet Thanks, mjolnir, but I got that... thus the "Can Of Worms" assessment. Obviously the approval of some 50 other flags implies a value judgment, a process of selection and rejection....

Emphasis mine. The crux of Justice Breyer's opinion seems to be, along with other grounds, that because there were never any rejected requests prior to Shurtleff, the City of Boston couldn't show that the third (city) flag pole reflected only City approved viewpoints.
Excerpt:
"Boston could easily have done more to make clear it wished to speak for itself by raising flags. Other cities’ flag flying policies support our conclusion. The City of San Jose, California, for example, provides in writing that its “‘flagpoles are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public,’” and lists approved flags that may be flown “‘as an expression of the City’s official sentiments.’”
See Brief for Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. as Amici Curiae 18."
There are of course other 'grounds' for the opinion.

@enorbet: What you are saying is simply wrong, but this is not the place to further discuss it. If you take comfort in what "medical science" reassures you, then please take comfort in it. But, I'm much more willing to believe that Big Pharma conspired against me, and against millions of people like me who they just wanted to sell products to, than to believe that those people conspired against Big Pharma. I know far too much about how Big Pharma thinks and operates, and what craven things determine their daily actions.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs @enorbet: What you are saying is simply wrong, but this is not the place to further discuss it.

I obviouisly disagree since this seems "birds of a feather" relevant to me - the persistence of dogma in the face of actual, objective evidence, not fear tactics. Please to keep it short, and off thread to accommodate your convictions, would you kindly list a few sources that show evidence for "hundreds of thousands of deaths due to vaccine"?

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs If you take comfort in what "medical science" reassures you, then please take comfort in it. But, I'm much more willing to believe that Big Pharma conspired against me, and against millions of people like me who they just wanted to sell products to, than to believe that those people conspired against Big Pharma.

It isn't a matter of good feeling or simple comfort (note this applies to religious dogma as well). It's a matter of evidence and patterns of marketing strategy and the practice of medicine (once again, not a science, just influenced by it). I've already asked you to substantiate your claim of numbers of deaths, so until you do that, lets move on to marketing forces. It is almost 100% assured that none of the pharmacy corporations will actually go under because of it but I have very little doubt that they will be hurt by the reduction in whatever confidence remains. In fact I fault them for falling prey to and in turn contributing to the rise in wildly illogical skepticism that currently plagues us worldwide due to the utter lack of integrity in most of our so-called leaders. So show the evidence please.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I know far too much about how Big Pharma thinks and operates, and what craven things determine their daily actions.

I accept that it is entirely possible that you do. You are obviously a person of considerable intellect and education. However you seem to also be subject to a number of widely known and often effectively and objectively debunked conspiracy theories, perhaps not as whack as cannibal pedophile lizard-people, but similarly resistant to dissent and evidence. For example, we have photos of the effects of the Big Bang (horrible name but it was meant to be by good ol' Fred Hoyle) AND those photos were stumbled upon by accident at first, obviously not agenda driven. Since then every fault we throw at Big Bang bears out with a few drilling down pieces yet to be resolved but should get accomplished very soon through BICEP and JWST. Think of it like Newton and Einstein. Einstein didn't destroy Newton and BICEP, JWST, whatever else comes in the future will not likely destroy Big Bang, Evolution, Men on the Moon. etc but just refine it... yet apparently, you still doubt all those events.

"Do you even bother to look at dissenting evidence or just stay down the rabbit hole?" That is the question we must all continually ask ourselves. You certainly may answer for yourself but I'm asking you here to try to grasp just how much is "far too much" and of what quality is that quantity.

Just as with organized religion, proving the book BY the book, isn't enough. To be responsible critical thinkers we must examine "the falsification" evidence, IMHO.

I have nothing further to say. Really. This time.

OK so I'm guessing "cannibal pedophile lizard-people" was a "bridge too far"?

And you guys give out to me because I'm "dogmatic"? Because I "Know it all?"
ROTFL

Somebody (mediatruck?) remarked here a while back that nobody here is open to new information, and he was right, imho.

On that note, seeing as nobody is posting here, you guys might find the Netflix film "Don't look up" entertaining. It's about a College professor(Leonardo di Caprio) and his phd student(Jennifer Lawrence?) who discover a planet-killing comet is going to hit earth in six month's time. They try to tell people.

As a JW, it gave me a real sense of deja vue.

Originally Posted by business_kid As a JW, it gave me a real sense of deja vue.

Russian Orthodox Christians apparently feel the same way! One of Putin's church cronies recently said on TV that a nuclear war would be a good thing overall because then all the Russians would go straight to heaven and the rest of us would just die.

When people who actually have access to nuclear weapons think like that, God help the rest of us!

I don't think there'll be a nuclear war.

1. Revelation 11:18 indicates that we won't be let ruin the earth, and that's what a nuclear war would do.
2. Didn't the Big 5 nuclear powers sign some agreement to the effect that a nuclear war would be unwinnable, so they won't do it? https://www.reuters.com/world/china/...ar-2022-01-03/

Originally Posted by business_kid Somebody (mediatruck?) remarked here a while back that nobody here is open to new information, and he was right, imho.

I'd like to point out that even when it is extremely painful to do so, actual research scientists are most often completely open to not only new information but career devastating information. Examples of this abound, but I'll highlight one that was particularly impactful as it happened, and was recorded as part of a live, as-it-happens, documentary at CERN about the discovery of the Higgs Boson. One fellow upon seeing the results of the energy-mass level of the Higgs, realizing it literally wiped out 30 years of his research and career.

Of course he is depressed and probably worried for his future BUT he never once assumes he was right all along and something must be mistaken, let alone fabricated by CERN... because he KNOWS the rigors of the research (5 Sigma is, unimaginably to most, high confidence) and the value to human knowledge of accepting falsification and moving on, instead, to explore the ramifications of the new information which always asks new questions.

[QUOTE=business_kid;6351089]
On that note, seeing as nobody is posting here, you guys might find the Netflix film "Don't look up" entertaining. It's about a College professor(Leonardo di Caprio) and his phd student(Jennifer Lawrence?) who discover a planet-killing comet is going to hit earth in six month's time. They try to tell people.[/code]

The film is satirical Art so whatever you get from it is valid. What I got was the scientists accept that catastrophic change is imminent so consider what possibly can be done to eliminate or minimize the catastrophe. Those in positions of wealth and power, instead, cannot even consider any change that would jeopardize their comfortable position of power and their preconceived notions that support them. Some of them actually revel in "secret knowledge" that "common citizens" won't ever know. To me, the contrast is very telling.

Originally Posted by business_kid As a JW, it gave me a real sense of deja vue.

Hmmm... fascinating.