Christians are starting to figure out that ALS research uses embryonic stem cells, so this may be the end of ice bucket challenges

8/21/2014 2:39:34 PM

So they're killing people to try to stop a disease?

8/21/2014 2:48:04 PM

dono what thread this goes in, so i'll just put it here as inklings of atheist sharia law

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-28879659

can't believe people still take this guy seriously

[Edited on August 21, 2014 at 6:50 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2014 6:50:32 PM

at some point of disability it is immoral to knowingly give birth, the only reasonable debate is about where that is

8/21/2014 8:11:31 PM

Alabama. It is unreasonable to give birth to disability in Alabama. There, I solved the "where" part.

8/21/2014 8:19:48 PM

I might be thinking of a different disorder but I don't think downs is that bad. If that's the one where kids have the big heads, I don't see why they should necessarily be aborted. At least the one downs kid I know is an awesome child. I'm

8/21/2014 10:20:54 PM

I know of several people with Downs that even hold jobs. They aren't engineers, but they lead a somewhat normal life.

Funny how atheists such as this guy is such a big proponent of women having the right to choose, then goes on about how women shouldn't be able to choose?

8/21/2014 10:26:46 PM

This just in! Athiests arnt bound by a central text and have varying beliefs!!!!

8/21/2014 10:32:56 PM

^^He expressed a philosophical view, he didn't say women should be forced to abort...

8/21/2014 10:36:09 PM

If Christians were just tweeting their opinions on abortion, no one would have a problem with it

8/21/2014 11:21:09 PM

Quote :

"I might be thinking of a different disorder but I don't think downs is that bad. If that's the one where kids have the big heads"

Who doesn't know what Down's Syndrome is?

Quote :

"At least the one downs kid I know is an awesome child. I'm"

[emphasis added]

"I'm"... did that mean you have Down's Syndrome and you are the Down's kid you know?

8/22/2014 12:13:07 AM

Aren't you getting a little old to be so pedantic?

At some point, you should have enough self-confidence to not need the simple gratification of picking the low hanging fruit. I say this as advice, not a condemnation or criticism.

You got me, i am so dumb, you are so smart. I should post to TWW more like you.

Feel better now?

8/22/2014 12:35:53 AM

I don't know which part that was directed at, the first or second, but none of it was to make myself feel better. The first was serious, who doesn't know Down's Syndrome? Pics of Down's Syndrome kids are used all the time in memes, and many people use various derogatory terms for them; everybody knows what Down's Syndrome is, never met anybody who did not (it is common knowledge, not some esoteric knowledge that I can feel high and mighty about knowing). As for the second part, I was genuinely curious what you meant by the "I'm" at the end that you cut off abruptly, and did not edit or explain later, and I am still curious.

8/22/2014 1:05:47 AM

Quote :

"can't believe people still take this guy seriously"

I can tell you haven't read any of his books on evolutionary biology, so it's no wonder to me why you can't believe anyone would take him seriously if you think what he tweets would be enough to just write him off wholesale.

Quote :

"I know of several people with Downs that even hold jobs. They aren't engineers, but they lead a somewhat normal life. "

Exception rather than the rule, unfortunately.

Quote :

"Funny how atheists such as this guy is such a big proponent of women having the right to choose, then goes on about how women shouldn't be able to choose?"

I'm wondering whether you really thought about what you were typing. How is arguing the immorality of a choice arguing against the right of that choice?

8/22/2014 10:53:01 AM

^^ obciously the "I'm" was a typo. I'm Didn't ask the girls mom what was wrong with her child, I'm only speculating on her condition.

8/22/2014 11:03:09 AM

Quote :

"How is arguing the immorality of a choice arguing against the right of that choice? "

Christians have argued their percieved immorality of abortion to a point to where it was law, until Roe v Wade. Who is to say that one day this perceived immorality to birth disability won't become law, and infringe on rights?

And at what point would we draw the line? I think that question was asked earlier in the form of "where." Mental issues? Physical issues? We don't know what the future holds for genetic testing and how well we will be able to predict a person's life, but this would be a scary precedent.

I'll take it a step further into salisburyboy territory. If we value human life so little as to get rid of one that we know will have problems, why not go ahead, at that point, and get rid of all the current people with those problems? Anybody in an auto accident that severely disrupts their mental capacity? Society doesn't need them anymore, and poor poor Johnny just can't lead a normal life. We should just terminate him.

8/22/2014 12:23:55 PM

you said

Quote :

"unny how atheists such as this guy is such a big proponent of women having the right to choose, then goes on about how women shouldn't be able to choose?"

Dawkins, nor any other atheist (why did you use "atheist". did you just mean "pro-choicers"?) that i'm aware of have "gone on about how women shouldn't be able to choose".

8/22/2014 12:29:35 PM

Yea, pro-choicer would have been a better word to use. But have you ever seen an athiest that was pro-life? They're a rare breed.

And maybe I incorrectly insinuated that Dawkins is up on a podium saying that his opinion should be law. But it doesn't take very much for such opinions to be codified into something more.

Alls I'm saying is, the thought process itself is hypocritical.

8/22/2014 12:39:16 PM

Quote :

"But have you ever seen an athiest that was pro-life? They're a rare breed."

they are rare, but maybe not as rare as you think. i actually know a few.

(i was actually made aware of dawkin's comments on facebook by a staunch atheist and staunch abortion opponent)

and there's a lot of things I'm morally opposed to that I don't think should be put into law. that's like saying all the christians that are opposed to homosexuality must think that homosexuality should be made illegal.

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2014 12:41:46 PM

The dude is not even American, he's British, he's not lobbying congress

(Also, he likes to have fun with Christians and I suspect he may have been exaggerating his position to get people riled up)

Quote :

"Alls I'm saying is, the thought process itself is hypocritical."

but it's not, he's talking about moral conclusions

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2014 12:43:24 PM

You know being the spawn of missionaries doesn't make you an expert on anything right?

8/22/2014 3:14:01 PM

Group: Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say 'so help me God'

Quote :

"According to the AHA, the unnamed airman was told Aug. 25 that the Air Force would not accept his contract because he had crossed out the phrase “so help me God.” The airman was told his only options were to sign the religious oath section of the contract without adjustment and recite an oath concluding with “so help me God,” or leave the Air Force, the AHA said."

Quote :

"Air Force Instruction 36-2606 spells out the active-duty oath of enlistment, which all airmen must take when they enlist or reenlist and ends with “so help me God.” The old version of that AFI included an exception: “Note: Airmen may omit the words ‘so help me God,’ if desired for personal reasons.” That language was dropped in an Oct. 30, 2013, update to the AFI. The relevant section of that AFI now only lists the active-duty oath of enlistment, without giving airmen any option to choose not to swear an oath to a deity."

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140904/NEWS05/309040066/Group-Airman-denied-reenlistment-refusing-say-help-me-God-

9/5/2014 8:53:05 AM

he must've not wanted to re-enlist that badly.

9/5/2014 11:51:53 AM

they must've not wanted recruits or not-being-sued that badly

[Edited on September 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM. Reason : -]

9/5/2014 11:59:21 AM

That is some petty shit.

9/5/2014 1:31:55 PM

Strange that would come through in 2013. I wonder who was responsible for that.

9/5/2014 5:49:52 PM

I had no idea we had a Holy Air Force. This is the kind of shit that extremist Muslims will use to justify their jihad.

9/6/2014 12:07:21 AM

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/12/sharia-law-in-the-us-blasphemous-teen-gets-bj-from-jesus-and-two-years-in-jail-photos/

9/12/2014 1:09:21 PM

Quote :

"He needs to be punished for sure, i could give a shit what the rest of you think, and i.feel quite sure the rest of the red blooded Americans out there could either, in my opinion he polluted the statue with his filthy hands and swet infested ball sack, but im sure you wouldnt have a problem with this idiot making you a roast beef asndwich either. Did.ya cringe a little on the last thought? Yeah figured you did, get educated, and start supporting Americans not the other guys opinion of whom i cant even pronounce his last name."

9/12/2014 1:18:57 PM

Quote :

"Teenagers are prone to dumb, tasteless pranks, but one 14-year-old is facing prison time for his latest stunt. The teen, from Everett, Pennsylvania, hopped on top of a statue of a kneeling Jesus—in front of an organization called "Love in the Name of Christ"—and simulated oral sex with the statue's face. Naturally, he posted the pictures to Facebook, which made their way to authorities. Officials in Bedford County charged the teen (whose name hasn't been released) with desecration of a venerated object, invoking a 1972 Pennsylvania statute that criminalizes "defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action." You'd think an appropriate punishment for a kid violating this seldom-invoked law might be picking up trash or, at worst, paying a fine. If convicted, he faces much worse: two years in juvenile detention. Truth Wins Out, a LGBT advocacy nonprofit, has argued that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the establishment clause—"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"—and free speech rights—"Congress shall make no law abridging the right to hump a statue of Jesus." Pennsylvania is not the only state with a "venerated objects" law—many states have some version of it, but most define "desecration" as vandalizing or otherwise physically harming an object of civic or religious significance. Alabama, Tennessee, and Oregon have laws like Pennsylvania's, which can be interpreted to punish individuals—like this bold, dumb teenager—who simply decide to do something offensive."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/09/pennsylvania-teenager-hump-oral-sex-jesus-statue-prison

9/16/2014 1:00:27 AM

ISIS Bans Teaching Evolution In Schools
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/isis-bans-evolution-schools

9/16/2014 8:29:15 AM

^^not that I actually give a shit, but arent simulated sex acts generally frowned upon in public anywhere?

Somehow I feel like that could get you cuffed regardless of some weird antiquated law.

[Edited on September 16, 2014 at 9:40 AM. Reason : -]

9/16/2014 9:35:48 AM

If he was arrested at the time, I'd be right with you. Putting him in juvie for 2 years after the fact has nothing to do with public decency and everything to do with Christian bullshit. If it was anything else but Jesus' face we would never have heard of this.

9/16/2014 9:50:18 AM

iLOL'd

9/16/2014 12:40:09 PM

"Frowned upon", yes. But I wouldn't think it would be common to be arrested, charged and sentenced to time for simulating a sex act to a statue while fully clothed (or shirtless... if you're male).

and yeah, especially months after the incidenct based on a picture. I see that on FB all the time.

[Edited on September 16, 2014 at 12:57 PM. Reason : ]

9/16/2014 12:42:38 PM

^^^ If you commit a crime and post evidence of it online, you can be arrested after the fact. That's hardly something new (in the case of PA, it's 2 year statute of limitation for this particular crime (Title 42. Chapter 55 552)

Incidentally, the statute in question:

Quote :

" § 5509. Desecration, theft or sale of venerated objects. (a) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he: (1) intentionally desecrates any public monument or structure, or place of worship or burial; (2) intentionally desecrates any other object of veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof in any public place; (3) sells, attempts to sell or removes with intent to sell a veteran's marker as described in section 1913 of the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code. This paragraph shall not apply to the sale of veterans' markers authorized by statute; or (4) intentionally receives, retains or disposes of a veteran's marker or item decorating a veteran's grave knowing that the item has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen, unless it has been received, retained or disposed of with the intent to return it to the owner. (a.1) Historic burial lots and burial places.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if the person intentionally desecrates a historic burial lot or historic burial place. (b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection: "Desecrate." Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action. "Historic burial lot." An individual burial site within a historic burial place. "Historic burial place." A tract of land which has been: (1) in existence as a burial ground for more than 100 years; or (2) listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as determined by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. (May 4, 2001, P.L.3, No.3, eff. 60 days; Dec. 16, 2003, P.L.233, No.41, eff. 60 days; Oct. 9, 2008, P.L.1419, No.116, 60 days) "

Also I'm no lawyer, but if they really wanted to throw the book at this kid, it looks like they could argue this is a felony:

Quote :

"§ 3307. Institutional vandalism. (a) Offenses defined.--A person commits the offense of institutional vandalism if he knowingly desecrates, as defined in section 5509 (relating to desecration or sale of venerated objects), vandalizes, defaces or otherwise damages: (1) any church, synagogue or other facility or place used for religious worship or other religious purposes; (2) any cemetery, mortuary or other facility used for the purpose of burial or memorializing the dead; (3) any school, educational facility, community center, municipal building, courthouse facility, State or local government building or vehicle or juvenile detention center; (4) the grounds adjacent to and owned or occupied by any facility set forth in paragraph (1), (2) or (3); or (5) any personal property located in any facility set forth in this subsection. (a.1) Illegal possession.--A person commits the offense of institutional vandalism if, with intent to violate subsection (a), the person carries an aerosol spray-paint can, broad-tipped indelible marker or similar marking device onto property identified in subsection (a). (b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the act is one of desecration as defined in section 5509 or if the actor causes pecuniary loss in excess of $5,000. Pecuniary loss includes the cost of repair or replacement of the property affected. Otherwise, institutional vandalism is a misdemeanor of the second degree. (June 18, 1982, P.L.537, No.154, eff. imd.; Dec. 20, 1983, P.L.291, No.78, eff. imd.; Oct. 3, 1988, P.L.734, No.103, eff. 60 days; Apr. 21, 1994, P.L.130, No.16, eff. 60 days; Oct. 2, 2002, P.L.806, No.116, eff. imd.) 2002 Amendment. Act 116 amended subsec. (a). 1994 Amendment. Act 16 added subsec. (a.1). See the preamble to Act 16 of 1994 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to legislative findings and declarations. Special Provisions in Appendix. See section 2 of Act 154 of 1982 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to right of action for injunction, damages or other relief. Cross References. Section 3307 is referred to in sections 2710, 3311 of this title; sections 8309, 9720 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure)."

Even though the max sentence for a 2nd degree misdemeanor in PA is 2 years, if they sentence him, it will probably be to community service under:

Quote :

" § 9720. Sentencing for criminal mischief. (a) Sentencing.--A person convicted of an offense under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3304(a)(4) (relating to criminal mischief) and 3307(a.1) (relating to institutional vandalism), and who in the opinion of the sentencing court would benefit, shall be sentenced to a term of supervised community service, including repairing or restoring damaged property, in accordance with the following: (1) If the damage to the property is less than $200, the term of community service shall not be less than 50 days nor more than 74 days. (2) If the damage to the property is at least $200 but less than $1,000, the term of community service shall not be less than 75 days nor more than 99 days. (3) If the damage to the property is $1,000 or more, the term of community service shall not be less than 100 days nor more than 200 days. (b) Satisfactory completion of community service program.-- Satisfactory completion of the community service program under subsection (a) shall result in a dismissal of charges and expungement of the record of the person sentenced under subsection (a). The court shall follow procedures similar to those established for the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Program. (Apr. 21, 1994, P.L.131, No.17, eff. 60 days) 1994 Amendment. Act 17 added section 9720. See the preamble to Act 17 of 1994 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to legislative findings and declarations."

Though looking at the sentencing guidelines for PA:

http://www.courts.phila.gov/pdf/criminal-reports/Sentencing-Guidelines-Matrix.pdf

without priors, the sentence for a 2nd degree misdemeanor should be RS which suggests "use of the least restrictive, non-confinement sentencing alternatives described in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9753 (determination of guilt without further penalty), § 9754 (order of probation) and § 9758 (fine). 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(c) (mandatory restitution) is also included in RS" (http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter303/chap303toc.html#303.18%28a%29.)

So even without sentencing under 9720, he'll still likely get just community service and maybe a fine.

Still I agree that without any real and actual damage to the statue, this statute seems too vague to pass constitutional muster. But given the likely sentence, I don't see this kid or his family taking up the challenge. It would also be interesting to see an argument that this statue doesn't qualify as an "object of veneration" under the statute. Yes "jesus" may be an object of veneration for a "large segment" of the population, but you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue this one statue was and the crime was committed on the statue, not on "jesus"

[Edited on September 16, 2014 at 1:25 PM. Reason : asg]

9/16/2014 1:23:00 PM

How does pelvic thrusting an object without doing any lasting damage count as "vandalism" "desecration" "defacing" or "damaging" the item?

9/17/2014 1:21:23 AM

Well, probably because the PA law defines "desecration" as:

Quote :

" Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action."

Again, I think it's probably too vague to stand up if challenged, but given the likely outcome of the case, I highly doubt it will be challenged, and will remain on the books.

9/17/2014 9:28:55 AM

Quote :

"otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action."

Yeah well fuck that law. The "sensibilities" of anyone shouldn't be protected in a public sphere.

I find their belief in magic extremely offensive to my sensibilities.

9/17/2014 10:44:48 AM

Quote :

"The "sensibilities" of anyone shouldn't be protected in a public sphere. "

Unless you're non-white, non-hetero. Nobody has the right to offend your sensibilities if you belong to those two groups.

9/17/2014 11:54:17 AM

^
lol

9/17/2014 12:05:27 PM

^^you forgot non-christian. the persecution of white hetero christian males must stop.

9/17/2014 12:24:35 PM

Hey I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just thinking about all the times the sensibilities of people have been offended, and others getting in trouble for it. Persecution of christian males? I'm not bitching about it.

9/17/2014 12:29:32 PM

[Edited on September 17, 2014 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2014 12:31:33 PM

Quote :

"Yeah well fuck that law. The "sensibilities" of anyone shouldn't be protected in a public sphere. "

Agreed, hence why I said I thought the law wouldn't stand up to a challenge. At best, the church in question should be able to ban the individual from their property, require him to make restitution for any actual damages and thats pretty much it.

9/17/2014 1:51:09 PM

What sort of restitution is appropriate for profaning Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

9/17/2014 1:55:08 PM

do catholics have a spreadsheet for how many hail mary's something takes? what does it say for jesus statue blowjob?

9/17/2014 2:07:57 PM

It will take more than a few Hail Marys to repair this boy's damaged soul. You should pray for him.

9/17/2014 2:41:44 PM

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0918/Air-Force-allows-atheists-to-skip-oath-to-God

Good loses this round

9/18/2014 10:28:00 AM

hail satan

9/18/2014 10:28:43 AM