The Goat Pen

a speech given by David Simon on how capitalism has lost its moral compass with social impact



Heh, capitalism is amoral....capitalists can be moral or immoral.

Kudos to Newt Gingrich on those comments. Very well said.

crashcourse wrote:money--in god we trust prominantly on display
swearing in oaths--so help me God
declaration of independance uses god once and creator twice
all 50 state constitutions reference god
america the beautiful--god shed his grace on thee
US supreme court--moses holdng 10 commandments
washington,lincoln and jefforson memorials all have references to bible and god inscribed on the building
house and senate all have references to god in chambers


all of these institutions should be altered because it insults the godless minority?
christmas should be altered because it insults the godless minority?

I agree with some of the libs--dont let the right wing religious zealots control the government but dont go overboard the otherway and remove all references to a creator and all biblical government references on which a lot of our legal system is based just because you think a big bang came out of nothing to create the universe

If that post was in reference to my statement about the founding fathers, then a lot of those items listed above had nothing to do with the founding fathers. Now, the Declaration of Independence references God, as most - if not all - the founding fathers believed in a God (although I don't believe the Constitution, our founding document, does reference God).

I took issue with your premise that the founding fathers were confusing matters of church and state. They never wanted to have religious doctrine dictate the matters of the state. That's different than having any reference to God. So, I honestly don't think the founding fathers were confused about the matters of church and state as they did not add In God We Trust on money (1864), the Lincoln Memorial (1868), the Washington Memorial (1884) or Jefferson (1943).

Now, it's up for debate but I don't know if the founding fathers (particularly Jefferson or Madison) would have been proponents of any monuments to the Ten Commandments, the Talmud, the Baghavad Gita or Quran on a government building. I will say, though, that they never did erect those types of monuments while in power from my knowledge.

One thing I will grant you, the only thing I can think of where the founding fathers dropped the ball in the "church and state" area was in appointing the Chaplain of the US Senate. It was the only thing I can see where the line got blurry. Madison saw it coming, too. He was against the creation of the position because it would wind up discriminating against Catholics and Jews. It was always supposed to be a multi denominational position that rotated to make it so no particular religion actually "ruled" the position and ergo meant the government advocates for a particular religion.

I've typed a lot that will probably mean little to your overall view of things, but I think the founding fathers were the least confused about what they did NOT want as it related to the church influencing the government. It was the future leaders who bastardized that view.

eCat wrote:did he just say that or was it back when he was running for office

He just said it...and he's actually been quite consistent with that line for years. It was one of the things many GOPers on the Hill broke with Reagan over in the 80s. Mitch McConnell led the fight, if I recall correctly.

eCat wrote:a speech given by David Simon on how capitalism has lost its moral compass with social impact

"We understand profit. In my country we measure things by profit. We listen to the Wall Street analysts. They tell us what we're supposed to do every quarter. The quarterly report is God. Turn to face God. Turn to face Mecca, you know. Did you make your number? Did you not make your number? Do you want your bonus? Do you not want your bonus?"



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... ricas-wire

He's right. Good speech.

That's close to a rip off of Judge Reinholds interview scene at the factory being closed in Head Office.

FF to 54:50

[youtube]cJ4ZSQFXwUM[/youtube]

heh...the driver was Father Guido Sarducci, whose sister was Surgeon General of the US.

"They never wanted to have religious doctrine dictate the matters of the state."

I'm not an expert by any means I lifted most of that from some site at work today and its true most of your points.

whats interesting is almost all 50 state constitutions- reference god in some way

how many state constitutions were written by founding fathers I don't know

Bklyn wrote:heh...the driver was Father Guido Sarducci, whose sister was Surgeon General of the US.

He has some nice scenes in this movie. One of my favorite '80's flicks.

straight from an SNL skit


JOHANNESBURG (AP) - A man who provided sign language interpretation on stage for Nelson Mandela's memorial service, attended by scores of heads of state, was a "fake," the national director of the Deaf Federation of South Africa said on Tuesday.

Asked about the claim by The Associated Press, South Africa's government said it was preparing a statement.

Three sign language experts said the man was not signing in South African or American sign languages. South African sign language covers all of the country's 11 official languages, according to the federation. It wasn't immediately clear if the unidentified man was using a different method to communicate.

The unidentified man seen around the world on television next to leaders like U.S. President Barack Obama "was moving his hands around but there was no meaning in what he used his hands for," said Bruno Druchen, the federation's national director.

Nicole Du Toit, an official sign language interpreter who also watched the broadcast, said in a telephone interview that the man on stage purporting to sign was an embarrassment.

"It was horrible, an absolute circus, really really bad," she said. "Only he can understand those gestures."

South African parliament member Wilma Newhoudt, a member of the ruling party who is deaf, also said the man communicated nothing with his hand and arm movements. AP interviewed both Druchen, who also is deaf, and Newhoudt by telephone using an interpreter.

crashcourse wrote:Among the institutions joining the lawsuit are Catholic Charities, Catholic University of America, and The Consortium of Catholic Academies -- all of which filed together with the Archdiocese of Washington in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. The lawsuit challenges provisions of the ACA that the plaintiffs say require "religious organizations to provide coverage for drugs and procedures in direct conflict with their religious beliefs."

The action in Washington was mirrored across the country Monday as a total of 43 Catholic institutions simultaneously filed 12 lawsuits against the ACA.

so its okay that the governemnt changes how they reimburse if they change the rules which directly conflicts your religion?

church needs to stay out of government but govt needs to stay out of church

almost impossilbe to do i know

Not impossible. Keep your church out of commercial enterprises and there is not a problem at all. There is an exemption for religious institutions not in commercial enterprises. They want to engage in commerce and control to what the workers have access.

Churches should pay taxes and play by the same rules as everyone else. Until that happens, I hope all these people bitching about the ACA and religious freedom get AIDS. Honestly, I hope they get AIDS anyway.

chruches are for profit enterprises designed to get certrain people rich ic the joel osteen or whatever his name is along with a few other megachruches. be interesting to see their tax rates.

lot of churches do a lot of good for a lot of people however. putting churches out of business esepcially the smaller community ones who arent the mega conglomerates would create a void that many people need.

I was born and raised a catholic, protestant and baptis and am now more agnostic then anything. If I thought we could accomplish some type of a moral compass without churches you wouldnt get any argument but religion has provided the morale upbringing of this country since it was founded. as bad as the fanatism is from some of these rt wing zealots this country would be a lot worse without it. santa clause aint real but our country is better off because the idea of him exists--who knows maybe spiritually he does exist--I cant prove either way

but to damn the whole religious world because of the extemism of a few --well I would hate to see where this country would be if we never had god in it. cue its a wonderful life and I imagine more like potterville then bedford falls

Jesus still loves you, Cletus!

my son is an atheist, primarily because of my wife and me - and I'm constantly having to tell him to tone his anti-church rhetoric down. Some people need religion, and as much as they annoy me being all jebus like, I'd hate to think what they'd be like without it.

He doesn't get that yet, just like I didn't when I was young.

I think a church or religious based organization has a right to say what they will provide or not provide based on their religious beliefs. And as mentioned earlier, if you don't like that, then don't work for them.

Appalachia ain't got shit on Australia

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/t ... BE.twitter

I used to be pretty religious when I was a kid. I'd sit and watch all kinds of religious shows on Sunday morning before church. My favorite was Ernest Angley, esp. at the end of the show when he would call people up and heal them. He'd put his hands on the ears of a deaf person and yell "Now devils, I command you to get OUT!" Then he'd snap his fingers beside their ears and they would nod that, yes, now they could hear. Then he would whack them on the forehead and they'd fall out, smitten by the power of jesus...

I think sometime when I was around 11 or 12 years old, it just dawned on me that it was a crock of shit. Not just the extreme fake-ass Ernest Angley show, but everything that provided the basis for it in the first place. I have never wavered from that view since then...

Heathen

eCat wrote: I think a church or religious based organization has a right to say what they will provide or not provide based on their religious beliefs. And as mentioned earlier, if you don't like that, then don't work for them.

Churches have that right. Hospitals don't. You really think that some of the biggest employers in some communities have a right to tell employees that they can't get blood products if they need surgery?

Owlman wrote:

eCat wrote: I think a church or religious based organization has a right to say what they will provide or not provide based on their religious beliefs. And as mentioned earlier, if you don't like that, then don't work for them.

Churches have that right. Hospitals don't. You really think that some of the biggest employers in some communities have a right to tell employees that they can't get blood products if they need surgery?

6 months ago they didn't even have to provide them insurance in the first place.