THIS is what we are warning you all about!!

[eider]

If any problems occur with the existing laws than they will have to be changed, but it seems that to date most problems are with maniac Evangelicals.

It does seem to be that way.....
What I can't understand is that not many posts have shown concern for a small boy walking into a MENS toilet, where a potential attacker might have entered in order to lay in wait.... completely unchallenged!

In the above case a UNISEX Toilet might be safer! The whole thread is illogical and has lead to the usual Homophobia, imo.

The bottom line must be: Stay with your children in public places........

I do like your posts about all this.... just sayin'.....

[seer]

http://www.history.com/topics/john-locke

In short an empirical, scientific approach!

First Tass is you bothered to read the links you would find that Locke believe that reason was perfectly compatible with Revelation. And Locke was much more than a cultural Christian since he wrote a great work defending the Christian religion and the Bible. Finally, this particular part of our debate was about where Locke grounded human rights. And that was, without question, in the God of the Bible. And as your link even mentioned, Locke did not believe that atheists could be trusted.

[Leonhard]

http://www.history.com/topics/john-locke

In short an empirical, scientific approach!

Science, as we understand it, doesn't begin until somewhere in the nineteenth century. And you'd have to specify his beliefs even closer, because nothing is said here that disagrees with the ye-olde scholastic philosophers of the medieval era such as St. Thomas Aquinas.

[seer]

It is not what we got away with but generally how the Founders viewed the Establishment Clause. I mean really, no Court found tax supported Churches to be unconstitutional. I'm old enough to remember saying the Lord's prayer in public school, and Blue laws (Laws against working on the Christian Sabbath). And these practices were not found unconstitutional until the 1960s by liberal courts.


Of course a tans male is anatomically just like me. He pees and poops just like me. And he gets to use the same restroom as me. Perfectly fair and equal.

[Cow Poke]

What a truly odd expression. I guess adding "folk" makes it sound so quaint and natural.

[arnoldo]

This australian source has some good info. . .

Source: https://lawandreligionaustralia.wordpress.com

The legal basis for the injunction was said to be Title IX of the Federal Education Amendments Act of 1972

© Copyright Original Source

[arnoldo]

What a truly odd expression. I guess adding "folk" makes it sound so quaint and natural.

Cisgender folk tend to think that way. . .

[Cow Poke]

Cisgender folk tend to think that way. . .

Doesn't change the fact that adding "folk" is obviously an attempt to make something odd sound normal.

[Tassman]

First Tass is you bothered to read the links you would find that Locke believe that reason was perfectly compatible with Revelation. And Locke was much more than a cultural Christian since he wrote a great work defending the Christian religion and the Bible. Finally, this particular part of our debate was about where Locke grounded human rights. And that was, without question, in the God of the Bible. And as your link even mentioned, Locke did not believe that atheists could be trusted.

Science, as we understand it, doesn't begin until somewhere in the nineteenth century. And you'd have to specify his beliefs even closer, because nothing is said here that disagrees with the ye-olde scholastic philosophers of the medieval era such as St. Thomas Aquinas.

Come now Leonhard, you know better than that. Modern science and scientific methodology began at the Renaissance in the 16th century with the likes of Galileo.

[Tassman]

It is not what we got away with but generally how the Founders viewed the Establishment Clause. I mean really, no Court found tax supported Churches to be unconstitutional. I'm old enough to remember saying the Lord's prayer in public school, and Blue laws (Laws against working on the Christian Sabbath). And these practices were not found unconstitutional until the 1960s by liberal courts.

every time

Of course a tans male is anatomically just like me. He pees and poops just like me. And he gets to use the same restroom as me. Perfectly fair and equal.

YOU to tell them what YOU

Doesn't change the fact that adding "folk" is obviously an attempt to make something odd sound normal.

Who are you to say that that LGBT folk folk tales deriving from the Bronze Age? The mental health professionals worldwide know better and they say you are wrong.

[seer]

Right Tass, except Locke believed that Scripture was completely compatible with reason. There was no conflict between the two. But the main point is that I have established that Locke not only grounded human rights in God, but the God of Scripture. And that is the concept the Founders followed. So Christianity, via Locke, played the key role in developing the origin of universal human rights as understood by the Founders. And if not grounded in God human rights are merely relative to specific cultures and parochial. Never universal or objective or authoritative.

[seer]

every time

That is the point Tass, Jefferson and Madison were not the only Founders, and we know by their actions the other Founders did not have a problem using the government to promote and support the Christian religion. And yes, these are liberal courts. No court before the 1960s found that things like prayer in school or Sabbath laws were unconstitutional. And when Jefferson signed into law the treaty with the The Kaskaskia Indians he included tax monies to further the Christian religion in their tribe. To evangelize. http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/clas..._KASKASKIA.htm

YOU to tell them what YOU

So why is their opinion more valid or correct than mine? Mine is based on objective fact - their anatomical make up. Theirs is based on subjective feeling. Why does the subjective trump the objective?

[Leonhard]

Come now Leonhard, you know better than that. Modern science and scientific methodology began at the Renaissance in the 16th century with the likes of Galileo.

That hasn't been the view of philosophers of science for quite a few decades now. I know, because the institute of nanotechnology was situated above the institute of the history of science. There were some very interesting discussion with them, plus they had the absolutely best decorated study room.

I agree that Galileo, and more specifically Francis Bacon, et. al. represented a shift in attention from merely passively studying nature empirically, to applying mathematical models in an attempt to understand and control natural phenomenon.

But science as we understand it today begins in the nineteenth century.

[Sparko]

That hasn't been the view of philosophers of science for quite a few decades now. I know, because the institute of nanotechnology was situated above the institute of the history of science. There were some very interesting discussion with them, plus they had the absolutely best decorated study room.

I agree that Galileo, and more specifically Francis Bacon, et. al. represented a shift in attention from merely passively studying nature empirically, to applying mathematical models in an attempt to understand and control natural phenomenon.

But science as we understand it today begins in the nineteenth century.

With Dr. Frankenstein.

...right?

no?

[seer]

With Dr. Frankenstein.

...right?

no?