Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

It depends on whether the employer can demonstrate a reasonable cause to say that he cannot permit an employee time to pray. If it was a pre-defined accommodation made at the time of hiring, then the employer is not within his rights to stop the employee from taking advantage of the accommodation.

If there was no accommodation agreed upon, then the employee can be asked to not pray on company time. There are a lot of misconceptions about the liberties outlined in the Constitution and it's amendments. Nothing says that you have the right to not be offended. Nothing says you have the right to practice your religion on the job. The core of the constitution only deals with civil liberties, not rights.

Civil rights afforded by some of the later amendments to the constitution and federal and state laws is what blocks an employer for discriminating against an employee for any reason, but there are reasonable limitations to it, as other people have outlined.

You cannot be fired for being a member of any religion, you can however be fired if that religion causes you to do something against company policy. If you insist on breaks in the middle of the day, several times a day, if you refuse to work on Sundays, and do all this without ensuring that it's okay with your employer first, then the employer is well within rights to find a new employee who WILL work on Sundays, and doesn't take frequent breaks in the middle of the day on company time.

[MrWiggles]

That conforms with my understanding.

Aight. Lego, does this make sense?

For instance, on the school pray. A public cannot have any form of praying initiated by the facility or the school. The school and facility can't encourage or (in most circumstances) discourage religious activity. The school can't in anyway host it.

The school can make reasonable accommodation, such as exclusion from sex ed, or in some states science. However if the accommodation is deemed unreasonable then the school can mandate that it not be done during school hours.

This leads odd things such as 'religious club' can't technically be hosted on school grounds, or if a religious activity requires pray, it has to be done technically off campus grounds. For the latter, the school say it reasonable.

So if a kid wanted to pray before a test, they can, but the school can't go 'okay pray time'.

Private school can however be as religious as they want. And are. Now there are some odd things, such as these school can't disallow you for any of the previously stated reason. So a Buddhist can't be denied entry to a Catholic School. Most of the time, this isn't an issue. Its the oddities of discrimination laws.

So if a athletic group wanted to do a pray circle before an event, they can. However the teacher can't participate, it shouldn't be done on school grounds or properties, IE the bus.

The teacher would be required to curtail any discrimination from the student body if they did not want to be apart of the pray circle. (This was a civil suit, I can't remember where though.)

[LegoLord]

Actually, there's a thing at my public high school on Wednesday's in the gym called "Jesus Pizza."  It's entirely voluntary and run by students and therefore allowed.

Curiously, even though they can't deny entry of non-Catholics, Catholic schools can charge non-Catholics more money for attending.  There's some bullshit reasoning behind this, and I say bullshit because most of the people at the Catholic school I went to didn't often go to church (they even said this in front of administrators), and therefore almost never made donations. 

The idea is, that since the Catholics "go to church and make donations," and the Church funds to school to some extent, they are paying for school by paying donations.  Most people don't even donate that much money, anyway.  We're talking price differences in the thousands for school.

[MrWiggles]

Actually, there's a thing at my public high school on Wednesday's in the gym called "Jesus Pizza."  It's entirely voluntary and run by students and therefore allowed.

Though up to the school, I would say by the letter of the law, this is inappropriate use of school property. The school is suppose to be entirely absent of religion. How much of it is ran by the student? The facility cannot be helping.

Curiously, even though they can't deny entry of non-Catholics, Catholic schools can charge non-Catholics more money for attending.  There's some bullshit reasoning behind this, and I say bullshit because most of the people at the Catholic school I went to didn't often go to church (they even said this in front of administrators), and therefore almost never made donations. 

The idea is, that since the Catholics "go to church and make donations," and the Church funds to school to some extent, they are paying for school by paying donations.  Most people don't even donate that much money, anyway.  We're talking price differences in the thousands for school.

I haven't heard of that before. Interesting.

[Sowelu]

Actually, there's a thing at my public high school on Wednesday's in the gym called "Jesus Pizza."  It's entirely voluntary and run by students and therefore allowed.

Civil liberties groups go after stuff like this with surprising frequency.  Sometimes, they're just being pedantic and annoying.  Sometimes they have very good reasons for doing it.  But it does get challenged, and usually the schools stop doing it one way or another.

[MrWiggles]

The thing is, you don't have to host it at the school. The school shouldn't be hosting anything religious.

For instance, if it was Pizza for Satan, there would be an outcry, even though it boils the same thing. Social gathering for those that worship satan. (Is it a social gathering?)[Sounds like it.]

I'm sure a pizza parole would love to play host to a weekly gathering.

[Raz]

One thing that is probably the biggest cause for me totally disregarding any religion, is the fact that omnipotency simply cannot exist in our logic. This is on a purely philosophical level, without even taking into account all the evidence that shatters many of the claims the 'holy' books make.

[MrWiggles]

One thing that is probably the biggest cause for me totally disregarding any religion, is the fact that omnipotency simply cannot exist in our logic. This is on a purely philosophical level, without even taking into account all the evidence that shatters many of the claims the 'holy' books make.

When I was just being out of the closet, I used the paradox of 'Could God create a rock so heavy he himself could not lift?' As the prime example of the paradoxical issues with omnipotency.

Generally it get shot down 'If god needed to, he could!', not understanding the presented issue at all.

This issue disappears with not so all powerful god. Then your left with the issue of why call it god?

[Smitehappy]

I think this quote is related.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
                                ~Epicurus

[Sordid]

Oh yeah, that one's a classic. Two and a half thousand years and still the theists haven't been able to come up with a decent answer.

[MrWiggles]

Oh yeah, that one's a classic. Two and a half thousand years and still the theists haven't been able to come up with a decent answer.

The answer never really absolves issue. 'Free Will! God doesn't want evil but he allows it!', in which case this god person an ass.

Or Satan does it. Which begets the question of who is stronger God or Satan?


I remember one of my earliest smart ass retorts questions. I reasoned that since Satan was called the prince of evil then there must be someone more evil then he for him not be the eviliest.

I reasoned that this must have been god, the king of evil.

I dont think that to shobby for an 11 year old.

[Jackrabbit]

Or, indeed, shabby. I always thought the prince of darkness was a rather dumb name, but wouldn't that mean that the king of darkness is darkness itself? Evil in its truest form is always more evil than the person using it. Or maybe Satan has confidence issues, and doesn't want to offend any self proclaimed "kings" of darkness so he uses that moniker

[Antioch]

I personally think that the universe is infinite, and the concept of an infinite universe is more omnipotent then that of a god.
The problem is that a god implies the WILL to do something, will implies choice which is a lack of omnipotency as it means that something else will not be done.

However an infinite universe will be able to create anything that can possibly exist, even if the chance that something will form is 2^-999999 it will be formed as infinity may roll an infinite number of dices. but there is no reason behind it, it simply IS. In fact the concept of infinity as an omnipotent "thing" is able to break the paradoxes associated with a god.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

infinity is not malevolent, it has no will, all states of the universe are equal to a non willing infinity. (if a god was will-less it would not make any sense why it want's you to be good, so that you can go to heaven)

I personally think that because it is proven that I have the potential to be formed (I exist), I will be formed again somewhere, probably more then trillions of years from now. I would not have a memory of what happend in my previous "life", but I don't really care because in this life I don't know what happend before either.

potential = existence somewhere/sometime

[Jackrabbit]

Hey, maybe God is malevolent. He seemed that way in the Old Testament

[Andir]

I personally think that the universe is infinite, and the concept of an infinite universe is more omnipotent then that of a god.
The problem is that a god implies the WILL to do something, will implies choice which is a lack of omnipotency as it means that something else will not be done.

However an infinite universe will be able to create anything that can possibly exist, even if the chance that something will form is 2^-999999 it will be formed as infinity may roll an infinite number of dices. but there is no reason behind it, it simply IS. In fact the concept of infinity as an omnipotent "thing" is able to break the paradoxes associated with a god.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

infinity is not malevolent, it has no will, all states of the universe are equal to a non willing infinity. (if a god was will-less it would not make any sense why it want's you to be good, so that you can go to heaven)

I personally think that because it is proven that I have the potential to be formed (I exist), I will be formed again somewhere, probably more then trillions of years from now. I would not have a memory of what happend in my previous "life", but I don't really care because in this life I don't know what happend before either.

potential = existence somewhere/sometime

I agree.  I agree that the universe is infinite.  I have a problem with the point you make about knowing your "previous life."  You can't.  That's a different person with different experiences.  But given the right conditions, yes, I fully believe there was or will be someone, somewhere, that looks, talks, and acts similar to me.  If this were to happen, their life would be similar to my own.  They would have to grow up with similar parents in a similar house, but a similar clone of myself very well could be out in infinite space that we can't see.  (Because I also believe that light is not infinite and these "images" of young galaxies on the edge of known space could just be so far away that only the strongest light waves make it through space to us.)  It just takes time, matter and enough luck to bring all the elements that made me... well me... together.