How many degrees in their orbit do the planets travel in one Earth year?

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

The police, however, have to see the victims as credible, and decide to proceed
with an investigation.

Attitudes have changed recently, and sexual assaults are now being investigated
with considerably more seriousness than was the case in the 1920s and 1930s. In
Canada, there have been numerous news stories about orphanages in Newfoundland
and Montreal, about the "residential schools" for Native children, and so on
and so forth that show what the situation was in those days.

Now, there is still a counter-argument. Is it that the Catholic Church was
abusive of children - or is it just that they happened to fill the breach by
providing needed social services through charity instead of the government, and
government-run orphanages and so on would have had just as much abuse of
children - and just as much in the way of the perpetrators, having power and
position, being able to cover things up because their victims were relatively
powerless?

I think that this objection *does* carry a great deal of weight, and is largely
true.

There have been alleged cover ups by the UK govt of alleged "CSA" offenses by UK politicians/officials in recent decades. There has been no evidence provided by peterson that the RCC is any more prone to cases of CSA nor has peterson provided any evidence of the "school" that he claims it has set up. Clearly he is biased against religion, most especially the RCC, for other reasons and his ridiculous opinions on this issue therefore carry no weight.

Most CSA has NOTHING to do with the RCC. The RCC is one of the very few organizations that has actually studied the situation and made efforts to fix it. However, that doesn't stop peterson from singling it out.

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 9:28:00 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 04:24:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 12:03:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:51:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

One of the main requirements for immigration to the US is that the applicant be of good moral character. I have not seen any restrictions on the religions of said immigrants and in fact most immigrants follow a religion. Therefore, your statement is false, as are so many of your other statements.

No. It just means that moral character is difficult to judge.

Incorrect. For immigration purposes, a background check on major crimes committed by the applicant in his/her native country gives a rather good idea of his/her moral character.

No, it doesn't. It provides a good idea of his legal history. A lack
of criminal record is little indicator of moral character.

Then absent such a record, you would have nothing by which to decide.

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HT...e12-PartF.html


You might note, peterson, that the link just above describes ACTIONS, not THOUGHTS, that describe poor moral character. Are you now proposing to screen out immigrants on the basis of "thought crimes?"

(Of course, peterson, you are incapable of actual thought, so you could NEVER be accused of thought crime!)

One day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for immigration.
We're not there yet, but as society evolves, that day may come. Not
necessarily as a moral failure, but as an intellectual one.

peterson, you are an idiot. You just tried to walk your argument around in
plain view! That is, you just admitted that YOU see belief in a religion as
an "intellectual" failure, not the moral one which you incorrectly implied it
to be just a short time ago: "Of course, all people of good moral character
are opposed to religion."

It is both. Religion is naturally an intellectual failure, because
theism and religion represent irrational thinking.

Incorrect. Since you follow no religion you are not qualified to comment.

Religion advocates
immoral behavior,

Incorrect. Since you follow no religion you are not qualified to comment.

and by attempting to define moral absolutes makes it
easy for people to behave immorally.

Incorrect. Since you follow no religion you are not qualified to comment.

You wrote:

"Not necessarily as a moral failure, but as an intellectual one."

If an immigrant is not found "guilty" of a "moral failure" then you would have no basis by which to exclude him, absent any record of criminal convictions.

Since atheists, such as you, peterson, have no concept of religion, you are not qualified to pass judgement, nor even comment, on other people's religious beliefs.

IF YOU THINK YOU DO, THEN YOU ARE POTENTIALLY A VERY DANGEROUS PERSON.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:03:41 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
No. It just means that moral character is difficult to judge. One
day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for immigration.

If so, shouldn't religion then also be seen as a disqualufication for
residency as well?

Btw the Soviet Union tried that route - religious people who didn't
want to hade their beliefs had a very hard time in that country. But
the SU didn't succeed very well in eradicating religion, after the
disintegration of the SU, the orthodox church made a very strong
comeback in Russia.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:14:50 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-6, Chris L
Peterson wrote:

Of course, all people of good moral character are opposed to
religion.

Even agreeing that religion is as bad as you say it is, plenty of
people of good
moral character are its dupes.

At best, the dupes are morally neutral. Religion poisons everyone,
and
everything.

I agree with Savard, you are overstating your case. Strongly.

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 12:03:45 AM UTC-4, idiot peterson wrote:

One day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for immigration.
We're not there yet, but as society evolves, that day may come.

Oh my! So if a group of foreign refugees facing persecution and genocide (for their religious beliefs) seeks asylum in the US, then you would be in favor of excluding them for having religious beliefs?

(Note to any innocent bystanders who might still be reading this thread: peterson has the nasty habit of evading questions, backpedaling, casting insults and changing the subject. Please beware.)

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 12:18:48 PM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:14:50 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-6, Chris L
Peterson wrote:

Of course, all people of good moral character are opposed to
religion.

Even agreeing that religion is as bad as you say it is, plenty of
people of good
moral character are its dupes.

At best, the dupes are morally neutral. Religion poisons everyone,
and
everything.

I agree with Savard, you are overstating your case. Strongly.

peterson has let his poor moral character show through, once again.

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 12:16:55 PM UTC-4, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:03:41 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
No. It just means that moral character is difficult to judge. One
day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for immigration.

If so, shouldn't religion then also be seen as a disqualufication for
residency as well?

Maybe while he's at it, peterson can call for a ban on allowing foreign tourists, business travelers, students, entertainers, diplomats, etc, who have religious beliefs to enter the US.

Btw the Soviet Union tried that route - religious people who didn't
want to hade their beliefs had a very hard time in that country. But
the SU didn't succeed very well in eradicating religion, after the
disintegration of the SU, the orthodox church made a very strong
comeback in Russia.

peterson wishes to outlaw religion in the US. His methods might be much uglier than what the soviets tried.

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 8:28:00 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 04:24:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 12:03:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:51:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

One of the main requirements for immigration to the US is that the applicant be of good moral character. I have not seen any restrictions on the religions of said immigrants and in fact most immigrants follow a religion. Therefore, your statement is false, as are so many of your other statements.

No. It just means that moral character is difficult to judge.

Incorrect. For immigration purposes, a background check on major crimes committed by the applicant in his/her native country gives a rather good idea of his/her moral character.

No, it doesn't. It provides a good idea of his legal history. A lack
of criminal record is little indicator of moral character.

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HT...e12-PartF.html

One day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for immigration.
We're not there yet, but as society evolves, that day may come. Not
necessarily as a moral failure, but as an intellectual one.

peterson, you are an idiot. You just tried to walk your argument around in plain view! That is, you just admitted that YOU see belief in a religion as an "intellectual" failure, not the moral one which you incorrectly implied it to be just a short time ago: "Of course, all people of good moral character are opposed to religion."

It is both. Religion is naturally an intellectual failure, because
theism and religion represent irrational thinking. Religion advocates
immoral behavior, and by attempting to define moral absolutes makes it
easy for people to behave immorally.

Some say we should use God's law in our politics - what could go wrong? Christians would be all for it, no? Lessee what would happen:

"We should introduce parts of Sharia law into our government" - Christian conservatives collectively soil themselves.
"We should introduce parts of Biblical law into our government" - Christian conservatives hold a party.
"We should introduce parts of Halakha into our government" - Christian conservatives become confused

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 2:19:41 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Some say we should use God's law in our politics - what could go wrong? Christians would be all for it, no? Lessee what would happen:

"We should introduce parts of Sharia law into our government" - Christian
conservatives collectively soil themselves.
"We should introduce parts of Biblical law into our government" - Christian
conservatives hold a party.
"We should introduce parts of Halakha into our government" - Christian
conservatives become confused

"We should introduce parts of Sharia law into our government" - Fundamentalists, Jews, a few liberals and most Muslims collectively soil themselves, conservatives enforce the First Amendment.

"We should introduce parts of Biblical law into our government" - Fundamentalists hold a party, the rest become concerned, conservatives enforce the First Amendment.

"We should introduce parts of Halakha into our government" - Liberals, already confused, become more so, while conservatives simply do a Google search, if necessary, then enforce the First Amendment.

There, fixed that for you.

Now do the rest of us a favor and go **** ********.

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 3:25:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Crap snipped..
There, fixed that for you, ya dim bulb. Come up with your own comics.