Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Political Issues
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson Global Actuarial Recruitment

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-30-2007, 01:39 PM
_BullDog_'s Avatar
_BullDog_ _BullDog_ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Favorite beer: Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout
Posts: 22,446
Default Yoga thread tangent.

Here's a question. At what point do you stop accommodating the minority (in this case those that don't feel the spiritual aspect can be separate from the physical aspect). Most people, including me, don't see any problem with the physical aspect but I also didn't see a problem with posting the 10 commandments in a court house either, being they are part of at least 3 major religions so the 'state' was not promoting any single religion. So how few is to few to accommodate?
__________________
God is Great - Beer is good - People are crazybulldogbrute.mybrute.c
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-30-2007, 02:18 PM
Standtall's Avatar
Standtall Standtall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _BullDog_ View Post
Here's a question. At what point do you stop accommodating the minority (in this case those that don't feel the spiritual aspect can be separate from the physical aspect). Most people, including me, don't see any problem with the physical aspect but I also didn't see a problem with posting the 10 commandments in a court house either, being they are part of at least 3 major religions so the 'state' was not promoting any single religion. So how few is to few to accommodate?
I think if it is unconstituional, it should not even matter if nobody was offended. If it is constitutional, and it offends everyone, that would be ok too. Lawmakers could change the constitution in the second instance, if the act was so egrigious as to warrant it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-30-2007, 02:20 PM
_BullDog_'s Avatar
_BullDog_ _BullDog_ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Favorite beer: Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout
Posts: 22,446
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Standtall View Post
I think if it is unconstituional, it should not even matter if nobody was offended. If it is constitutional, and it offends everyone, that would be ok too. Lawmakers could change the constitution in the second instance, if the act was so egrigious as to warrant it.
But in both cases some view it as the 'state' promoting or having everyone participate in a religion.
__________________
God is Great - Beer is good - People are crazybulldogbrute.mybrute.c
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-30-2007, 02:25 PM
cubedbee's Avatar
cubedbee cubedbee is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Discordia
Favorite beer: Oaked Arrogant *******
Posts: 15,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _BullDog_ View Post
but I also didn't see a problem with posting the 10 commandments in a court house either, being they are part of at least 3 major religions so the 'state' was not promoting any single religion.
There is no list of ten commandments in Islam---while all of the commandments can be found in the Koran, they are not together. Jews divide the ten commandments differently than Christians, and the version that was in the court house was the Christian version.
__________________
Hooray for fiscal irresponsibility and forced morality.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.12795 seconds with 7 queries