Except your own children are "other people." They may not "be just fine." Some religions are abusive and traumatizing. Why should adults have to deprogram themselves and recover from trauma later because their parents decided it was fine to indoctrinate their own kids? "Mind your own business" applies to parents too.
HenchmanNumber3
joined 2 years ago
Seems like they're conflating folk superstition with religious belief. Randomly thinking that something happened for a reason isn't the same as believing in a deity.
The law would work differently if they, as designated interpreters of the law, interpreted the law differently. If they said you can't have infinite dark money running campaigns because that violates the rights of poor voters, then things would be very different. Plenty of SCOTUS cases have made significant changes to how the law is interpreted and enforced. Congress also seems to very rarely pass laws to counter SCOTUS decisions. So yeah, if we had fewer federalists and conservatives on SCOTUS and more progressives, I think it would have been decided differently, as well as other significant cases.
If money is free speech then anyone with more money gets more free speech, which isn't how rights work. You have the same freedoms and limitations to those freedoms that I do, regardless of who has more money. We're supposed to be equal under the law, but SCOTUS thinks $ome are more equal than others.
Cyberpunk dystopias are a warning, not a strategic plan!
I'd recommend disconnecting the concept of organized religion from faith in your mind. Determine if you actually believe in a god separate from whether you think a particular hierarchical organized religion is the best representation for that god on earth. Leave the church if it doesn't work for you. Find something that does work for you.
I read it as creating a mandate for the government to reduce microplastics that get into the human body because those reduce fertility and sperm count. Except in these kinds of bills, there's always an unwritten addendum that says that the bill doesn't apply if a perceived obligation affects a company's bottom line
Important detail: It isn't a bill that's been passed. It's only been introduced and referred to the judiciary committee. It'll be bigger news if it gets out of the committee, goes to the floor, and gets passed.
It's meant to endear this sycophant to Trump so he gets in line for a cabinet position when it comes out that he has ethical issues some journalist is about to expose.
Guys, guys, I don't know why you're upset. It's an ancient symbol for good luck. Completely benign! What do you have against good luck?!? It's like everyone whose genocidal white supremacist advocacy you disagree with is a Nazi or something...
"Guys, guys. Since Musk isn't from Germany, he's not a Nazi! It's just sparkling fascism! Totally different!"
view more: next ›
This is just useless gatekeeping. You don't have to be a parent to have a perspective on how people should be raised. Every adult was a child at some point, so everyone has an experience to relate about how they were raised and the flaws they see in different approaches from their direct experience. Parents aren't the only party involved. Not only does it take a village to raise kids, but other people are ultimately affected by parental decisions (e.g. Jennifer and James Crumbley).