Populist Indeed!

[vantexan]

Modern history's greatest atrocities took place in societies where there was no religion. Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and the Khmer Rouge outlawed religion because it was seen as a threat to the state. The Nazis tolerated Protestantism for purposes of expediency but their postwar plans were to destroy the influence of all Christianity because they, too, saw it as a threat.

You've stated that the world would be a better place without religion. Estimates vary, but those four regimes alone account for 75 to 100 million deaths, not to mention suffering that we can't even begin to quantify. I don't know where this religion-free paradise is, but it's nowhere on this planet.

Those who want to get rid of religion don't want to do it for the benefit of others, that's for sure.

And as military technology has advanced the ability to kill huge numbers of people has increased. The mentioned atrocities have all happened in the last 80 years of human existence. All the more reason to do everything possible to keep the ultimate killing technology out of the wrong hands.

 

[vantexan]

The new regime cancelled some new regulations that likely would have increased the cost of coal production. They're happy because they don't have to try and clean up their act now and can keep dumping their waste in streams. Coal is still a dead fuel walking, this just lets them hold on a bit longer.

Coal is big in China, which has built hundreds of coal fired power plants. The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal, I see a lot of exports and good jobs in regions that have little else. We can argue the environmental costs but don't count out technological advances to reduce emissions.

 

[bacha29]

The new regime cancelled some new regulations that likely would have increased the cost of coal production. They're happy because they don't have to try and clean up their act now and can keep dumping their waste in streams. Coal is still a dead fuel walking, this just lets them hold on a bit longer.

I live in coal country. The area has been strip mined and deep mined from one end to the next. When it comes to "reclaimed" strip mined land you simply will never again raise competitive yields on that land .It's too badly disturbed and it has to rain on it every other day if you want to grow anything at all. In addition the countless private and public water supplies that have been destroyed requiring finding new sources (if you're lucky) and laying down costly new water lines and pumping it for miles and most of the time at taxpayer expense. Thankfully over the past few years in my state alone 22,000 megawatts of coal fired electrical capacity have gone off line replaced with 22,000 megawatts of gas fired capacity. And the grid loves them because of the new technology these new pants offer combined with advances in storage batteries they can manage spikes much more easily. Coal as a cheaper energy source.? Four days after the last election First Energy who pretty much has a monopoly on the Mid Atlantic power market announced that they were leaving the deregulated electric market. Why? Their 1960's era and older coal fired plants can't compete with the new technology . The result? Whatever deregulated sector generation plants the grid doesn't need in the regulated market and cannot be sold to another utility ( and who would want them? ) will be shut down permanently.

 

[vantexan]

Why the rich of course. And if Trump gets all the cuts he wants it will run a deficit so large that it will make the Obama deficit look like toll booth change. Rest assured in VT's mind's eye if it's a Trump deficit it will still the Dem"s fault.

Putting more money into people's pockets is always good for the economy. Combine a streamlined gov't and more revenue from economic activity and we should be better off. What, you don't want the working class to be better off? Might hurt the Democrat Party?

 

[vantexan]

You have just described the Annoying Orange. How do you support such a sinner?

We're all sinners chief.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Modern history's greatest atrocities took place in societies where there was no religion. Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and the Khmer Rouge outlawed religion because it was seen as a threat to the state. The Nazis tolerated Protestantism for purposes of expediency but their postwar plans were to destroy the influence of all Christianity because they, too, saw it as a threat.

You've stated that the world would be a better place without religion. Estimates vary, but those four regimes alone account for 75 to 100 million deaths, not to mention suffering that we can't even begin to quantify. I don't know where this religion-free paradise is, but it's nowhere on this planet.

Those who want to get rid of religion don't want to do it for the benefit of others, that's for sure.

Ever since the first religions were organized there have been fights between followers. Some of these struggles have devolved onto a global scene and have taken the lives of millions. Below are some of the worst violent atrocities performed in the name of religion. This is not merely a list relating death tolls but rather the brutality, unfairness, and ignorance of the act (s) performed. And all justified as the will of "God".
Top Ten Atrocities Committed In the Name of Religion - TheTopTens®

 

[Maui]

I was just looking at the current Money magazine which explains how Trump's tax cuts would affect us. He wants a $30,000 standard deductible for married couples filing jointly. That would wipe out taxes for many low income families. Currently the standard deduction for them is a little over $12k. He's serious about tax breaks. You should look into it a bit closer. As for any references to Jesus I brought up, look them up, nothing new there, it's accurate. And no one is talking about making the country a theocracy. I started all this by saying our schools would be better served if we didn't take God completely out of it. And I elaborated that if kids dressed properly, spoke properly, respected authority, values that Christians advocate, they'd have an environment conducive to learning. I'm amazed at the clothing I see teenagers wear to school. Would've been sent home in my day. Tell me how young people with raging hormones learn in such an environment? You were primarily the one who turned what I said into an attempt to force feed religious extremism to young impressionable minds. It's exactly that kind of interpretation of everything religious, even in the slightest, that has driven it from the public realm. With constantly seeking out any leftover vestiges to drive underground. Are we all better for it? Only the haters seem to think so.

As it stands right now married couples with 2 kids pay no taxes after the EITC (best thing Reagan did to combat poverty)if the make less than about 50k. Larger families would see a tax increase under Trump's plan as personal exemptions would be eliminated. Similar story for single parents with middle incomes (40-100K off the top of my head) as the head of household category would be eliminated and there would be no exemption for the children so taxes would increase.

Obama reduced taxes for couples making less than 250k, but did not have massive cuts for wealthy high-income earners like Trump's plan. Middle incomes tend to spend the extra money. The wealthy just keep it.

You do not need religion to teach respect. There is too much religion in many public schools now. I think religion should be taught at home. There is nothing stopping an individual from praying privately anywhere though. That is an intrinsic good. I'll agree with what I consider inappropriate dress. For school I prefer uniforms.

 

[vantexan]

Ever since the first religions were organized there have been fights between followers. Some of these struggles have devolved onto a global scene and have taken the lives of millions. Below are some of the worst violent atrocities performed in the name of religion. This is not merely a list relating death tolls but rather the brutality, unfairness, and ignorance of the act (s) performed. And all justified as the will of "God".
Top Ten Atrocities Committed In the Name of Religion - TheTopTens®

As a student of history I can unequivocally say that your link is full of distortions, lies and at best half-truths. The writing is so slanted it was obviously written by someone who passionately hates religion. It's a shame that people get to the point their mind is poisoned.

 

[MAKAVELI]

As a student of history I can unequivocally say that your link is full of distortions, lies and at best half-truths. The writing is so slanted it was obviously written by someone who passionately hates religion. It's a shame that people get to the point their mind is poisoned.

Or maybe you are just blind to the reality that religion breeds evil.

 

[bacha29]

As it stands right now married couples with 2 kids pay no taxes after the EITC (best thing Reagan did to combat poverty)if the make less than about 50k. Larger families would see a tax increase under Trump's plan as personal exemptions would be eliminated. Similar story for single parents with middle incomes (40-100K off the top of my head) as the head of household category would be eliminated and there would be no exemption for the children so taxes would increase.

Obama reduced taxes for couples making less than 250k, but did not have massive cuts for wealthy high-income earners like Trump's plan. Middle incomes tend to spend the extra money. The wealthy just keep it.

You do not need religion to teach respect. There is too much religion in many public schools now. I think religion should be taught at home. There is nothing stopping an individual from praying privately anywhere though. That is an intrinsic good. I'll agree with what I consider inappropriate dress. For school I prefer uniforms.

Correction: The EIC originated in 1975. ( Ford) and was greatly expanded by Reagan. It's a refundable credit with the majority of those who qualify getting all of taxes they paid back in addition to the EIC money. The program is a fully taxpayer funded low income subsidy. So if VanT wants to do something about the deficit there's a good place to start.

 

[vantexan]

Or maybe you are just blind to the reality that religion breeds evil.

And you're blind to the fact that evil men often use religion to advance their agenda. And more often than not those that hate religion do everything in their power to eradicate it. Plenty of hate, plenty of evil out there. Those who sincerely follow Christianity(can't speak for other religions) simply do not do the evil you ascribe to it.

 

[Maui]

The purpose of blood sacrifices was to teach man the seriousness of sin. However, the death (and blood) of Jesus is to atone for the sins of man. God flooded the world for a reason. It was created by Him for man (also created by God) and man was to follow His rules. Man didn't obey, and so it rained, the planet flooded, and just about everything was killed.

As it stands, God promises eternal salvation to those who accept Christ.

I am not sure what sin is. A blood sacrifice is just that--killing and providing the blood from that killing to please an angry god. It is a terrible story of murder.

 

[Maui]

I don't think religion has harmed that pathetic region of the country, and no one promised that religion would fix it.

Religion has harmed the region tho. It keeps them backward and defends racism like it defended slavery. Rather than get better they just pray, which may have a psychological benefit, but does nothing else. You maybe have not seen all the ridiculousness that claims Trump is from God and saving this country and region. Rather than seek truth..they just say Jesus is the answer and it stunts growth and development in so many ways. It is harmful. Not to mention the absolute immorality of telling children they are inherently bad and deserve punishment to include eternal damnation.

 

[vantexan]

Correction: The EIC originated in 1975. ( Ford) and was greatly expanded by Reagan. It's a refundable credit with the majority of those who qualify getting all of taxes they paid back in addition to the EIC money. The program is a fully taxpayer funded low income subsidy. So if VanT wants to do something about the deficit there's a good place to start.

So you're not for low income assistance if Democrats didn't originate it?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I don't want my tax dollars funding liberal political indoctrination. The compromise is a voucher system. You can educate your kids as you see fit, as can I.

Yes, you can educate your kids as you see fit, and you don't need a voucher to do it.... man up and pay for private education if you don't like the system.

 

[njdriver]

Unless there is a prohibition on voucher money going to religious schools they shouldn't be allowed. I don't want my tax dollars funding religious indoctrination.

Not for nothing, but they already do.

The ACLU led the Left's charge to remove God and the Bible from public schools using the establishment clause as ammunition. When God's word is removed from the public square you are left only with man's word. The Humanists wanted to enjoy the same tax-free status religious groups enjoyed, and in the 1961 court case Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court ruled humanism was a religion, citing "...a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being..."

Since then, the theory of Creation wasn't allowed to be taught anymore, and all of a sudden the theory of evolution was no longer a theory, but settled science.

You are clearly against religious indoctrination, so why are you comfortable with the tenets of the religion of secular humanism being taught AND funded by taxpayer dollars?

Can't have it both ways.

For your reading pleasure, from americanhumanist.org, Humanist Manifesto III

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association
© 2003 American Humanist Association

 

[abused.crr]

I have 64 acres in eastern Kentucky. Coal country from the 80s and early 90s. I am currently 18 months in on a 2 year lease for gas and oil. In the last 2 months I've received several letters from companies wanting to buy my minerals. I'd say the speculation of a return of coal has something to do with it.

I think even the lefties on here will agree we should subsidize it with federal money to create jobs and get these poorest of poor and least educated people off government assistance.

It only makes since. It's an investment.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I have 64 acres in eastern Kentucky. Coal country from the 80s and early 90s. I am currently 18 months in on a 2 year lease for gas and oil. In the last 2 months I've received several letters from companies wanting to buy my minerals. I'd say the speculation of a return of coal has something to do with it.

I think even the lefties on here will agree we should subsidize it with federal money to create jobs and get these poorest of poor and least educated people off government assistance.

It only makes since. It's an investment.

We should strive to be coal free within 10 years.

 

[vantexan]

I live in coal country. The area has been strip mined and deep mined from one end to the next. When it comes to "reclaimed" strip mined land you simply will never again raise competitive yields on that land .It's too badly disturbed and it has to rain on it every other day if you want to grow anything at all. In addition the countless private and public water supplies that have been destroyed requiring finding new sources (if you're lucky) and laying down costly new water lines and pumping it for miles and most of the time at taxpayer expense. Thankfully over the past few years in my state alone 22,000 megawatts of coal fired electrical capacity have gone off line replaced with 22,000 megawatts of gas fired capacity. And the grid loves them because of the new technology these new pants offer combined with advances in storage batteries they can manage spikes much more easily. Coal as a cheaper energy source.? Four days after the last election First Energy who pretty much has a monopoly on the Mid Atlantic power market announced that they were leaving the deregulated electric market. Why? Their 1960's era and older coal fired plants can't compete with the new technology . The result? Whatever deregulated sector generation plants the grid doesn't need in the regulated market and cannot be sold to another utility ( and who would want them? ) will be shut down permanently.

Hey, I want that new technology to manage spikes in my pants too, LOL.

 

[Serf]

There is too much religion in many public schools now. I think religion should be taught at home

I respect your opinion. I have friends with kids in grade school who are spending large amounts of time covering all the aspects of Islam. As mandated by small groups of Arab parents who requested it to be. But none on Christianity or Judaism. You can imagine the waves in causing at school by some parents who are not as objective or neutral.