Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
17-Jan-2016
Posts
2434

Post History

Post
#898293
Topic
Politics
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in-god-we-trust-lawsuit_56994dbae4b0778f46f94b28

What is everyone’s opinion on this? Do you think it violates the 1st amendment to have “In God We Trust” on American currency?

The Founders had no trouble differentiating between a government-sponsored religion and general statements regarding the existence of a deity. What has changed is public perception of what constitutes religion and sensitivity to it. So the question becomes whether to interpret the Constitution by an original understanding of “establishment of religion,” or by some modern sense of that phrase. So the way you’ve phrased your question is astute in asking our opinions on the meaning of the Constitution - and also suggests and answer to Frink’s question.

If enough people are offended by seeing religious elements in public or governmental places, maybe the courts will get around to decided that the Constitution forbids it. I find that a troubling way of reading the Constitution and I prefer giving the Constitution’s words a more limited meaning. It helps that “In God We Trust” is such a general phrase, rather than something like “In Jesus We Trust.” I don’t think either statement compels anyone to follow a religion, but the latter strongly suggests a state-sponsored religion. The unspecific nature of “In God We Trust” along with a history of not punishing people for not believing suggests there is no establishment issue.

I see credibility in an argument for voting to remove that phrase out of sensitivity to others’ beliefs (including the argument that it is sacrilegious to invoke God on currency). I just don’t think the Constitution demands that we do so.

In the article, the plaintiff’s view is at one point described as “she is forced against her will to accept and re-distribute to others a message that goes wholly against her beliefs.” That sounds more like a free speech issue. The Supreme Court has held that people cannot be forced to display slogans on their license plates they disagree with (in a case dealing with the phrase “Live Free or Die”), because it basically turns their personal property (their vehicle) into a billboard for someone else’s message. Money is different because the message is contained entirely on the bill, but there’s some argument there.

Then again, some would argue that the Supreme Court is wrong in giving the Free Speech Clause such broad meaning as it has.

tl;dr: I don’t think it’s an establishment of religion to print the statement “In God We Trust” but I understand the sensitivity to it.

Post
#887747
Topic
The Force Awakens: Official Review Thread - ** SPOILERS **
Time

Yoda Is Your Father said:

SilverWook said:

As I’ve said elsewhere, the galaxy is in Cold War type situation at the beginning. The Resistance is fighting the good fight, and the Republic is looking the other way, yet supporting them in secret. (Yes, it’s the worst kept secret in the galaxy, but that’s politics for you.) As that sure looked like Coruscant getting vaporized, things have changed drastically.

It’s a good answer, and it goes some way to making sense of it all, so thanks.

But why would they look the other way? The Galactic Empire was awful, whole systems celebrated when it was overthrown. Wouldn’t everybody want to stop the First Order before history repeats itself.

And I don’t mean stop them by supporting a small band of rebels/resistance. I mean go at them, full pelt, and STOP THEM.

Agree SilverWook provides a good explanation. However, agree it is unnecessarily confusing. I think it was one of the many instances where they sought to mimic the character of the OT - where we didn’t know all the ins-and-outs of the government and the war, nor did we need to, making it feel more real because there was stuff below the surface. I just don’t think that tactic works when we’re already enmeshed in the story (via IV-VI) as it merely obscures, rather than suggest depth.

Post
#887593
Topic
THE FORCE AWAKENS (Episode VII) Discussion *SPOILER THREAD* See OP For Trailer/Teaser Links--Trailer is out!
Time

SilverWook said:

Mrebo said:

hydrospanner said:

TK428 said:

So here’s my question since we aren’t 100% sure if Rey is Luke’s daughter.

a) Rey is the daughter of Luke Skywalker.
b) Rey is the daughter of Leia & Han and we weren’t told yet.
c) Rey is the offspring of someone else.

I am leaning towards A or C being the most likely. She spent half the movie with Han so if B were the case he either didn’t know it was his daughter he had found or for some reason kept it concealed. Han and Leia talk about their son quite a bit, with no mention of a daughter.

In the flashback they showed her being left on Jakku as a very small child… so this would have presumably been before Kylo turned to the dark side and killed all the Jedi, so she likely wouldn’t have been hidden from Kylo unless they are brother and sister but end up not being twins and she is in fact several years younger.

I think A is probably the most likely… why is she drawn towards a lightsaber that based on what we know now has only been used by people with the Skywalker name. With her being the one to find Luke after he has vanished for so long it sure seems they are setting it up that way.

Also recall Kylo looks into her mind and sees an island. Some rationale in Luke leaving her on a desert planet, to keep her safe, the same kind of planet he grew up on. Although I question the care she was left in.

I’ve been wondering about that. The person who was supposed to look after her could have died over the years though. (Scavenging old space ship hulks is a dangerous profession.) Could Max Von Sydow’s character been keeping an eye on her at a distance?

That would help explain why he was in the movie, and also why he was in possession of the map.

Post
#887571
Topic
THE FORCE AWAKENS (Episode VII) Discussion *SPOILER THREAD* See OP For Trailer/Teaser Links--Trailer is out!
Time

hydrospanner said:

TK428 said:

So here’s my question since we aren’t 100% sure if Rey is Luke’s daughter.

a) Rey is the daughter of Luke Skywalker.
b) Rey is the daughter of Leia & Han and we weren’t told yet.
c) Rey is the offspring of someone else.

I am leaning towards A or C being the most likely. She spent half the movie with Han so if B were the case he either didn’t know it was his daughter he had found or for some reason kept it concealed. Han and Leia talk about their son quite a bit, with no mention of a daughter.

In the flashback they showed her being left on Jakku as a very small child… so this would have presumably been before Kylo turned to the dark side and killed all the Jedi, so she likely wouldn’t have been hidden from Kylo unless they are brother and sister but end up not being twins and she is in fact several years younger.

I think A is probably the most likely… why is she drawn towards a lightsaber that based on what we know now has only been used by people with the Skywalker name. With her being the one to find Luke after he has vanished for so long it sure seems they are setting it up that way.

Also recall Kylo looks into her mind and sees an island. Some rationale in Luke leaving her on a desert planet, to keep her safe, the same kind of planet he grew up on. Although I question the care she was left in.

Post
#887000
Topic
THE FORCE AWAKENS (Episode VII) Discussion *SPOILER THREAD* See OP For Trailer/Teaser Links--Trailer is out!
Time

I’ve just come from seeing it. My overall impression, which echos what others have said, is that too much was forced. Pun intended. Too many “moments,” too much convenience and rapid movement to the next needed event. Too much reliance on exposition and a soup of elements from the OT. It resulted in not feeling natural, relationships not feeling as real as they should have. I can’t tell if the movie would have benefited from a better story or a simpler telling. When we pare the story down to its elements, I think it may be the former as much as the latter.

That’s not to say I thought it was bad, I’m still digesting a lot. The Millenium Falcon chase really inspired a new hope in me after a start that left me searching for something to hold onto. Many great visuals, although generally fleeting. I wish Maz Kanata had been more fleshed out, more time taken there. I liked the female protagonist angle. I agree much with Noxos on the good and bad. The vision sequence was very good - modern but impressive.

In the end, I feel that this was something of a Forced Awakening.

Post
#885892
Topic
What are you reading?
Time

Being Nixon

I almost never read non-fiction but it’s very good. Window into his personality and the kind of person who can become president.

Post
#883637
Topic
Politics
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Your sentence implied that people are saying thoughts and prayers are not enough, we need better gun control. If that’s what you are saying other people are saying, I agree with them. If that’s not what you were saying, then what were you saying?

Yes, I thought that it was obvious 😃 I think it’s reactionary and exploitative if a tragedy 😕

The Daily News cover is a great example of what I’m talking about.

A thoughtful perspective

This post has been edited.

Post
#883592
Topic
Politics
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

There’s nothing wrong with thoughts and prayers…they just don’t solve anything.

Nobody said they did.

Mrebo said:

Shooting in California. [Some] immediately began dismissing thoughts and prayers, and demanded new gun laws.

So…what does “dismissing” mean? Because in the context of gun laws, which you implied with your full sentence…I agree with them.

Huh? Dismissing thoughts and prayers the way you did.

How am I dismissing it? I said there’s nothing wrong with it…do you think it prevents a single incident?

TV’s Frink said:

Thoughts and prayers can’t stop a bullet.

TV’s Frink said:

There’s nothing wrong with thoughts and prayers…they just don’t solve anything.

Mrebo said:

Nobody said they did.

What I’m not sure I understand is: “Because in the context of gun laws, which you implied with your full sentence…I agree with them.”

Post
#883412
Topic
Politics
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

There’s nothing wrong with thoughts and prayers…they just don’t solve anything.

Nobody said they did.

Mrebo said:

Shooting in California. [Some] immediately began dismissing thoughts and prayers, and demanded new gun laws.

So…what does “dismissing” mean? Because in the context of gun laws, which you implied with your full sentence…I agree with them.

Huh? Dismissing thoughts and prayers the way you did.

Post
#883374
Topic
Politics
Time

TV’s Frink said:

There’s nothing wrong with thoughts and prayers…they just don’t solve anything.

Nobody said they did.

After one knows the facts of a situation, one can talk about steps to take. For instance, a gun law isn’t going to stop a terrorist (consider Paris where gun laws are much stricter).

Post
#883309
Topic
Politics
Time

Shooting in California. [Some] immediately began dismissing thoughts and prayers, and demanded new gun laws. Motivation for shooting might have been terroristic and there were also pipe bombs. [Some] say Obama hasn’t been taking threat of terrorism seriously enough. There are claims that his intelligence reports are being doctored for political reasons. Obama continues to downplay the threat of terrorism but uses the attack (before knowing the facts) as a call for gun control.

In Chicago, there was an alleged cover up of a police shooting of a black teen in order to facilitate Rahm Emanuel’s reelection.

Post
#883242
Topic
The Place to Go for Emotional Support
Time

Possessed said:

i don’t see how his posting in this thread could ever be productive.

I’m not a person who knows how to accept emotional support very well, so I sympathize. Putting feelings out there may help you work them out. Sometimes just saying something helps to relieve the pressure.

Post
#882768
Topic
Politics
Time

Warbler said:

(from the article Mrebo linked to) “But maybe it was meant to protest the perceived marginalization of black professors” What is he talking about?

That some people believe black professors are not given the same respect as white professors and the black tape could have been put on by someone wishing to highlight that.

Post
#882438
Topic
THE FORCE AWAKENS (Episode VII) Discussion *SPOILER THREAD* See OP For Trailer/Teaser Links--Trailer is out!
Time

joefavs said:

towne32 said:

Starkiller origin point is interesting. The movement of the Death Star was always pretty ambiguous (although I bet the EU explained it in great detail). What if Starkiller has light speed engines?

I don’t want to say “I have a theory” because I don’t think I really believe it, but I’ve speculated that Starkiller stays in one place and can somehow fire it’s laser through hyperspace.

I bet it could hit Qo’noS…

To the top