The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Which, when the official is working in his official position, is an official endorsement of religion. Duh.
You might not have any way to stop it (I wouldn't consider making it illegal for a pol to invoke deities in his favour), but it's wrong, and I'm very happy that most Canadian politicians avoid it.
I dont see it that way.
its his belief, just like we dont ask u to shed ur beliefs at school. we don't ask u to shed ur beliefs at the job. even if that job is president.
Well it's your history.... Legal discrimination against Catholics in the United States existed until 1835- this referred directly to matters of citizenship and holding public office. Unofficial illegal discrimination carried on past that date- the construction of the Washington Monument was suspended because of pressure from the avowedly anti-Catholic 'Know-Nothing' Movement, offended by the gift (!) of a block of marble from Pope Pius IX taken from Rome's Temple of Concord (oh, the irony). The suspension endured 26 years, work being resumed in 1880 and finishing in 1888.
As I recall, one of the targets of the Klan (along with Jews and American citizens of African descent) were Catholics.
At the time of signing the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll was forbidden from holding public offices in his home state of Maryland because he was a Roman Catholic. At the time, Catholics were not allowed to teach the young, or to become lawyers.
Anyone who thinks the issue of religion in schools is being overblown should look at the history of education in Northern Ireland- fiercely sectarian and divisive, and in part responsible for the continuing hostility and lack of communication between the Catholic and Protestant communites. I've met Protestants from Northern Ireland who wouldn't go to Catholic areas because they thought they might 'look' Protestant (not even because they wore overt religious symbols) and who honestly believed that Catholic Irish were in part descended from Spanish Armada sailors and did everything the Pope and the Vatican decreed.
Vive la liberte. Noor Inayat Khan, Dachau.
...patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone. Edith Cavell, 1915
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Please, man. Use "you" and "your". Even though this is a reasonable disagreement, I have trouble taking you seriously when you type like that.
inane grammar nazi as a counter argument? mad skill u got there buddy.
Originally posted by Ned
Molly, I have no doubt that Catholics were the subject of discrimination in the US. I am Catholic and have personally experienced it.
Oh, Ned dear, are you sure it was to do with your religion?
(ducks down........ )
Vive la liberte. Noor Inayat Khan, Dachau.
...patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone. Edith Cavell, 1915
On the back of all US banknotes, even the new ones, is written :*In God we trust*. This is not said by an individual expressing his personnal beliefs, it is the state forcing the belief in a god in the throat of all American atheists.
That is something that's been there for a long time and now a days is a very small infringment on the establishment of relgion. It ain't that big a deal and most atheists don't give a damn about it. No one thinks that is the government forcing anything.
No, that's official endorsement of religion (when he's speaking as the President).
No it isn't. When he is speaking as President he is still an individual. Even the president has free exercise rights and he doesn't give that up when he is speaking.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Well, having "in God we trust" on the money illustrates that at one time America had no problem acknowledging God. Moreover, we then did not view such acknowledgment to be a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause because we thought that that clause had to do with the establishment of "a" particular religion over other religions" as opposed to the establishment of monotheism over atheism or polytheism.
On the back of all US banknotes, even the new ones, is written :*In God we trust*. This is not said by an individual expressing his personnal beliefs, it is the state forcing the belief in a god in the throat of all American atheists.
That is something that's been there for a long time and now a days is a very small infringment on the establishment of relgion. It ain't that big a deal and most atheists don't give a damn about it. No one thinks that is the government forcing anything.
No, that's official endorsement of religion (when he's speaking as the President).
No it isn't. When he is speaking as President he is still an individual. Even the president has free exercise rights and he doesn't give that up when he is speaking.
On both questions your answers does not present any convincing argument.
How can you say : no one thinks ... This mention is at least a misrepresentation of the US population. And if this is no big deal, I cant see how our two dozens headscarfed girls (out of hundreds of thousand) would be a deal worth such a long thread.
On the second question, may I ask when listening the President, how I discriminate in the speech what comes from the President from what comes from the individual ?
Statistical anomaly.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Legal discrimination against Catholics in the United States existed until 1835
There were very, very few catholics in the United States up to that point anyway. Almost none, as a matter of fact (there were only a thousand or so at the turn of the 19th century). So I think that it wouldn't be worthwhile to overemphasize the legal discrimination during that time. Anyway, I would like to see the specifics on the laws that you mention.
My family moved to the States in 1842. It has been passed down orally that there was discrimination against catholics, but the legal system was impartial.
With regard to the Washington Monument, there was a hiatus due to lack of funding. The precipitating characters were the know-nothings, but the stone from the Pope was stolen, and had no bearing on the construction after that (other than the theft stalled momentum on the project).
At the time of signing the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll was forbidden from holding public offices in his home state of Maryland because he was a Roman Catholic. At the time, Catholics were not allowed to teach the young, or to become lawyers.
That was in colonial times! Carroll was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Maryland delegate to the constitutional convention, for God's sake! We had a war over freedoms, remember!
Really, there was discrimination, but not by the state, by and large.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
On the second question, may I ask when listening the President, how I discriminate in the speech what comes from the President from what comes from the individual ?
fear not yav to the rescue.
if he sez "gov't should encourage catholicism and fund a public catholic school system. thats a view of state endorsement of rleigion.
if he thanks god or asks his god to bless something he holds dear. that is not.
no one thinks ... This mention is at least a misrepresentation of the US population.
Well then most people think nothing about it... better . That isn't a misrepresenation of the US population at all. Ask most atheists in the US.
And if this is no big deal, I cant see how our two dozens headscarfed girls (out of hundreds of thousand) would be a deal worth such a long thread.
Because it is a part of their personal religion. Opposing words on a bill isn't a part of anyone's religion.
On the second question, may I ask when listening the President, how I discriminate in the speech what comes from the President from what comes from the individual ?
Use your mind . When you listen to your leaders how do you seperate the office from the person? Just because he is a leader doesn't mean he isn't a person.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
if he sez "gov't should encourage catholicism and fund a public catholic school system. thats a view of state endorsement of rleigion.
if he thanks god or asks his god to bless something he holds dear. that is not.
YAV to the rescue!
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Tweet
Comment