Finally, A Solution To The DMCA 465
morcego writes: "Well, finally someone came up with a solution to the DMCA problem.
You can read it on the archive of the Humorix list." Well, combine this with my ULC Reverendship, and we're well underway *grin*.
Freedom of Religion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If the school allows other clubs, then they should allow bible clubs equal access. Otherwise they are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging those student's right to free speech, and preventing them from peaceably assembling on property that is available to others.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
Actually, that's the first amendment. The second amendment is the one that discourages Congress or the states from messing with the first one .
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
I actually agre with you... although Gay and Lesbian clubs, Satan Rules clubs, and the rest should be permitted as well.
Frankly, the reason that such clubs are not permitted is that so many so-called conservatives tried for so long to pass laws that enforce the legitimacy of school prayer, which was a huge ethical, moral, and constitutional quagmire. These laws would have done nothing but make it legal for schools to provide a forum for one religion (Christianity) at the expense of others (and atheism IS a religion). Had said conservatives really wanted nothing more than to encourage prayer among the faithful and defend freedom of religion, they would have pushed the kind of "let's you and me pray and stick up for ourselves if anyone tries to stop us" prayer that's come into vogue in the last year or so. And they would have spared us 20 years of assaults on the Constitution.
But they didn't do that. They spend 20 years trying to sneak in de facto state endorsement of religion; their aims were not honest, and their methods (stealth candidates) and agendas (school-led prayer; an answer to a problem that no one had) gave the lie to their alleged goals. Now they are paying the price in a backlash against anything that resembles their tactics, even when, as in the case of student bible clubs, there is no good reason to forbid them.
So you should really be complaining to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al..
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
Actually as worded it covers everything from a rock to a 25MT bomb.
Hmmm (Score:2)
The arguments aren't whether kids are allowed to form Gay and Lesbian Student Aliances, but whether allowing the clubs to use school property constitutes state support of homosexuality. My own view is that it does not, but reasonable people may differ on this point.
Kinda falls on it's face when you apply it to someone else's pet group, don't it?
Don't forget to recomend government restrictions on gun ownership because "militias" no longer serve a useful purpose now that constitutionally banned standing armies exist. Also, you might argue that the government should be alowed to billet those troops in your house because only criminals have things to hide. Reasonable people can differ, right?
The unclear part (Score:4, Insightful)
The unclear part is how to apply this when the each of these two adjacent sentence clauses (no establishment/no prohibition) contradict each other.
It is unclear whether providing overhead (electricity, land, janitorial services etc) support for people egaged in religious activity constitutes a move, however tiny, towards the establishment of religion. Neither is it perfectly clear that forbidding equally all such support to all such groups effectively prohibits their right to excercise freedom of religion.
People tend to see the issue as perfectly clear cut on one side or the other. It isn't, in my opinion. It is perfectly possible, in my view, that the framers left us with situations where those two adjacent phrases give us two contradictory imperatives, at least viewed using two valued logic.
Let A be the proposition that letting the students meet on school property is kind of state establishment of religion. Let B be the proposition that not letting the students meet on school property limits their free excercise of religion.
It's not a black and white issue. Propositions like this aren't true or false in the same way that "3 > 2" or "pi is irrational" are. They are matters of judgement, and can be somewhat true or somewhat false. I happen to think A is practically completely false (but to a tiny degree true); and B is mostly false (but considerably more true than A). Therefore, I favor the students being allowed to meet, but I can see how other people would have different opinions.
Since neither A, nor B is anything like 50% true, I'm not going to get very worked up either way. Since there is not way to split the difference (the students are allowed to meet on the property or they are not), then either decision is somewhat good and somewhat bad.
Now, if the policy where not applied equally to atheists, jews, pagans, muslims and christians, then I would definitely get very excited about it, since it would be a clear step towards establishment.
Re:The unclear part (Score:2)
The unclear part is how to apply this when the each of these two adjacent sentence clauses (no establishment/no prohibition) contradict each other.
It is unclear whether providing overhead (electricity, land, janitorial services etc) support for people egaged in religious activity constitutes a move, however tiny, towards the establishment of religion. Neither is it perfectly clear that forbidding equally all such support to all such groups effectively prohibits their right to excercise freedom of religion.
This is the old "reducing to absurdity" logical fallacy. You could argue that the use of a state park or parking lot constitues a move, however tiny, to the establishment of religion.
There are times to nitpick and times not to. This is (to me) clearly a time not to do so. You take the law in the context it was meant to be in, instead of breaking it apart to this level. I believe there is a judicial term for this but I haven't got a clue what it is.
Re:Seperation of Church and State (Score:2, Informative)
Official state religions slowly withered away in the years following the signing of the Constitution. Now people who have no knowledge of why that clause exists in the Constitution believe it means something totally orthogonal to its original meaning. Welcome to Amerika.
Re:Seperation of Church and State (Score:2)
Satanic [or Satanists for that matter] clubs do not in anyway promote evil, killing or any other bad morals that would adversly affect a society. For the most part "Anton Le Vay" satanists are the perfect citizen because they only work for a better life here on earth instead of spirtual pipe dreams. I cannot think of a better club for school. I would hope that people would understand some day that Satanist's do not worship Satan. Most Satanists do not even believe in god. This is the offical stand point I have about myself, and what most other satanists have told me when I have met them.
Back to the point here I think that if you allow one club, you should make room for all of them. I personaly found that my high school (back in the day here...) had a club called: C.H.A.O.S (Christ has all our anwsers) but to start a club you needed a teacher to sponser you. Needless to say that anyone that wanted a christian club could find a sponsor, but I could not get one for my club S.I.N. (Satanism is Natural), so I was allowed to have a club of this nature, but I wasnt allowed to have this club with out a sponsor. The lesson learned is leave the descrimination up to the teachers and you only get the type of clubs the teachers would join.
Re:Seperation of Church and State (Score:2)
I remember that. But then they changed it to the C.I.A.: Christians in Action. They sang songs around the flagpole, put up posters with bible passages around school, and even got some airtime on the school P.A. now and then.
I had a talk with the vice-principal about it. He agreed that they were probably crossing the line in some areas, but said it was "too popular to shut down". This is in sunny liberal california, btw.
Re:Seperation of Church and State (Score:2)
Re:Seperation of Church and State (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:3, Offtopic)
I still want someone to show me where the constitution says there should be a separation between the church and state. Try and find it. I see where it says that the government can't establish an official religon or require yor membership for citizenship.
Keep in mind that the constitution was written to be understood by common people in the 1700's. If it doesn't come right out and say something, it isn't in there.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
There are a good deal of rights, not in the Constitution. It was never intended to be static, and they we're interpreting it from the begining. Things like overturning a law on Constitutional grounds was just completely made up. Don't be so strict, you'll really lose a lot of your freedoms.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the Constitution does not grant rights. Instead, it enumerates the specific powers of the government. In theory, the government can exercise only those powers specifically named in the Constitution; all others are delegated to the states or the people. Of course this has not been the case for some time now.
Don't be so strict, you'll really lose a lot of your freedoms.
I'd argue that the "living document" view of the Constitution is responsible for far more damage to our freedoms. Look at how many laws and regulations have been passed using a bogus interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Or consider the war on drugs; alcohol Prohibition correctly required a Constitutional amendment, yet somehow the federal government just asserted that it can throw people in prison for smoking pot.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory, the government can exercise only those powers specifically named in the Constitution; all others are delegated to the states or the people. Of course this has not been the case for some time now.
Would you like to know exactly how long that's been? Since the end of the Civil War. As soon as the North won, suddenly "The United States of America" went from being a plural to a singular. Today we just think of it as the name of the country we live in, but once upon a time, people actually meant every individual word of that -- they spoke of a collection of almost independant entities, but Lincoln, by uniting a country divided on that very issue of state's rights (and don't let them tell you it was about slavery, that was a side effect) and winning it for Federalism, redefined the nation. Now it has a single currency, and more uniform laws. Yes, the federal government has done some pretty bogus things, like the war on drugs, but don't blame that on a loss of state's rights.
As for the interpretation of the right to privacy, a supreme court decision discovered that nugget was in there, after the government had tried to push that particular envelope. Yes, the constitution states that it grants specific rights to the federal government and all others belong to the people. If that's true, why bother having the first amendment at all? or the forteenth? Heck, most of the bill of rights isn't granting the government powers the way the 18th did, it's limiting the extent of it. Those are the parts of the constitution that the Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
An excellent point, and that's why many of the framers of the Constitution didn't want a Bill of Rights. Their reasoning was that if the Bill of Rights said that the government could not infringe certain rights, then it could be argued that any rights not listed didn't exist. The 9th and 10th amendments were intended to prevent this from happening, but they too have been ignored.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
Which effectivly neuters the 10th ammendment.
Going back to the DMCA the same thing has been happening with the IP clause. With "limited time" being interpreted as "any finite length of time" and issues of furthering "science and useful arts" being downplayed.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
And I feel that the use of any communal money should be agreed upon by all involved. Those that want to create special groups outside of the goverment (such as churches) are welcome to do so. Is it not enough that churches get a tax free status? Do you really think that everyone 'wants' to be involved in your religion? Do you feel that your religion is so special that others must be subjected to it and pay for it? I am sorry, but that is just on fair.
The fact is that there are many different religions and, in fact, some of us are pretty a-religious, non-religious, or even anti-religious. Thus putting one ahead of the others is discrimination and favoritism. That is why there is such a back lash against it. I am suprised that you can actually claim that there is a valid reason for it to be otherwise.
-CrackElf
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
The same thing could be said about just any (school sponsored) club. Do you really think that everyone enjoys playing chess? Using linux? Playing football? But we wouldn't use that fact for banning chess clubs, linux clubs or football clubs. Why should religion be considered any different?
> The fact is that there are many different religions and, in fact, some of us are pretty a-religious, non-religious, or even anti-religious.
Hey, many geeks are anti-jock, but most high-schools still have sports club. And on top of that, there is a significant peer pressure to join one of the sports clubs. If you apply your reasoning equally to all clubs, sports clubs would have to go before any religious clubs!
> Thus putting one ahead of the others is discrimination and favoritism.
No, it is not. Geeks may not be interested by sports clubs, but they have their chess or computer clubs. Non-discrimation does not mean that no special-interest groups should exist, it only means that each reasonably common interest should have the right to form a club. Forbidding only religious clubs, while allowing clubs for all other kinds of concerns would be anti-religious discrimation. And banning all clubs would be plain stoopid: why not put the classrooms to good use after school hours?
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
Significant amounts of people are not opposed to the chess club, and the sports clubs. Whereas religion is a hotbed of debate. I support the other clubs. I do not support using the school as a place for any political or religious group to preach, indoctrinate, or recruit.
Religious organizations have their own agenda's. While there have been few serious bids for world domination by the football club or the chess club, religions have tried (and at times succeeded) at controlling large amounts of power. And it has not always been used for good. I am not trying to cast judgment here, just trying to put forth a little perspective.
Also, many religious organizations (especially the Christian religions) put forth their morality and attempt to enforce their 'code' on others. I do not believe that this is something that I want my tax dollars going to, just as I am fairly certain that most Christian parents would not want their money going towards the Hare Krishna or the Scientologists(sp?) (or any other cults for that matter). I am fairly certain that most proponents are not talking about the Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Native American, Satanist, African (multiple), Wiccan, Chineese, Japaneese, Celtic, or any of the plethora of other religions beliefs that exist.
Why can religious groups not meet at their churches where they use (tax free) money that comes from within the religious communities that want the meeting? Seriously. Unless the idea is to recruit, or use the school as a place to indoctrinate, what reason is there to use the school?
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
You then have to address the question of what is a "religion". Just as there are religious groups with political aspirations there are ostensivly political groups which rely on faith even more than religious...
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
I think that if the First Amendment stands for anything, it stands for the idea that no one's opposition to an idea should have any bearing on how the law treats the expression of that idea.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
Sports has a number of very negative impacts on our society;
Programs our children for agression and destructive or counterproductive competition. Costs BILLIONS a year in lost productivity due to "old sports injuries" or worker absenteeism to watch sporting events, or dissolved marriages due to spousal obsession with watching sporting events or spending money on sports paraphenalia, or purchasing inferior or defective products endorsed by sports personalities.
Takes HUGE amounts of funding and manpower away from legitimate academic pursuits.
Riots by fans at British soccer games.
Why do Sports teams have to meet and practice on school property? Why can't sports enthusiasts spend their own money to secure funding for a separate stadium, locker room and showers? Why are students pulled away from their studies in their regular classes to attend brainwashing and propaganda ceremonies ("pep rallies")?
We all know that football is a neo-facsist crypto-symbol for nuclear war.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
Because religion is not an exercise of the body or mind I don't care how enlightened you may think christians are.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
No, that would be the state refusing to _pay_ for the practice of religon with my tax money. (I don't personally have a problem with a group of kids reading the bible in a school after hours, but others might.)
Prohibiting would be more like throwing you in jail if you are caught.
The intent of the ammendment is probably more to keep the church from gaining control of the government or vice versa, but separating the two means separating any and all overlap, whether it really threatens freedom of religon or not.
Or maybe not.
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
"[I]f a State refused to let religious groups use facilities open to others, then it would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility toward religion." Justice O'connor Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 248 (1990).
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you look at the Declaration of Independence, making past actions illegal and then punishing the colonists for them was one of the tyranies that the colonists railed against when it was done by King George. That is why they made sure to include this restriction on the laws passed by Congress.
However, if we then say that the Constitution itself is not to be interpreted strictly, but has a meaning that can change over time, then we are saying that people do not know the rules in advance; they find out that what they did was illegal when the courts "interpret" the Constitution. This smacks of the same tyranny that our founders were trying to escape.
So, if we wish to summarize, interpreting the Constitution according to its "spirit" is against the spirit of the Constitution.
Chris Beckenbach
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions
with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence
People can make whatever ignorant claims they want. These are not the words of people who would ban bibles from public places. Let's do something novel and look at the First Amendment and how CrackElf would have you read it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So now, the (off)topic here is after school use of public property by a religious group. Mr. Elf feels that this is not allowed under the First Amendment. Let's assume he is correct (he isn't) and you will see what else isn't allowed under this interpretation:
I'll do the next nine amendments if you would like or someone else can do the Separation Bill of Rights. You'll find that some things don't change much. Maybe Mr. Elf would like to take a Crack at it?
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of Religion? (Score:2)
Once you start using it to brainwash others with your beliefs then at what point do you stop? How far should they go to "spread" their beliefs to others. If all religions preached everyone should be accepted I wouldn't have a problem with it. When your meeting singles out everyone else as going to hell then I say your just a contributor to the worlds problems.
Look at the muslim/jewish conflict, the christian crusades, or any other major (non-accepting) religions that cause people to die on a daily basis. Then tell me my kid should be subjected to that bullshit.
the mess the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid? (Score:3, Insightful)
The best solution to this whole mess would be to get the governemnt out of the school business altogether. It's not like they're doing a good job or anything...
Re:the mess the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid? (Score:2)
Nothing? (Score:2)
Oh, and comparing literacy rates from before public schools (1840?) and 2001 is of course of very litle value, since society has changed in 42 zillion other ways in between.
What a great idea (Score:3, Troll)
Terminology (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, by the time they're teenaged, they're not "chicks" any more. They're just "chickens" at that point.
Virg
Re:Terminology (Score:2, Funny)
And if you want to get REALLY specific, they would be "hens." I don't think that guy would want to boff the rooster.
Re:What a great idea (Score:3, Funny)
Ms. Poundstone, another outburst like that and I'll find you in contempt of court.
Re:What a great idea (Score:2)
Article (Score:2, Informative)
Hope this helps out. I always hate it when we slashdot a story this quickly.
Sinful Confessions? (Score:4, Funny)
LOL!! (Score:4, Funny)
And frowned. He knew those sentient humans would be a problem. Even after He had sweated over a hot terminal for thirteen days, those humans were ungrateful. They called their place of existence the "Universe", not the "Great Programmer/Universe".
Richard M Stallman, eat your heart out...!
Re:LOL!! (Score:2)
Protected religious practices (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Protected religious practices (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Protected religious practices (Score:2, Funny)
We just need to have geek concentratio...errr reservations that we can put these religious fanatics in. Then we could monitor all of their movements, I mean so we could provide them with all the freedoms they desire.
Then the DMCA could stay in effect for everyone else. I believe Utah has some extra space.
Re:Protected religious practices (Score:2)
Re:Protected religious practices...Congress Helps (Score:5, Funny)
WASHINGTON, DC: Aug 30, 2001
As Congress furiously discussed what to do with the newly discovered "First Church Of Digital Grepping" and its alleged dogma that requires its members to constantly search through copyrighted materials for sacred meaning and salvation, the lobbying organizations for the entertainment and publishing sprang into action.
The entertainments' lawyer and lobbyists have already brought about a marked increase in donations of cash, luxury cars, booze, dope and the deployment of hookers.
One crack addict in a poor neighborhood of DC told us today, "Man, you can't score any good shit with it all going to them Congressmen. We down here smoking Draino and hoping those lobbyists from the entertainment industment get whatever the hell it is they want so we can get our freak back on!"
Another professional worker in the recreational sex business tells relates a similar story, "Geez, it's normally bad enough here with all these Congressmen around. Can't keep in they pants, anyway. You know how it is, if they ain't doing one of us out here, they doing the American people in there. But with all them lawyers and lobbyists working Congress about that Geek Religion thing, its nearly as bad for a sex worker as it is when they ain't no interns around. That's the worst, it's just every ho for themselves then and pray for new load of interns."
Sources within the entertainment industry say their goal is the simple protection of the artists.
One anonymous source said, "Look we all know that the actual artist, the creator who is the principal beneficiary of our actions here. We're going to ensure that the people who create the movies, music and books that we all love and cherish continue to receive their
Another source said that perhaps a solution similar to the one used with Native American peoples would be effective in dealing with "The First Church Of Digital Grepping".
That is, round all them up, march two thousand miles in the middle of winter. Take their computers and ATM cards away from them. Give them habitats in faroff remote Northern rural areas, and allow them to practice their supposed religion two or three times a year, under close Bureau of Geek Affairs supervision.
common sense. (Score:2)
Re:common sense. (Score:2)
Isn't that Rastafarian [aspects.net]?
Re:common sense. (Score:2)
The reason this is interesting is because we all now that if tobacco went up before the FDA today, it would never be approved for human consumption.
the name of the Great Programmer... (Score:3, Funny)
BILL GATES!!!
NO!!!!!
of course, that would explain why humans are so insecure and unstable....
Re:the name of the Great Programmer... (Score:3, Interesting)
Speak for yourself -- that's just for those of you who are made by Microsoft. We open-source humans, although lacking a user-friendly interface, are much more secure and stable, and when instabilities are encountered, patch our problems up in much less time!
And our interfaces are improving rapidly, too...
Re:the name of the Great Programmer... (Score:2)
I don't know, the KDE -- the Kosmetics Disguise Effectation -- can work wonders with even the ugliest of us.
Re:the name of the Great Programmer... (Score:2)
Serves you right for running strings() on the results of a KERNEL32.EXE XOR'ed with a dump of vmlinux, doesn't it?
There are Things that Man Was Not Meant To Know.
(And now you know why there's that no-reverse-engineering, no-disassembly, no-lookee-at-the-executable clause in your EULA.)
Bush Rulez! (Score:2)
Re:Bush Rulez! (Score:3, Funny)
Annoying those of us who don't need him (e.g. the citizens of Minnesota)...
Re:Bush Rulez! (Score:2)
http://www.pioneerplanet.com/archive/jesse/
Re:Bush Rulez! (Score:2)
Where have i seen this before? (Score:5, Funny)
This procedure for creating a religion seems pretty popular, I believe Scientology was created that way.
Church of Pron (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't go very far, but you had to admire their gusto.
- - -
Radio Free Nation [radiofreenation.com]
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -
code review (Score:2, Funny)
That's what the Great Programmer gets for writing self-modifying code.
Religions (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's a valid question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if he did make it somewhat inflammatory. I'd like to know as well. What makes a religion "legitimate" in the eyes of the government?
Re:It's a valid question... (Score:2, Interesting)
Going totally from memory, it requires "sincere belief". There was some case of a prisoner claiming his religion required some sort of better treatment than he was getting, I think he wanted certain foods, or some such that way. It was pretty clearly a case (like this) of making up a religion for a specific purpose.
I don't recall it real clearly, but it was something like that. Hopefully this is enough someone interested can find more info about it.
Re:It's a valid question... (Score:2)
Sounds very subjective and prone to abuse. How is a judge or other official to know what someone sincerely believes? Where do they draw the line between someone who simply thinks or feels that they should follow a certain way of life and those that "sincerely believe" that they should follow a certain way of life?
Re:It's a valid question... (Score:2)
A campaign contribution of $10 certainly would not indicate that the church is truly sincere about their cause. However a $100,000 campaign contribution probably would. How regularly contributions are made would also be a good indicator of the strength a church's beliefs. This simple formula has worked well for our leaders when determining what's right for citizens for years. I imagine it would apply to a religion just the same as any other group.
In a courtroom they'd probably have to judge sincerity on the number of high-profile attornies representing you. If you show up with a public defender then you obviously don't care too much about the outcome.
Proof of a religion (Score:2)
To be defined as a religion doesn't take all of these things, but the more you got, the more it helps. For the most part, judges will use "common sense" for something like proving is a belief system is a legitamate religion. This approach to worshiping code certain can take on many aspects though.
BTW, using religion as an aspect of political protest has a much longer tradition than even non-violent protests that you see much more commonly, and tends to get neglicted by the ruling governments until they can't do anything about it. (C.F. Christianity and the Roman Empire, as well as the Catholic Church and Communism... especially in Poland and much of Eastern Europe).
Re:Religions (Score:2)
It's funny how athiests think they are so clever. If they could stop worshiping themselves for a moment, get away from a computer, or get a life they might see some grandure in the world and imagine a creator. Religion might then make sense to them. Dimmer bulbs seem to always be blinded by their own light.
Re:Religions (Score:2)
I don't know how closely the courts follow the IRS in determining whether something is a "religion" for other purposes. Certainly they aren't going to allow just any religious practice. You can dance nude around the oak tree on your own fenced land, but not around the oak tree in the city park, except maybe in some California cities. Human sacrifice is out. You can't burn heretics at the stake. If the Hashashin cult were still around, they just might get an exemption for their marijuana concentrates, but not for assassinating enemies of the faith...
Re:Religions - Funny (curious) (Score:2)
The founder, Kirby J. Hensley, was a guy who didn't believe in tax-exempt status for churches. He fought this law for a long time, even including suing the IRS, and he lost at every turn - (big surprise, eh?).
As an extreme effort, he figured that he might try to form his own church and make it profit oriented , but not so much that it would look like a disingenous effort. Then, when the IRS turned him down for tax-exempt status, he could use this as a precedent to fight again for repeal of the tax-exempt status of the more mainstream churches.
Much to his surprise, the IRS granted him tax-exempt status. I think he folded at that point and I guess he figured, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
At least that's the condensed version of the story I heard when I became a minister with the Universal Life Church, Inc. in 1979. Five bucks and I was a minister. I can marry people, bury people, and legally avoid the draft on concientious objector status. I qualify for any benefit that any other clergy would receive. (I even signed the certificate for my step-daughters marriage. My now ex-wife performed the Pagan ceremony.)
Additionally, myself and two others can form a local chapter of the church, take a vow of poverty, donate all our secular income to our church (which then takes care of all our bills), and donate our home(s) to our chapter of the church - then the home comes off the property tax rolls as church property.
The potential tax savings are incredible.
What does it take to create your own religion? I guess if you follow in the footsteps of ULC, that should be close enough. If someone does, please let me know, I'd join up.
Open Source Software - it's the difference between Trust and Anti-Trust.
ULC eBook? (Score:2, Funny)
dmca circumvention (Score:2)
Religion for geeks, nerds, whatever (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I have been having some pretty serious discussions about this with friends of mine, most of whom are grads from divinity and transpersonal psych backgrounds, as well as with my tech friends (the two happen to coincide quite often as well).
Truth is, freedom of religion pretty much trumps just about every other right in the US. There are exceptions, but in general, even those who have lost on gambles such as polygamy and controlled substances still have a pretty wide berth on just about anything else.
As such, many of my friends thought that creating a religion that covers code as an expressive form of religion has come up very often. If you think about it, people who have a deep understanding (deep by the average citizens' point of view, shallow in the tech world) of computers and technology are pretty much regarded as witches by most folks out in the world. The best way, my friends and I thought, to fight this kind of mindset is simply to adopt a shroud of religion.
Hey Joe, you got a problem with the fact that I know things you don't? Well, I know this because God says ITS OK TO KNOW IT. Join my religion, and you can know it too. Just follow the rules. All of the sudden, most of the arguements over whether it should be legal to even KNOW about system security or info sec goes out the window by most peoples' standards if a christian church says its ok, then maybe it isnt the work of the devil, or witches, or evil haxors. Its ok, because god says it can exist.
Yeah, I know that there is some moral reckoning in how the above is presented that wouldn't wash with some knowledgeable and highly ethical people. I don't care. I care about not being picked out of a crowd because I know something other people don't. I care about having something besides the EFF to back my ass up when someone decides to sue me or press charges over something nobody really understands, but hey, THATS OK to press charges, HE knows TECH. He's GOT TO be a witch/evil haxor/apostate.
Fact is, I really do think whatever force that holds it all together talks through us and what we do. I don't think that it would be too unusual to start a church or temple or whatever to back that up, and to spread more knowledge around. Yeah, there are the baptists down the street, they are having a bake sale; the Catholics are having roulette night...oh, look over there, that new church, they are having free computer lessons!
Anyways, we never got around to getting that IDEA off the ground. It was a nice one. However, that may happen in the future. Essentially, at the time, nobody wanted to do the research to write the canon and background literature. Everybody was busy working. Well, now that the bubble has burst, we've got that time. Maybe it will happen, maybe not.
But really think about it...not many organizations can pull off the kind of stunts that folks need when shit hits the fan. Maybe a religion might not be a bad idea, jokes aside.
Re:Religion for geeks, nerds, whatever (Score:2)
This is more true than you know. The average person regards a computer as a magic box into which you must insert the Holy Offering (CD) begin the ritual incantation (run the installer,) hope that you've appeased it (pre-requisites) and pray for it to work (how many times have you seen somebody say something like "Please work, please work, come on, please work, oh God please work!") and, when things don't work, call upon the Holy Priesthood (sys admins and the like) who then do things which are beyond the ken of mere mortals.
And how many people regard their computers as sentient and malevolent?
Memo to the MPAA Membership from Jack Valenti (Score:3, Funny)
This would be pointless. I know that some of you are concerned because some religions have sprung up that worship free speech and such things.
Just remember what happened years ago when John Lennon made the mistake of saying that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.
He was wrong. The Beatles weren't. We, however, are.
Sincerely yours,
Jack Valenti
Sounds like a forking from... (Score:5, Funny)
In the First Disassembly of God church we seek to reverse engineer the nature of the cosmos and supply weekly diffs and patches at our worship services. (As well as debugging of the faithful, documenting the numberous ways of violating syntax, and distribution of the Wine libraries and
Re:Sounds like a forking from... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, what you describe as the First Disassembly of God church goes back at least 2500 years.
Its members are called "physicists".
A guy in a bathtub started it. They named a screw after him. There was another guy who had an apple fall on his head. Another guy drew ellipses and shaded in sections of 'em. Then there was a bunch of devotees who played around with magnets and batteries, and following them, some folks with a thing for that glowing gunk that came out of pitchblende. Someone figured out that you can use the bits that fly off the glowing gunk to bash bits of non-glowing gunk, and that the non-glowing gunk is mostly empty space. You can even take the small bits of gunk that aren't empty space and bash 'em against each other, and see what they're made of. (Even if you can never measure precisely where the bits of gunk are, or how much momentum they have, at any given moment. Uh, we're still working on how God pulled that one off.)
By the way, if anyone knows what any of this "small-bits-of-gunk-that-you-can't-measure-where-i t-is-and-sometimes-it-acts-like-a-wave hack" has to do with God's other weird hack - the one that makes heavy stuff like apples, move towards other heavy stuff like planets (unless some church member's head is in the way), please apply for membership ASAP. We're pretty stumped on this bit.
But... (Score:2)
hey guys! (Score:2)
every music CD, every movie DVD, and every printed book and
then grep the digital version for any tell-tale signs of
'The Meaning Of Life'."
That won't be neccessary. I've got a copy of it on VHS that I'll loan you! (Warning: the flick is extremely British.)
More Weight (Score:2)
You do realize this article is humor, right?
Virg
Re:cause I can not remember (Score:5, Informative)
In most cases (in America), you cannot break the law in the name of religion. Aztecs cannot sacrifice people, Mormons can't practice polygamy, White Power churches cannot lynch people and violate civil rights, Branch Davidians couldn't violate gun laws and practice statutory rape (depending on who you believe).
However, there are a lot of exceptions, mostly cultural. Amish are except from certain mandatory schooling laws. Native tribes are excempt from prohibitions against hunting endangered animals. Underage Cattholics can drink alcohol as part of services.
Re:cause I can not remember (Score:2, Informative)
Please notice your examples and how they break down into two major camps: Ones that violate someone else's rights and ones that don't.
Killing someone (even in Religion's name) is violating that person's right to life (whether it be voluntary or not is another question). Whereas an "underage" person taking the sacrament in the Catholic church is not violating anyone else's rights.
Classic quote by Frederic Bastiat in The Law (1850):
Re:cause I can not remember (Score:2)
My understanding is also that the church would have to have a precident to it. So a church that was created right after the DMCA was written specifically to override the DMCA wouldn't work at all. However, the catholics have a long established tradition of the sacrament. If memory serves many people in the 60s tried to argue that they couldn't be drafted because of a freedom of religion (they started a religion to avoid the draft). The courts held that one couldn't merely start a relegion to avoid a law.
By the way, the mormon church gave up pologomy of their own accord before even joining the union. It's not a matter of the law telling them not to. - AC post above
This was informative, and I didn't have mod points, and just wanted to make sure it got read.
Re:cause I can not remember (Score:2)
Technically speaking, in the US, a constitutional ammendment (specifically modifying the 14th) would be required to even allow different income taxation for marrieds and non-marrieds.
Re:Blasphemers! (Score:2)
Re:Blasphemers! (Score:2)
He would obviously pull out a rock and a pointy stick and code directly into punch cards...
Just great! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So called "Great Programmer" (Score:2)
Hence, The Great Programmer really was probably a kid playing with Deity Basic his mom got him for christmas and now we're stuck living in his malformed world because he doesn't know proper techniques.
But.. is it really a surprise thinking of it this way. This explains every natural disaster, problem, and why-do-bad-things-happen-to-good people.
Karma.c:293:
if ( entity.action() == K_GOOD )
entity.karma(entity.karma()-1);
...
if ( entity.karma()
All because of a single typo.. damn I need a more productive job..
Re:So called "Great Programmer" (Score:2)
Hmm, maybe that explains the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He was using FDIVs on a Pentium to model the particle positions and momentum vectors.
(Schrodinger's Cat is just the Excel spreadsheet that makes it show up in dollar amounts. Bell's Theorem is, uh... well, we're still trying to figure that one out. But it's pretty weird [utoronto.ca])
Re:how long? (Score:4, Funny)
(that should be "int main")
Re:how long? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:how long? (Score:2)
Why bother? Aren't we pretty sure the halting problem isn't solvable?
(That is, even if you had the answer to the halting problem out of divine revelation from the Great Programmer, by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, you'd never be able to prove it...)
Reverend-in-a-server-applet (Score:2)
Hey! That ULC website is really cool. Now, I've got a prefix for my name.
Anyone know of something like that for a Ph.D? Or, at least, a very easy mail-order or online course?
"Dr. Lawrence Wade" suits my officious nature far more than "Rev. Lawrence Wade".
Re:knitpicking.... (Score:2)