Wildfires sweep Southern California

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, fair question. Let's take the Catholic school for example. Very clearly the Catholic faith denouces homosexuality. It would be against the tenets of that organization to preach acceptance of such, don't you agree?

I agree. Now, what about the Anglicans/Episcopalians?

Would it be possible for the government to say that your faith means X, therefore you must teach this in your classes?

As to who decides, well frankly, the Pope I would imagine. It differs for other organizations, but my interpretation of this would be that "Joe Religious Organization if running a school, decides whether or not this follows their teachings."

So why doesn't it say so explicitly? All it says is if 'something is contrary to their religion." It doesn't say who decides.

The other thing is suppose the state of California says that all children who are under the age of 8 would receive a monthly stipend of 30 dollars a month while they are attending schools, and that money would help defray their educational costs.

Under the provisions of this bill, it says that if the state is funding part of the education that all of these provisions apply. That's the conflict. I don't know if all California children receive money in this form, but I can see a bill like that getting passed, just like John Tory tried to do. Then in conjunction with the other, it wouldn't matter whether the school was private or publicly owned, they would be taught and fall under the jurisdiction of the school board.

Now, the other worrysome thing is that it provides only 'religious' objections. If you own your private school, you are still under these regulations.

[GG]

or any other characteristic contained
in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the
Penal Code includes a perception that the person has any of those
characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who
has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.

So, essentially to say that you are a husband presumes that you are heterosexual, and that you are perceived to have these characteristics, because as we see, heterosexuality is a 'sexual orientation'. This is why you can't say 'mother or father' because that presumes heterosexuality, and association with heterosexuality.

Why does "husband" mean heterosexual. "Husband" is a male in a married relationship, nothing more, nothing less. If you look at it that way, then a "husband and wife" is a male and female, a "husband and husband" is two males, a "wife and wife" is two females. None of which has any relevance to "mother and father". Mother and Father does not presume any sexuality. It presumes "this is the person who raises me". I might have two dads. I might have two moms. I might have one of each. I might have 3 moms and one dad. "Mom" and "Dad" are labels we give to the people who've raised us. That has NOTHING to do with sex.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you serious???

Girls washrooms have way superior toilet paper. Ask any guy who's had to duck into a female washroom.

Girl washrooms smell better too.

That's why there is a longer wait.

Nothing to do with the fact that girls and guys have different equipment? ;)

It's a routine factor, even at hockey games, the lineup for the ladies washrooms are longer. Plus we don't actually talk to other guys in there.

[GG]

I agree. Now, what about the Anglicans/Episcopalians?

Would it be possible for the government to say that your faith means X, therefore you must teach this in your classes?

No... a religions teachings come from the religion itself. Not from the government. That's why you don't see the "Religion Department" on the government website anywhere.

So why doesn't it say so explicitly? All it says is if 'something is contrary to their religion." It doesn't say who decides.

Because that has already been established. Religious organizations decide what they teach. They don't have to follow a government cirriculum for that. If they did, we would have one religion, and life would be simpler, tho far less exciting.

The other thing is suppose the state of California says that all children who are under the age of 8 would receive a monthly stipend of 30 dollars a month while they are attending schools, and that money would help defray their educational costs.

Under the provisions of this bill, it says that if the state is funding part of the education that all of these provisions apply. That's the conflict. I don't know if all California children receive money in this form, but I can see a bill like that getting passed, just like John Tory tried to do. Then in conjunction with the other, it wouldn't matter whether the school was private or publicly owned, they would be taught and fall under the jurisdiction of the school board.

I'm sorry - I didn't see that in the bill, tho I admit at times my eyes got glassy. Can you tell me what section that is?

Now, the other worrysome thing is that it provides only 'religious' objections. If you own your private school, you are still under these regulations.

Yup, you are.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why does "husband" mean heterosexual. "Husband" is a male in a married relationship, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and how is your wife, GG? Is she doing well?

If you look at it that way, then a "husband and wife" is a male and female, a "husband and husband" is two males, a "wife and wife" is two females.

Yes, if there are as many of each. ;)

Again, I'm going to ask you to be honest here. Do you ask men if they are married, how their husband is?

None of which has any relevance to "mother and father".

Yes, it does, it has a great deal of relevance. ;)

Mother and Father does not presume any sexuality.

Tell me you aren't for real GG. So if I were to ask Suzanne how the mother of her child was doing, it would go over well?

It presumes "this is the person who raises me".

Really? No sex involved?

I might have two dads. I might have two moms. I might have one of each. I might have 3 moms and one dad. "Mom" and "Dad" are labels we give to the people who've raised us. That has NOTHING to do with sex.

So why do men pay child support? They aren't the father of the child.

[Ben Kenobi]

characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set
forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity
conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits
from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state
student financial aid.

There is the relevant section, GG.

[GG]

Nothing to do with the fact that girls and guys have different equipment? ;)

When you really have to go.... it doesn't matter what equipment you have, you can get the job done quickly ;-)

It's a routine factor, even at hockey games, the lineup for the ladies washrooms are longer. Plus we don't actually talk to other guys in there.

And THAT, my dear boy, is why you don't ever have the latest gossip, know where the best sales are, or have a *clue* as to what is the hottest TV show around. Women do most of their best networking side by side in a stall. :mrgreen: It's our confessional. *snork*

[GG]

characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set
forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity
conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits
from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state
student financial aid.

There is the relevant section, GG.

Thank you - I need to go look up the Penal Code. I assume that is controlled State by State so I need to look up the California Penal Code?

[GG]

422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other
state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly
requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in
part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived
characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of
Section 422.6.

422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,
interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her
by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or
laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more
of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in
subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall
knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of
any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part
because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of
the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall
be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year,
or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by
both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the
defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed
400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days,
during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school
attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating
subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that
the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or
group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to
carry out the threat.
(d) Conduct that violates this and any other provision of law,
including, but not limited to, an offense described in Article 4.5
(commencing with Section 11410) of Chapter 3 of Title 1 of Part 4,
may be charged under all applicable provisions. However, an act or
omission punishable in different ways by this section and other
provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one
provision, and the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set
forth in Section 654.

Interesting. So if you are receiving state student financial aid, you are at the school by grace of the state, which is secular in nature, and therefore, not controlled by religious decree.

Well, I can tell you, at least here in SK, that I do not qualify for student assistance from the province to send my child to a public religious school. That is a decision I have made. The school I send my child to made that perfectly clear. And frankly, I don't see an issue with that.

A secular school teaches equality and tolerance for all. Gays, Relgious, Spaghetti Eaters, Vegans, Cattle Farmers, everyone. A religious school may have issues with one or any of the former. If they are not prepared to teach in accordance with state law, they should not expect to receive state funding (which is what financial aid is). This should be a no brainer, and not an issue I imagine most school administrators really face. They are generally very cognizant of the law.

If, however, you expect that you should receive State funding, well then the Piper calls the tune, no?

[GG]

Why does "husband" mean heterosexual. "Husband" is a male in a married relationship, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and how is your wife, GG? Is she doing well?

Do I have to explain the difference between male and female to you? My husband (as defined as a male in a married realtionship) is quite well, thank you.

:? That didn't even make any sense, Ben. Were you trying for something different I didn't get??

If you look at it that way, then a "husband and wife" is a male and female, a "husband and husband" is two males, a "wife and wife" is two females.

Yes, if there are as many of each. ;)

Again, I'm going to ask you to be honest here. Do you ask men if they are married, how their husband is?

Well, honestly, no I do not. I live in a town of less than 200, and know everyone in town. I generally ask how their spouse is doing by name. I do, however, have a gay friend, who is an emergency room doctor, in Regina. I generally ask him how is hubby is.

None of which has any relevance to "mother and father".

Yes, it does, it has a great deal of relevance. ;)

Mother and Father does not presume any sexuality.

Tell me you aren't for real GG. So if I were to ask Suzanne how the mother of her child was doing, it would go over well?

I imagine Suzanne would respond with "I'm doing fine, thank you." Regardless of whether she gave birth to the child or not, she is still the child's mother.

It presumes "this is the person who raises me".

Really? No sex involved?

Um...no. My children call their dad "Dad". Did he procreate to make them? No. He's still their dad. My brother is adopted. He still called my parents "mom and dad". My sister has a foster child living with her, soon to become her own, and the child calls her mom.

I might have two dads. I might have two moms. I might have one of each. I might have 3 moms and one dad. "Mom" and "Dad" are labels we give to the people who've raised us. That has NOTHING to do with sex.

So why do men pay child support? They aren't the father of the child.

I pay child support. I'm not the father of a child. But I do have a child that I hold personal responsibility for. I could relinquish that responsibilty, much to another persons pleasure, and be free of that child support, but that is not my nature. That is a child that calls me Mom.

[Ben Kenobi]

I pay child support. I'm not the father of a child. But I do have a child that I hold personal responsibility for. I could relinquish that responsibilty, much to another persons pleasure, and be free of that child support, but that is not my nature. That is a child that calls me Mom.

:lol:

Yeah, it's just the same.

Child support is an option? Maybe for women. Not so for men. I've never heard of a situation where the support was optional.

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting. So if you are receiving state student financial aid, you are at the school by grace of the state, which is secular in nature, and therefore, not controlled by religious decree.

I think it's a very sneaky way to take control of all the schools.

The school recieves no funds, the funds are given to the kids. I don't see why goverfnment funding to the kids should change who controls the schools. It should be with no strings attached.

[evolution8]

End in sight for California wildfire crisis

World (as of 12:15 AM)
October 28, 2007
Agence France-Presse

SAN DIEGO, California - Firefighters expressed hope on Saturday the end may be in sight for California's wildfire crisis but cautioned there was "a long way to go" with more than 20,000 homes remaining threatened.

Cooler temperatures and calmer winds have allowed firefighters to staunch or contain most of the 23 fires that have erupted since Sunday, leaving seven people dead, destroying 1,800 homes and displacing 500,000 people.

Firefighting personnel have predicted that three major blazes could be brought under control within 10 days, offering the prospect of a return to normalcy after one of the worst fire disasters in Californian history.

The San Diego Tribune on Saturday quoted officials as saying all fires in the region were forecast to be tamed by November 5.

Some 203,000 hectares (502,000 acres) of tinder-dry park and forest land have been incinerated by the firestorm.

The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services said firefighters were buoyed by the weather conditions but remained vigilant. Figures released by the office on Saturday showed that some 20,600 properties were under threat.

"The weather has enabled the fire personnel to make great progress but there is still a long way to go," spokeswoman Rochelle Jenkins said.

"The weather is helping but we have to plan for the worst and hope for the best, and that is how we will be proceeding in the days ahead."

The National Weather Service has warned the weather could again pose problems for crews in coming days, with less humidity and winds increasing to 25-40 kilometers (15-25 miles) per hour in canyons and passes. Continued...

[GG]

I pay child support. I'm not the father of a child. But I do have a child that I hold personal responsibility for. I could relinquish that responsibilty, much to another persons pleasure, and be free of that child support, but that is not my nature. That is a child that calls me Mom.

:lol:

Yeah, it's just the same.

Child support is an option? Maybe for women. Not so for men. I've never heard of a situation where the support was optional.

Child support is always an option if you have two people willing to negotiate. Family law applies ONLY when the two parties involved are not willing to "settle" on issues. If you hear of a case where "Joe or Joette Blow" are forced to pay "x dollars" it's because they were not willing to bend. Trust me. This is an area I am very familiar with.

As it stands now, either of us could quit paying child support. It requires writing off any responsibility or authority over a child. Neither of us, thank God, are willing to do that. So we continue to toss cheques back and forth.

Life isn't as cut and dried as you think, Ben. Wait 20 years. Heck, wait 10 years.

[GG]

Um... Mr. Kenobi?

Of my whole researched response, your only cue is the child support thing?

What about the rest of the issue?

Child support wasn't even one of your main debatable points....??