- Some of the nation's top companies such as Google, CBS, Starbucks and Nike have joined forces in a legal brief asking a federal court to force the federal government to recognize gay "marriage."
The friend-of-the-court brief asks the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a 2010 lower court ruling that struck down part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. In that ruling, Judge Joseph L. Tauro said the federal government must recognize gay "marriages" from such states as Massachusetts, Vermont and the other four states where it's legal.
In essence, the brief argues, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) forces the companies to discriminate and prevents their gay employees from receiving federal benefits that other married couples receive. The section of DOMA at issue defines, for federal purposes, marriage as between one man and one woman....
Neil wrote: Disagree. The subject is the whether gay couples are entitled to the same benefits as heterosexuals. Now I do believe there should be no pretax employee benefits at all (which would preempt the marriage issue somewhat), but this is beyond the pale too.
Though I tried to understand this dialog, I'm not sure I did. What I quoted from Neil was something I heard discussed in a Medical Ethics Lecture here on SA from Chalcedon Presbyterian Church and the gentlemen-physicians were explaining the change in direction from the former pretax medical employee benefits to what would soon under Obamacare be better for employers. That is; to be fined for not offering insurance would be more financially advantageous then to pay it for all employees. Thus Medicare to the rescue. What I thought I understood him to say would clearly make this issue not so much centered on economics but rather Humanism verses Christianity under a sheep skin.
I wonder how many visitors & residents at D.C. actually know this trivia, or care? Forget theorizing about statuary; I rather think they worship their bellies, which is what Congress caters to.
You have a statue atop your capitol of some female. The Bible states that generations will call Mary blessed though you don't have a statue of her up there? If the U.S. is worshiping a woman, it's certainly not Mary.
GWB wrote: ...What were our Founding Fathers thinking? Is George Washington or Jesus leading us to Heaven?
It was painted by Constantino Brumidi in 1865. He had experience painting in the Vatican & Roman palaces. This was part of the dome enlargement begun before the Civil War.
BTW, church services were conducted in the Capitol during its first century. Ref: www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
“…the 555.5 foot tall (6666 inches) replica of an Egyptian obelisk…â€
That blogger in the below-mentioned URL evidently can't read figures – the published height of the Washington Monument (www.nps.gov/wamo) is 555' 5.125â€, which is 6665.125â€.
FYI: Even the world knows ... http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.com/2011/07/irresistible-force-meet-immovable.html?showComment=1311019232006#c5842853891344515350
Daniel Michael wrote: What's the deal with the Sermon Audio EDITOR showing a picture of a sex symbol? Capitol Building
Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
"The US Capitol is not simply another governmental building. It is the spiritual center of the United States. Its structure, its art and its symbols all reveal the great importance of secret Fraternities in the shaping of the world most powerful government."
"In almost all cultures the dome has been associated with the female principle, the womb, the matrix. Opposed to it is the obelisk, the ancient Egyptian phallic symbol representing the male principle. The union of those two principles gives birth to a third entity, an offspring, that can be described as “spiritual energyâ€."
Are any schooled children, be they insitutionally schooled, home-schooled, or unschooled being taught this? Mine will.
I did enjoy the comments here by the way, especially those from Levi.
OK, maybe you carelessly erected a strawman. I don't know, so I apologize for impugning your motives.
I say limited liability may or may not be an issue to reflect that I'm undecided on the question, apart from my denial that it is necessarily connected with capitalism (q.v. sole proprietorship). I think there are too many other factors, including judicial practice, to determine easily whether it is agreeable to Biblical equity or not. There is a lot of background material to consider; e.g., ever heard of "piercing the corporate veil?" According to Wikipedia, it is a hot legal issue, more so in the USA then UK. And well it should be.
And I do believe legal liability is preferable to bureaucratic regulation, provided equity is maintained. Which is easier to say than do; business law can be very subtle & tricky.
Neil wrote: No you weren't. You erected a Strawman about my view so you could shoot it down.
Strange. You are the one that has four times brought up the issue I laid to rest for you for the sake of argument. Hardly, trying to shoot you down. So be it.
You have been truly expert tonight at attributing motive to me, thank you.
No you weren't. You immediately launched into a refutation of what you believed my view was. If you wanted elucidation, you would've asked a question, which you didn't.
Neil wrote: Instead of pantomiming with "interesting," why don't we wait & see what his reply is? If he cares.
Actually, I was genuinely interested in hearing you expand and elucidate upon what you meant by "Capitalism is biblical" but you chose not to a long time ago and chose to play semantic games instead. So be it.
Regarding the non-sequitur, you are the expert on logical fallacies so run through your checklist and consider if the second half of your statement is the only logical interpretation of the first half. But as for what he or she intended you will have to see if he or she cares to reply.
Instead of pantomiming with "interesting," why don't we wait & see what his reply is? If he cares.
OK, I'm digressing, and I have no "evidence." What of it? "I am free to introduce whatever point I choose to make on these forums w/o needing your by or leave." - your words
BTW, I will correct an error, for I admit my mistakes, to wit: sole proprietorships have unlimited liability, as do general partnerships. Are these people capitalists or not? Anyway, I do not know whether such arrangements makes them more "virtuous" on issues like gay marriage benefits or not. Which you seem to think was "interesting's" original point.
If limited liability is really the issue "interesting" intended, then whether a company is joint-stock (public) or not is irrelevant, for private companies (sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc.) are ALSO limited in liability; the main material difference is that ownership is not publicly exchanged.
So the adjective "public" in his post serves no purpose, unless I'm to believe that ONLY joint-stock companies do sinful things. Or else, Levi is misrepresenting HIS post too.
interseting wrote: What public company abides biblical precepts? Capitalism, too, fails us.
Very well observed.
But do please be aware that something very different from the Capitalism represented by these specific public companies and that has nothing to do with them could be thoroughly biblical with a different definition and in a completely different context.
But then, someone that thinks that might just also think that he and you were speaking of the exact same thing.
Neil wrote: You said, "But you are claiming modern corporate capitalism to be biblically compatible." That is false – you added the words "modern corporate" to my "capitalism." Apologize.
No.
The context was modern - see the article and the comment you originally replied to in context.
The context was "public companies" which are corporate.
My paraphrase was well within the legitimate semantic range and context. By contrast, you did not define your terms to alert me to anything outside of the context.
Neil wrote: Anyway, as "interesting" didn't define what he meant by the term,
Paul Washer | 2/17/2011
COMMENTS | 
baptist: "
biblical presbyterianism
sounds as though they've already thought..."
