Technically they can't unless I haven't accrued sick days (which is a possibility, but that's not the reason they gave me). I think they're just trying to front with me because since I'm relatively young they think I don't know any better, and honestly, I'm not sure I even have the energy to fight it. There's too much going on in my life right now and I'm just too exhausted to fight it. Also I kinda have to stay on the company's good side since I want them to transfer me to the states and since it's considered technically international, there isn't a system in place to do that other than the higher ups calling the states and coordinating a re-hire.
Well, i was in a car accident, my car got totalled, I got much less money from the insurance than I was expecting, I had to miss about 2 weeks worth of work and they want to pay it using vacation hours instead of using my sick leave (even though I have a doctor's note because I couldn't work because I hurt myself in the accident), and my parents are just being crazy and manipulative and stuff. On the bright side, I'm planning to move to Massachussetts sometime in September/October, so wheeeee!
Yeah, other types of devices can be seriously hard to deal with for that sort of thing. Still, I look forward to when you can respond, presumably, hitting me with your best shot or perhaps some other intense metaphor!
Apparently Fed would prefer the terms "Patriarchy lite" or "Patriarchy-esque" instead. When you stick to dismantling religion, you say much that is interesting and important.
I chortled. Also, I meant to tell you a long time ago that I dig your user name change.
The opposition in this thread sucks. I'm out until anyone actually offers something of any real substance to work with.
I'd recommend not being so dismissive. I left a much-belated response in your debate, and I anticipate with great eagerness your response to it.
That said, I really enjoyed the following post, as it proves that not all of your geese are out of line.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
It's a cute enough phrase, but the people that like to use it the most are usually naive and self righteous Utopians. I remember when it was all over my facebook when Osama Bin Laden was iced by navy seal team 6, and all the moral crusaders were up in a frenzy that calice, barbaric Americans were celebrating another persons death. Instances like that among others just make me think "Oh shutup" whenever I hear it.
I was just reading it, actually. It's hard to say my opinion about that while trying to remain non-biased. In my mind, you have two competing issues:
Establishment of religion vs no taxation of non-profits
Because yes, churches could be considered non-profit. At the same time, tax breaks could also be considered monetary support. Meaning that the government would be handing money to what they consider churches to be, which is blatant infringement of separation of church and state. This is blocked by the non-profit thing though.
Personally, I see these two as better questions:
-Should churches by rightfully considered non-profits like the other non-profits, despite their religious affiliation, or should we redefine non-profit groups to hold to the same standards as the government, i.e. no establishment of religion, in order to get their government money (or absence of taxation)?
-Should the government consider religion at all? Essentially, should it keep religion out of government by acknowledging it exists (an assertive approach) or by ignoring that it exists (a passive approach)?