I've always thought that equality in education was the bigger issue in many of our civil rights laws. If education is a human right, shouldn't it be based on an equality of education?

Do you think it might be worth looking into how much it cost per student to provide the highest level of education for every student to their potential?

I understand that funds from state and local taxes often determine the standard of education in any particular area. Of course it makes sense that those who can afford more for their children would want that 'more' to go to their child's school system.

But if education is considered to be such a priority for our country that it's mandatory, shouldn't it also be provided equally?

So, do you think that equally funded education would provide enough equality within our diverse population to eventually illiminate the need for a law like AA?

Very interesting topic. I thought I try to provide a little more information. This reply is not meant to represent Affirmative Action (AA) in its’ entirety but it may add some clarification.

AA was highly a controversial issue in the beginning however, it was proposed that the law regulate only employees in the public sector (government agencies) or employers with 50 or more employees in the private sector who are granted public sector contracts of $50,000 or more . The government, at the very least, should model equality in employment. Right?

Businesses can integrate an AA program even if it's not required to. But if they choose such a program, they often choose to comply with public sector law to mitigate their legal risk. If and AA program is not required and not in place, the company is not protected from being sued for discrimination but the company is not held to the complicated law under AA.

AA is still misunderstood today as being a requirement for balanced diversity. Adhering to AA is only required in certain cases and it never enforces the employment of a person who does not meet the job qualifications. However, if an AA program is being enforced and applications do not represent the needed pool of diversity, the company is required to create a “Reach Out” program in order to draw in a wider applicant diversity for future jobs.

No extinction for all - that's the ONLY way to save humanity. Not that all humans would be saved, but enough of all the diversity of life that makes it possible for humans to survive into the future.

Wow min1x, your comments flashed me back. Our nuclear attack drills were modified over time. First it was serious business. We all had to crowd in the halls away from the windows and face the metal lockers and crouch down, duck our heads and cover with our arms. Time passed and it became more apparent that we were not likely to survive a direct hit, which we would likely sustain as we lived in the Chicago suburbs. We simple slit beneath our desks and were told not to look out the window for any reason.

I agree, it was a scary way to grow up but our generation sure got some great science fiction out of it. I'm happy to meet you Min1x from the other side of the iron fear that held us all hostage for so long.

Quite agree. We blast the "enemy" to hell but never bother to clean up the mess. I wonder how long it will be until some politician admits that our water, air, and food has been affected by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. How often is it even mentioned in American news?

And to my understanding the EPA has just approved the use of the major chemicals used in Agent Orange for crop dusting in America. There are petitions to the USDA to stop Dow from producing the deadly chemical. Does anyone really know what they are eating, drinking and inhaling? We are not eradicating a pesky week, we are bringing many life forms to extinction, every day.

thank-you for the welcome Blondey111. Science fiction - absolutely consider the Hunger Games trilogy. This is good topic to explore and I'm glad you brought it up. Another good question might be.. what can we do to prevent our own extinction?

What affect would our demise have on life on the rest of the planet? Interesting question. I don'��t think it would matter how we become extinct, the legacy we’d leave would continue in a lethal chain of events.

Our garbage is not necessarily biodegradable. The 100 million plastic bags we use every year can take anywhere from 10 to 100 years to break down (not biodegrade) but break into tiny pieces. Those pieces along with other plastic that will leach toxic bisphenol A and PS oligomer will continue to be eaten by other animals, in the water or as part of the food chain, and much life will become extinct.

Many plant species will be altered or disappear completely in wide areas of land. Changes in plant life means that, animals and insects will be affected.

Our nuclear garbage, which spans the globe, will continue to be problematic as the holding tanks we built for expended fuel rods begin to break down. Aquifers and waterways will become highly toxic. Our fracking chemicals buried in the ground and our coal ash will add more poison, destroying more plant, animal, and insect life.

We can'��t forget about all the chemicals left behind in the form of pharmaceuticals, cleaning agents, and all the 'weed' and pesticides and acids. It's mind boggling.

The viruses left behind in laboratories, the GMO experiments set free to cross pollinate if there are any living pollinators left.
In addition to the stated issues, layers of Earth's atmosphere already compromised by human activity and the huge changes to the living environment, we will have sufficiently destroyed the interdependent ecosystem that maintained ALL life on the planet.

It may require 10's of thousands of years for the Earth to be cleansed. Life will maintain in small numbers even if that life is less complex and a new ecosystem will form with new plants, new animals and insects and probably a whole new weather pattern. Some land will undoubtedly be gone, some changed, and maybe new land raised up.

We developed as part of this interdependent ecosystem but if we leave the legacy we are currently ignoring, we could quite possibly adversely affect all life in the future for 10’s of thousands of years.

Yes indeed, the right to social acceptance.

During the Holocaust There were many Christians who risked and ever gave their own lives to help their Jewish friends.

If your religion cannot accommodate loyalty, compassion, and love for neighbors and friends or even those who suffer in other countries, regardless of beliefs, then your religion prevents you from experiencing the full extended of love, humility, compassion and hope in this world.

If you think you are writing a resume for your next life, then you better get some good experience in this one.

Your truly,
just another atheist

Good post - and entertaining too.

That happens often in these threads. He may claim a victory and feel good about himself. Oh well, sometimes we have to claim our own victories as we walk away.

With the exception of monozygotic twins (1 egg & 1 sperm) there is no persistently consistent pattern to DNA. If fact, even in the case of identical twins, their DNA is not identical for very long as our environments also have changing effects and no two people experience live in exactly the same way.

Are you referring to something called punctuated speciation?

Miles, Of course I was not offended at all, in fact your comments gave me the opportunity to broaden the view of our side of the story to a view from my side.

All of us can only speak from our own experiences and I totally agree with you that the experiences we often get from the media are not always worthy of our acceptance.

As always, thanks for the discussion and like you, I am happy to have found acceptance of the diversity between us, it's a rare thing. I think all friendships, in fact all good relationships, are built on trust. It gives the power to see the truth that exists beyond our differences. Peace!

DIDDY DEE: I had to laugh when I read your post. You are NOT a contradiction - unless you forgot to mention that you're a politician..

I have a question for you though. I'm not up on the political history of Britain since transitioning into the UK. But it's my understanding that Great Britain had a national religion prior to Ireland's inclusion. Is there still a national religion? If so, is it inclusive of the Ten Commandments? I could look it up but it's your home so I'm deferring to you. Thanks.

In cases of emergency people are taken to the closest hospital. Gay people, transgender people don't wear tags with their sexual orientation on it and Hospitals don't put signs up refusing to treat people who have different religious values. If a hospital employs anyone from the population and accepts anyone from the general population, there should never be an exception to a person being treated like a human being.

Most of the hospitals around me are religious focused and they are all different. I have had great experiences with wonderful caring staff and to my knowledge there has never been a question over my sexuality. It just wasn't ever brought up. Thousands of people are treated in such hospitals, everyday with no problem. So when a problem arises, it makes the news and of course then it seems like there is always a problem. It's not so.

Do you know, I once had a priest, in a Catholic hospital, ask me if I wanted to pray with him. I simply said "No, but I do appreciate your concern". He was concerned and he even asked me if there was some other religion I took comfort in so that he might find someone for me. Imagine that. I took his hand and said that what I took comfort in was the fellowship of caring human beings. He squeezed my hand and said he would check on me.

You see, not one person I know who is gay is any different than me, in fact I'm an atheist and most of my gay friends are Christians or Jewish. The only problem that exists is when a person is PERCEIVED to be different, as with my transgender friends and some of my friends gay friends who are in committed relationships and make it known who their partner is. That's when prejudice rears its ugly head.

I have no problem with any medical center or hospital hanging out a sign and saying we don't hire XXX or treat XXX due to our religious convictions. I have no problem with that, but you know what, where there's money to be had, there are few who would make such restrictions.

So as far as I'm concerned, there should NEVER be a time when the religious hierarchy of any organization doing business in the private sector should be allowed to enforce behaviors on other simply because it coincides with religious convictions of the hierarchy.

Shalom

Even now there are still people who cannot see Malcolm X The Visionary. Great quote

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/14-8
Published on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 by Free Press
Net Neutrality Is Dead—Here's How to Get It Back
by Craig Aaron

If Net Neutrality is not taken back by the FCC, IN YOUR OPINION, what changes would you see on the internet and with the various technologies we use to interact with the internet?

Shalom Miles, It's been a long time. If the Church has legally declared it's religious standing, by becoming a non-profit organization, then they have the right to discriminate in certain practices, such as hiring. Notice the Catholic has not female priests or male nuns. Many parochial Schools have fired teachers for being gay and sometimes (in the case of one of my relatives) they are fired simply for supporting something like gay marriage.

Now, when a huge non-profit organization, such as a hospital, has an open door policy in accepting both, clients and employees from the general population, then (in my opinion) they don't have the right to enforce the personal beliefs of the hierarchy on those people.

I believe that is what you are referring to and that is still being battled out on that big hill with white palace with any number of revolving doors.

Shalom my friend, may this new year be filled with joy.

I a��m not sure that anyone knows exactly what Pascal was attempting to accomplish with his wager on God but there has been speculation over the years.

I think it's pretty well accepted that Pascal was using the idea of a wager on the existence of God as a way to test or perhaps broaden his theories on probabilities.

I think it i��s obvious that anyone as intelligent as Pascal was, would not have made the errors in logic that he did with his wager. First of all, he made assumptions about A God, the Judeo-Christian God, but it was well known, even then, that many beliefs about various gods existed.

One of the assumptions Pascal made was that believing in his God could provide an eternal existence. In addition he assumes that such an existence is a positive thing. So he has automatically increased the probability of believing ��correctly��. In other words, he has (illogically) determined that the flip of a coin is not 50/50 but is weighted in favor of God being the correct choice.

There is another error Pascal makes, he assumes that what we have to gain or lose in this game makes it worth playing as we all decide whether to believe or not.

He was quite right to make the game a subjective one as there is no way to know if God is or is not but subjectively. But in HIS subjectivity he assumes that if there is a God and we don'��t believe, we lose the greatest values God gives, truth and happiness.

So he suggests that the choice is easy, because we have only untruth (error) and utter misery to lose by choosing to believe in God.

That makes a lot of sense but for one thing. Betting on God to win based of those assumptions is, itself false, because there is another assumption, quite aside from assumptions of God.

If eternity can be assumed then how we gain it must also be assumed, that it can only be gained by faith and faith depends only on a subjective belief that is not dependent on material truth or a wager.

But Pascal was certainly able to prove some his theory of probabilities with this exercise. He demonstrated, in a round-a-bout way, that even without a belief in God, one can demonstrate truth, as he did by proving this theory, and be happy.

In effect he demonstrated that making a wager on God, would be a losing bet.