Agreed.

And discrimination itself is not illegal. As others have said, it is only illegal in certain contexts. As dispicible as this situation is (and I'd have walked off the court with her as her partners did), it is probably within the rights of a religous organization (which they are) to do exactly what they did.

There was an instance years ago around here when the Executive Director of the Society of St. Vincent dePaul retired. One of the people who was in line for the job (an employee) was not Roman Catholic. He wasn't considered and the Society claimed that state law allowed them to have a condition for that position that required their "leader" to be of their specific religion. As far as I know, it was never contested. BTW - the job went to a woman.

Come to think of it, I've never had a rabbi who wasn't Jewish and I've never heard anyone complain about it.

And you refuse to acknowledge the equally true and valid point that anybody who posts here is free to post what they like within the limits allowed by the owners and their moderators. That includes pleas for more civility in posting. And, before you jump all over me, it also includes your right to be a SOB in response to such pleas.

What's posted in this online community is the business of everybody in the community. Not just it's curmudgeons. ;)

I must admit, I don't think I've seen "curmudgeons" before in a post here. Kudos to you, BITS. It's a great word and we should use it more often. :)

I got an idea.

Write an article about it.

We Are The World ....
 

I got news for everybody. All Americans, of all colors, are African Americans. In fact every Homo Sapien on Earth is of African descent. The oldest human fossils on Earth come from what is now known as the rift region of eastern Africa, centered around what is now known as Kenya.

Even more astonding, every single human on Earth has descended from one female, that lived around 150-250 thousand years ago. Unlike the regular DNA in our body cells that comes from both of our parents, mitochondrial DNA only comes from the mother. By studing mitochondrial DNA, scientists have determined that all humans have decended from a one female that lived in what is now Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago.

So we're all black then? What's the big deal then if a black person becomes President? :eek:

References?!?!? Please?!?!?

No, we do not. I simply asked questions that you refused to answer. :)

If I choose, I can open a golf course and country club, choose not to allow women to join and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. I can choose not to hire any Italians to work at my club strictly because they're Italian and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. I can choose to only hire big breeated women as waitresses and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

She's an independent contractor. The school has not broken any laws by refusing to hire her.

Please Don't Put Words In My Mouth ....
 

I never said that. Fossils of prehistoric humans usually consist of fossilized hard material, teeth, bones, etc., not softer tissue like muscle, internal organs, or skin.

However, some scientists believe that humans that live in equatorial areas, now, or in prehistory, that get a lot of sunlight, evolve darker skin pigments to decrease the chance of getting skin cancer. As humans migrated out of Africa, into northern climates, that received lesser amounts of sunlight, they may have evolved lighter skin coloration, to best absorb sunlight, as a way of providing the body with Vitamin D, which is produced by the skin when the skin is exposed to sunlight.

Exactly.

That's a great idea. I look forward to reading it. :D

Lah me.... I will go back and put a smiley on my post.

Do you EVER know a non-serious post when you see it?

Edit: went back to look and there was already an icon. And you didn't quote it! Talk about putting words into someone's mouth. How about you not taking words away!

Reference ...
 

Touche ...
 

Sorry. My intent was to simply shorten, and simplify, the quote.

My husband wonders how they let the nuns teach in Catholic schools all these years.

Rita

That ain't a big deal.

But a wimmen?.......:eek:

Mom always liked you best.:mad:

As I suspected, your statement is a gross over-simplification of a very rudimentary summary of a quite complicated theory that is just beginning to be posited. Not the sort of thing that should be quoted as established fact.

They were really cross dressing priests??...:confused: :eek:

I'm glad to hear a different opinion.

That is the reason I didn't elaborate on the name.. cause my info was second hand.

The individual (s) that I go the info from were once members and said they quit because they recomended an official and were told that this ref was not allowd due to ethnicity.

As I said it was many years ago too..

Its posible it could have been true, and things have changed since then as well.

I hold no grudge against said Organization. I like to form my opinions on my own.

Most priests do wear a cross. What's your point? ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/conte...03_203x152.jpg

References??? Please????

As a Roman Catholic , I disagree with this entire statement. This is someones opinion, not FACT

Technically speaking if you want to be consistent then both of you are expressing opinion. NOT FACT.

I mean after all you cant have it both ways. ;)

Which part or parts does the RC Church dispute? As far as I know the Vatican is quite happy with leaving science to the scientists, which was a big lesson learned for them out of the Galileo dust-up.

Juulie:

I don't know, the articles in the website that Billy Mac referenced sounded like a concise explaination to me. Afterall the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific fact, just like the theories of gravity, special relativity, and general relativity to name a few.

MTD, Sr.

The theories of evolution are myriad, some conflicting. There are angles, aspects, exceptions, complications, and other varieties. The whole area of mitochondrial DNA and female lineage is wide-ranging and very open ended right now. Billy Mac's "summary" is just quite over-simplified.

First, let me say that I am astounded that you missed Billy's mispelling in his post.

Secondly, I continue to be astounded by the lengths some people will go to discredit the ideas of what we commonly call evolution. That we evolved over time from some other physical form is a widely accepted theory based on overwhelming evidence. For you to say evolution is in dispute is like saying the theory of gravity is in dispute. In fact both theories still advance and both are subject to refinements. It is those refinements that may or may not be open to argument.

Where did I say that I thought the theories of evolution were in question?

Dan, you need to go back to your research. There is factual evidence for Intra-species evolution, ie a dog evolving to be a better runner etc. BUT their is NO "evidence" of Inter-species evolution, an amoeba becoming fish becoming a reptile becoming a mammal becoming a human. The "missing links" have never been found. The commonly accepted "Theory of evolution", Inter-species evolution, is a hypothesis with NO proof. Gravity on the other hand has no troublesome "floating (missing link) rocks".

Theory ...
 

Thanks for your support, but it's not a fact. Evolution may be a fact, but the process of evolution, or as you stated "the theory of evolution", is a theory.

The way science works is that scientists come up with a hypothesis, or an "educated guess", or what some non scienctists would call opinions, and then subject the hypothesis to several steps called the scientific method, which uses research, experiments, analysis of data, replication, etc. to prove, or disprove the hypothesis.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...c_method.shtml

Depending on the results of the scientific method, scientists can either disprove the hypothesis, or prove the hypothesis, and if proven, two results are possible, scientific theories, or scientific laws. Theories are genearlly accepted by most scientists, but for some reason, like not having a time machine, are open to change. Laws are accepted by almost all scientists, but like theories, can also be changed when access to new technologies brings new inforamtion to the table.

Evolution is generally accepted as a law. It's been proven, fossil evidence, evolution in viruses, bactera, plant, and animal breeding, etc. The proces of evolution, like natural selection, is a theory, and is open to further scientific study. But don't underestimate the power of a theory, a very large majority of scientists agree with most of the implications of natural selection.

By the way, I'm a devout Roman Catholic, who recently got a cross tattooed on my upper arm. I like to think of my mitochondrial female ancestor as "Eve".

Also, "I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night".