Random Politics & Religion #22

we can't entirely.

If you want to use words like proof then you'd need more than things that may be circumstantial to your point that seem, more than anything at this point, twisted to suit ones view of the situation...

throwing out the whole you're dumb if you don't believe this is pretty silly too and has nothing to do with anything other than that you might enjoy insulting people that don't agree with you? Saying that all you'll ever have is circumstantial at best is just an excuse a cop out if you'd like... at least admit it's just your opinion and the way you read into the situation...

We can't at all. Every attempt only exacerbates us further.

We humans can't appreciate that which we haven't earned.
That's why most lottery winners go bankrupt.

There is a human nature component which squanders the windfall despite our best intensions

Seriously, your example has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

Luck did not get me into college

Graduating college just in time for Boeing's mass hirings due to a government contract is pretty damn lucky.

Graduating college in SoCal (Long Beach/LA specifically) just in time for Boeing's mass hirings due to a government contract is even more lucky than that.

So what kind of job did you do in order to pay for college, or did you come from a wealthy family that paid the cost for you? That would be part of the "luck" factor people are talking about, being given a leg up due to circumstances of your birth.

I just get annoyed at people bitching about poor people being lazy and/or stupid and/or unmotivated. Because it's a load of ***.

This ***is still going on...look reality sucks end of story !

And I'm still pissed off about all that ***.

But instead of brooding over it and letting this injury keep me down, I'm instead putting more time on side businesses (mainly, keeping books for friends for cheap) and volunteering more.

To be honest, I'm enjoying the retired life too much to think about getting another high stress office job like that. Yes, something out of my control altered my life, but instead of allowing it to alter it permanently, I adjusted my life to the point where I'm satisfied with it.

But to say that luck played a part of my success is stupid. Luck did not get me into college, or helped me graduate, or got me my CPA, or got me into the firm where I got that CFO gig (however short it was), or enabled me to retire before I'm 35.

Everything in my life can be attributed to the choices I make. I knew nobody in the firm I started out with, and I got the CFO position mainly because I worked with my ex-employers as their tax accountant and they basically headhunted me for the position.

And there it is... something out of control altered your life as it does for many... for you you were still in a position to not have to find a new job or one that was out of your main field as others aren't so lucky...

No one is attacking you personally here KN as it seems you've taken such a defensive position to your own successes in this discussion... the only idea being discussed is that there are things that happen that are out of our direct control, as you just admitted, that can affect us positively or negatively...

Once I recall the name of this book I'll recommend it to you for a read through so you can get a better view on what I'm trying to express if you'd like... some people get a leg up an advantage in some form over others just by being born into the right family or with certain attributes... it doesn't mean they necessarily mean they don't have to work as hard but they get more or better opportunities that they'd still have to capitalize on... it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed continual success either... it also doesn't mean that people who don't grow up with the same benefits don't have an opportunity it's to succeed either but there definitely are more hoops to jump through...

idk why when stuff like this gets brought up people like saev automatically jump to the evil rich white man rhetoric which has absolutely nothing to do with anything...

Also I'm not personally advocating that people sit around and wallow in unhappiness at the unfairness of the world merely acknowledging the fact that hard work isnt the only factor in success or happiness...

Arguments in a high-profile religious liberty case caused tempers to flare on both sides of the Supreme Court's ideological divide Wednesday.

The high court waited for several months to hear Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, and did so with a full nine-justice court bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court this month. At issue in Trinity Lutheran is whether Missouri violated the Constitution in its decision to bar a church-operated daycare and preschool from a state program that provides funding to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds. Missouri's Constitution includes a provision that prevents public funds from directly or indirectly assisting any church, sect or religion.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom Gorsuch formerly clerked, kicked off questioning at the oral arguments without providing many signals about how he might decide. Kennedy asked David Cortman, the lawyer for Trinity Lutheran Church, whether there are any "instances when religious status can be used to deny benefits" from the government.

Before Cortman could finish answering that he could not think of any such example, the court's left-leaning justices pounced. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg interrupted first, followed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

"I believe the playground is part of the ministry" of the church, Sotomayor said, expresssing concern that the preschool might choose to provide religious instruction to the children "outside on a sunny day" on the playground resurfaced with government funding.

Sotomayor noted that nearly 40 states had provisions in their state constitutions similar to Missouri's and lauded the provisions as part of the nation's tradition of not funding religious institutions.

"You say this affects free exercise [of religion], you seem to be confusing money with free exercise," Sotomayor told Cortman. "I'm not sure how this is a free exercise question."

Justice Samuel Alito soon after interjected and called out Sotomayor by name, prompting the equivalent of an intellectual food fight. Alito asked Cortman whether he agreed with Sotomayor's suggestion that the Missouri Constitution's provision prohibiting direct or indirect funding to churches represented an "admirable tradition," which gave Cortman the opportunity to talk about the provision's roots in "anti-Catholic bigotry."

Sotomayor immediately responded to the allegations of anti-Catholic bigotry motivating the provision by saying, "There's a serious debate about that." The court's left-leaning justices did not rush to Sotomayor's defense, and material previewing the case provided by the Supreme Court asserts that provisions such as Missouri's "were born out of anti-Catholic animosity in the 19th century."

Sotomayor did, however, have an ally in the opposing counsel, James Layton, who represented Carol Comer, head of Missouri's Department of Natural Resources.

"Justice Alito asked whether this is an admirable tradition ... and the state's answer is yes," Layton began.

Alito questioned Layton at length with hypothetical examples from friend of the court briefs to see where Layton drew the line on who may receive government funding. Alito asked whether Missouri would approve of synagogues or mosques at risk as targets of terrorism receiving Department of Homeland Security grants to have security mechanisms in place akin to those at the high court. Layton answered "no."

Layton's answer drew skeptical questions from Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, who asked how police and fire department services are provided to protect churches.

Perhaps sensing that the court was not moving firmly toward her corner, Sotomayor then questioned whether newly elected Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, a Republican, was "manufacturing adversity" by allowing the case to proceed even after the governor had changed how the state views the program. Layton replied by detailing how he presumed the same controversy likely would return to the court in the future regardless of the newly elected officials' action.

The timing of Sotomayor's question on whether the case was "moot" was revealing. When Breyer questioned Cortman, Trinity Lutheran's counsel, about the new governor's action, Sotomayor did not raise any questions. Cortman explained that the new governor's policy came by "Facebook or press release" and was subject to change as the political winds do. Only when Layton neared the end of his arguments did Sotomayor choose to ask why the case was at the Supreme Court.

As several of the justices talked over one another to ask questions, Gorsuch sat silent — a mirror of Justice Clarence Thomas — throughout much of the day's proceedings. Gorsuch was the last justice to ask a question. In asking questions of Layton, Gorsuch pursued a line of questioning brought by Kagan and asked why Missouri's discrimination against the church in a selective government public-benefit program was "better" than discrimination in a general public-benefit program.

Layton talked at length about Missouri's concerns about endorsement and entanglement because of the Trinity Lutheran Church's religious affiliation.

We can't at all. Every attempt only exacerbates us further.

We humans can't appreciate that which we haven't earned.
That's why most lottery winners go bankrupt.

There is a human nature component which squanders the windfall despite our best intensions

And part of this is people that win the lottery don't value money. When someone gives you "free money" it is very easy to blow it on strippers and coke !

Also I'm not personally advocating that people sit around and wallow in unhappiness at the unfairness of the world merely acknowledging the fact that hard work isnt the only factor in success or happiness...

Don't worry with gene editing we are well on our way to fixing that flaw !

I'm trying to fix it with the zika virus...

hoping to get it airborne and maybe marry it to the flu

History has shown us that marrying two diseases together can have dire consequences.

All of my success can be attributed to my own life choices. I did not go to a college my father has influence over. I did not get a job that my father ever even heard of. I did not use my family name to get where I am in life. I did take advantage of a better education than public school, and most of my investments did come from my trust fund (not all, most), but in all honesty, if I wasn't retired, I would have already exceeded that in my own efforts.