Re: Who bears the cost ?
"How do we ensure the development organisation bears the cost?"
Kill it with fire.
1347 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Jun 2014
The flaw in your analogy is that beliefs have no physical markers, unlike ethnicity.
As most people are too busy living their own lives to devote any time to comparative religious studies, any nutcase can claim to do something in the name of whatever sky-fairy they like and none of us would be the wiser. This is why there must either be a groundswell of people like yourself clearly pointing out why the looneys are wrong or a group of really important clergy denouncing such violence.
Thank you for the information posted, it is a step in the right direction and I hope it encourages others to speak up.
Yes. Sects is Good.
In the first century CE Judaism had Pharisees, Sadusees, Zealots, Essenes and Jesus Freaks and probably some others. They got somewhat more homogeneous after the failed Jewish rebellion and destruction of the second temple.
The Christian community would include Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Coptic (yes, they're still around), various Protestant denominations which, sadly, includes the Westboro Baptist church. The only reason the Westboro bunch isn't chucked out is because it's mostly one inbred family and ain't worth the effort. It does not include the Mormons as they are polytheists or the Jehovah's Witnesses as they do not believe Jesus is God.
In the US Federal, State and Tribal governments have sovereign immunity which basically means that you won't get far suing the government as it can tell you that it farts in you general direction *and* call you a silly wiper of other peoples bottoms.
It's an idea we got from the English. Really.
Not just BMW. Chrysler products have used a Body Control Module to control every switch, light and gauge not directly running the engine or transmission for years. Fuel level, brake lights, headlights, door locks, windshield wipers...
I suspect most carmakers do things this new and stupid way.
" I'm still slightly aghast that the man who won 3 million fewer votes than his opponent gets to be in charge"
We've had this system for years, everyone knows about it and everyone running for President tries to get the Electoral votes, not the popular vote. If we had a straight popular vote, everyone would simply adjust their campaign strategies to reflect this. In other words, we could still have wound up with cheeto-man in charge. Trump is not the first person to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote, Lincoln managed the same thing in 1860 and he is generally well regarded.