We’re also the nation which has $15 trillion in debt.
The fact that we waste money is not an excuse to not even consider what we spend money on.
But it’s different, because I don’t need to pay for you to follow your religious traditions… unless I’m paying to feed you, and your religion prescribes requirements which increase the cost of feeding you.
Your steak and lobster troll was stupid too, since it is dealt with handily by prison officials every year, and I don’t know if you’ve ever eaten kosher but you don’t eat steak and fucking lobster.
But the food does generally cost more than its non-kosher counterpart, due to the additional preparatory requirements.
As I said though, if there are no cost increases, then it doesn’t matter. The state isn’t spending any more resources.
But no. You assumed I was rich. You assumed that meant it was okay for my grandmother to feed on caviar and the finest of chocolate mousse, and if your philosophical underpinnings tell you that it’s okay to grind the noses of poor people into the traditional american cheeseburger rather than something they’ve eaten their whole lives and want to eat again before they die, then fuck you.
I didn’t assume you were rich. I assumed you had enough money to facilitate the decisions about how you would allocate your resources to keep your grandmother in comfort. Which you apparently did.
Cry all you want about me casting you as old folk hater. At some point, you can’t be all for that shit without turning into a cartoon villain.
And weren’t you just arguing on the side of the religious folks in that other thread? The thing with the prayer on the wall? How do you even keep your shit straight?
That’s what is so funny.
In that thread, I found it inoffensive for a sign which was there for 50 years to continue being there… Although, if you’ll note, I also pointed out that I would be opposed to something which actually cost me my tax dollars. I believe the example I used was, “If they wanted to build a big ass golden Jesus statue, I’d oppose it, because I’m not interested in spending my money on that.”
And yet, seemingly everyone was all about ripping that sign down, because it constituted a state sponsorship of a religion.
But here, where we are talking about the state actually spending money specifically to support religious beliefs of a specific group, no one seems to bat an eye.
It’s also funny because the (obviously absurd) notion of the steak and lobster made up religion is discounted as disingenuous, and yet the idea that the sign must be removed because of the possibility that you would have to put up signs for the FSM, was absolutely accepted… despite being the exact same argument.
He doesn’t. He simply always stands on the exact opposite side of what the rest of us generally consider reasonable. He’s a contrarian just for the sake of being contrary.
While I absolutely do like to argue with the majority because it allows me to learn more about that position, in this case my original gut instinct really was that I wouldn’t see a huge problem with the state restricting its meal provisions to things which were medically necessary. You have to draw the line somewhere, and that seems like the most concrete and definable line.
But, like I said before, if it’s really not any increase in cost, then I could care less. I certainly don’t support preventing someone from exercising their religious beliefs just because. At the same time though, it’s not my responsibility to fund those religious beliefs.
It seems like folks are suggesting that it’s ok for the state to fund someone’s religious beliefs, if they’re old.
