ludofl3x

They should literally get the same amount, or more if you would like.  This is ridiculous.

• Churches need people to continue to survive and exert their influence.They need people, in other words, to REPRODUCE their church. The parishioners act as a sort of "DNA" of the organization, or the food required to maintain energy to reproduce (this is inexact I know). 
  
• People stop going to churches when the church finds itself at odds with overwhelmingly popular notions. For example, a church in an area with a large homosexual population that preaches anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpit week after week will find itself struggling for parishioners. Less parishioners = less donation, less donation = less financial feasibility to expand church, less expansion = opening for other churches to service the needs. Less obvious but real life example: Vatican II. No more latin, because people don't speak latin, and are becoming less and less interested in our church and are trying churches that speak english. Or, believers believe that Jesus burns babies who die before baptism in a lake of fire...this turns off parishioners! Catholic church invents doctrine of purgatory from whole cloth, to soothe this concern. REACT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE AND CHANGES OR FORGO AT PERIL.
  
• No reaction to environmental pressure means another option opens for those parishioners you lost. Nature abhors a vacuum. Other churches grow while yours shrinks. They crowd you out and eventually buy your nice church building and put their sign up. You have been DESELECTED by the population because you are an unappealing or non-viable reproduction candidate. Your beliefs do NOT get passed down (hereditary trait) and eventually, are lost to history. Ask the Cheldonians, Romans, Greeks, Canaanites and Egyptians. 
  
• Conversely you react to the environmental pressure and more reproduction opportunities are available to you, more sustenance. Your church grows, it is rewarded for evolving. Eventually, the race is on between your church and the church two blocks over to be more appealing, because more appealing = more attendees = more money = more churches = more attendees = more money and on and on. You must, though, be first to figure out what you will use as your attractant, or how you will better digest your food and convert it to energy. Maybe we stop bashing gays last month...maybe this month we let women into the clergy....maybe in a year we let divorced people back into the church to take communion....etc etc.
  

Herdity of traits

Variation of traits between generations

The statistical link of traits to survival

I'm saying that those state funds, which are substantial, should be apportioned in a more fitting manner. 

No I'm not talking about UBI, but allotting the funding already apportioned for education in a manner which doesn't lend to coercion from whatever interests currently preoccupy the state government, whether they lend to neglect, standardized improvement, or intrusion.  Actually, give people back the money that the state uses to artificially prop up public education, for education. 

Social security would be personal apportionment.  At the very least, the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options.  If a mother doesn't want her son to attend their failing state subsidized inner city school, she should not be forced to rely on it.

If the people running the state want to help the poor and needy, they can do so in a manner that enables them to help themselves, not holding them back.

there should be millions of unsuccessful bones of failed animals. there should be as many failed animal bones as there are dinosaurs.

Should Christian Scientists and the Amish be banned from public spaces because they don't believe in vaccines (or simply don't trust the government and or pharmaceutical corporations)?

Maybe I used that argument specifically because I knew you would make the connection.

If everyone is vaccinated except those who refuse to get vaccinated, those who are vaccinated shouldn't get sick.

you don't appear to want to allow a religious objection to vaccinations, correct?

if someone says religious objection, you say no, they stand on their religious objection, what then?  what do you do?  how do you remedy the situation?  what's the solution?

btw having bodily autonomy also means NOT doing something with it or having something done to it, it doesn't just apply to killing things, if you don't believe in the slogan "my body my choice" that's find but if you do it would not be accurate if you limit that choice would it?

Actually, I'm not sure you have me correctly: I am fine with religious based objections to things, even to some things I find ridiculous (like religiously objecting to proven science), on principle. THat's kind of the quandary I find myself in. If they are allowed to object and risk herd immunity, then is it then discrimination to segregate this potentially infectious population? Is that the 'remedy' to their objection? It seems in practical terms the only way to protect those who cannot be inoculated (like children less than a year old, newborns, etc) when we are a society of shared spaces and public utilities. It seems less than American to me, deciding one population of religious people can't use something like a publicly funded park because they are exercising their religious freedom, yes, to the detriment of others, but there's no provision for that in the law. Still, I feel like our first duty is to protect the most vulnerable, and in this case, it's kids under the age of 1, or kids who CAN'T get inoculated. I don't have a hard and fast view on the matter, but if you rewind to where my kids were 10 months old, you can be sure I wouldn't want them going to a school with a Hasidic kid in Brooklyn. That said, does that make me anti-Semitic? I don't think so. 

And I don't think I'm arguing explicitly that the cake maker should have to make anyone a cake, if that's what your my body my choice is referencing. His first amendment rights were upheld, I just think that it's fair play if every day, a group of whoever he won't make cakes for pickets his store. Right to assembly. I get the Brutal quandary though: standing on religious grounds, not freedom of expression grounds, means that he should have to follow all of the laws in his religion equally. 

"What's the remedy for people who refuse vaccines?  If someone refused then what?"

If a Church teaches members to "not recognize gay marriage" that should be in writing somewhere.

it allows people to believe and act on faith so long as it doesn't conflict with your own perverse ideas of what that should look like.

Yeah, actually I think that not discriminating would literally result in insanity

That being the case, I don't believe it would be useful to discuss scripture with you.

Heh, do you worship the government?  On another note, do you hate the Supreme Court?

Where I am from, we are informed and instructed by a professional, make a vow, and say I do before witnesses.  The members of church do not hold the ultimate claim to authority, but they are fully capable of pronouncing marriage as valid.

This could actually be a bit blurry depending on what is considered "good law".  Some people may not recognize what congress passes, and the executive branch of government signs off as valid law for whatever reason.  What you are referring to as legally binding is based upon contract enforceable under claims to authority which may or may not be legitimate.  What I am referring to as legitimate is not contingent upon the current regime, rather based in truth. 

Absolutely not. I think science actually compliments God quite nicely. I think science is actually a spring board into further mind expansion if one is willing to go that route, and get over the idea that what their 5 senses perceive is all there is

You have it somewhat backwards: the idea of god compliments science. Ever since the age of enlightenment, people have been neatly fitting gods into the gaps of our knowledge (derived through science). Seizures in the year 50 were demonic possessions. Now we know they're neurologically caused and in many cases, we have solutions (derived through science, not praying). People who still want to include the supernatural in that will tell you "Well, that's how the demons work, in your mind!" Just one example, it's something I know you're familiar with (god of the gaps), I won't belabor it. 

 But like many cake artists, Jack cannot create all custom cakes. He cannot create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs.

We certainly do not acknowledge homosexual marriage as being a reality.