Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 466 of 960 (803303)
03-28-2017 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by NoNukes
03-28-2017 3:38 PM


Re: First Amendment
First of all, that's a bogus bit of liberalism that tells us our freedom of religion consists in merely believing and keeping our practices private. "The free exercise thereof" implies the right to act upon our beliefs in the public arena, and always has implied that.
And yes there is no conflict between rights and freedoms that the Founders had any inkling of, except denominational tyrannies and anti-religious opinion that wants to suppress religious freedom. That's not a right or freedom, that's a suppressive tyrannical point of view. There is no right to a freedom FROM religion despite the attempt to push such a silly idea. If there were such a right implied by simply having an opinion that right would be first of all assigned to those who are religious since that's written down in the First Amendment. So if there is such a right, and of course the idea is absurd, religious people would have the right to freedom FROM atheism.
The only conflict that has ever arisen is the bogus interracial marriage "conflict" which has no biblical support whatever. The passage in Genesis starting with God's saying that it's not good for man to be alone and conclusing with 2:24 defining marriage as a man leaving his family and cleaving to his wife, by which cleaving they become "one flesh" is about man and woman and nothing whatever about race and certainly nothing whatever implying that two of the same sex can marry.
So, yes, I think we need to hear from the Founders about this supposed conflict of rights and freedoms.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2017 3:38 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2017 3:59 PM Faith has replied
 Message 470 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2017 4:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 467 of 960 (803304)
03-28-2017 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by New Cat's Eye
03-28-2017 3:32 PM


Re: Thread Misuses the Word "Totalitarian"
Oh, here's another one: I'm not saying that an individual can be totalitarian like a government can, I'm saying that they can have tendencies to prefer governments that have total control - that is, their mentality is one of a totalitarian nature. So, yeah, totalitarian is a bit of a joke in that it's hyperbolic, but it does look like the shoe fits so I see where people are coming from. I thought it would be interesting to explore the thoughts that lead to this kind of stuff, but we got too hung up on the verbiage to get anywhere.
In short, insisting on your rights, or even preferring a constitution that has federally enforced rights is totalitarian, hyperbolically speaking. On the other hand dictating to folks by government officials, like for example school administrators is just fine. Because... why exactly? Well because you are okay with that.
How about we keep the totalitarian government, state or otherwise, out of the bathroom absent some problem that needs a solution. That's exactly what the guidelines to Title IX were meant to accomplish.
Apparently there is no real defense for bathroom laws like HB2, because attempts to defend them are easily seen through crap.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-28-2017 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 468 of 960 (803305)
03-28-2017 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Faith
03-28-2017 3:46 PM


Re: First Amendment
And yes there is no conflict between rights and freedoms that the Founders had any inkling of,
The founding fathers were not this stupid, Faith. Do you think that the first amendment would ever have allowed Puritans to torment Quakers or vice versa just because their religious beliefs allowed such?
Your argument is moronic.
Here are some helpful, if not obvious words from Thomas Jefferson
quote:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 3:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Faith, posted 03-29-2017 12:57 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 469 of 960 (803307)
03-28-2017 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
03-28-2017 3:12 PM


Re: ...
The point is the First Amendment that promises religious freedom is prior
Sure, so you do agree that rights can have primacy over other rights - but then, your religious freedom isn't being inhibited. It's your freedom to practice business how you want that is being inhibited.
You are free to say same-sex marriage is wicked. You are free to not have a same-sex marriage. But you aren't free to run a public business how you like, even if your religion says so.
Punishing Christians for acting on their religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment.
They aren't. They can be punished for violating business regulations. They can operate a business in such a way as to not violate business regulations AND not serve cakes for same-sex weddings. That's what the Kleins did, they changed their business model so it presumably now complies with the law.
It would be unfair of them to have the advantages of a public accommodation while not playing by the same rules as everyone else.
I'm talking about gay marriage here. The bathroom problem \is something else.
Yes, I know. But you said you weren't dropping the bathroom problem and you've avoided answering the question about whether those laws are also totalitarian. Is it only totalitarian when the left does it? Or will show me you are consistent and fair and will condemn the right when it acts in a way that should be construed as totalitarian as you are using the word?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 3:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 470 of 960 (803308)
03-28-2017 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Faith
03-28-2017 3:46 PM


Re: First Amendment
not interested in this anymore...
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 3:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 471 of 960 (803310)
03-28-2017 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
03-28-2017 3:12 PM


Re: ...
Punishing Christians for acting on their religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment.
The first amendment:
quote:
Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] ...
Which law are you suggesting has prohibited the free exercise of your religion?

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 3:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 5:31 PM nwr has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 472 of 960 (803313)
03-28-2017 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
03-28-2017 3:12 PM


Re: ...
Faith writes:
The point is the First Amendment that promises religious freedom is prior. Punishing Christians for acting on their religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment. You need another solution to your problem.
ABE: I'm talking about gay marriage here. The bathroom problem \is something else.
You really have not read the Bible or the US Constitution it seems. While your chapter of Club Christian is free to practice any fool beliefs you are NOT free to impose your fool beliefs on anyone who is NOT a member of your chapter of Club Christian.
The First Amendment was meant to keep Christian nutjobs from trying to impose their fool beliefs on others.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 3:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 473 of 960 (803321)
03-28-2017 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by nwr
03-28-2017 4:40 PM


Re: ...
Oh that's clever! The Left/SCOTUS treats the public school system as the equivalent of Congress in its denial of religious practices on school property, which itself is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion in reality, and now you are saying that a law that prohibits Christians from acting on our beliefs, that came from SCOTUS, as usual usurping the role of Congress, doesn't count as prohibiting Christian freedoms. Gosh the Left is just brilliant at perverting American law. Prohibiting Christian practice by any means whatever I guess is the goal, right, so if we can illegally prohibit it by SCOTUS pretending to be Congress, and if it doesn't in so many words demand the prohibition, that's OK, cuz as we know, the end justifies the means.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by nwr, posted 03-28-2017 4:40 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Phat, posted 03-28-2017 6:00 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 475 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2017 6:07 PM Faith has replied
 Message 481 by nwr, posted 03-28-2017 7:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 474 of 960 (803324)
03-28-2017 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Faith
03-28-2017 5:31 PM


Re: ...
Jesus tells us that His Kingdom is not of this world.
Perhaps it is meant that Christians never secure the world for themselves and their children. Perhaps we really are just passing through.
The world belongs to satan.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 5:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 475 of 960 (803325)
03-28-2017 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Faith
03-28-2017 5:31 PM


Re: ...
now you are saying that a law that prohibits Christians from acting on our beliefs, that came from SCOTUS, as usual usurping the role of Congress, doesn't count as prohibiting Christian freedoms.
The laws that prohibit discrimination came from the State legislatures. The Klein's ran afoul of State law, passed by the Oregon State Legislature.
SCOTUS only ruled that same-sex marriage is as much a right as heterosexual marriage and that States cannot usurp this right and all the rights and priveleges of one must apply to another (such as tax benefits, healthcare etc etc). It says nothing about what private citizens must do. The Oregonian anti-discrimination law was passed years before SCOTUS made its ruling.
You continue to mix these up - they are quite different things. SCOTUS did not 'pretend' to be Congress. They did not enact any laws. It was the State legislatures that enacted the laws that private business owners are subject to, and have been penalized under.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 5:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 6:17 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 478 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2017 6:33 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 476 of 960 (803326)
03-28-2017 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Modulous
03-28-2017 6:07 PM


Re: ...
I'd say the bottom line remains no matter what else you bring to the mix: The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and forbids prohibiting its "free exercise." Yes by a law made in the legislature but I think that is being misused in this context to allow its prohibition by hook or by crook.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2017 6:07 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2017 6:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 479 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2017 6:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 477 of 960 (803327)
03-28-2017 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by Faith
03-28-2017 6:17 PM


Re: ...
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and forbids prohibiting its "free exercise."
Should I be allowed to sacrifice children to Moloch, then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 6:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 478 of 960 (803328)
03-28-2017 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Modulous
03-28-2017 6:07 PM


Re: ...
You continue to mix these up - they are quite different things. SCOTUS did not 'pretend' to be Congress. They did not enact any laws. It was the State legislatures that enacted the laws that private business owners are subject to, and have been penalized under.
While your statements are correct, I think the state laws are a natural, and easily forseeable outgrowth of the Supreme Court's ruling that there was no rational basis for the state to disallow same sex marriage. I completely understand, although I do not sympathize with, complaints that religious sensibilities were affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2017 6:07 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2017 7:04 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 479 of 960 (803329)
03-28-2017 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by Faith
03-28-2017 6:17 PM


Re: ...
I'd say the bottom line remains no matter what else you bring to the mix: The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and forbids prohibiting its "free exercise." Yes by a law made in the legislature but I think that is being misused in this context to allow its prohibition by hook or by crook.
Isn't it just a little inconsistent to agree that the First Amendment is not a restriction on Congress alone when discussing the Free Expression Clause, but to deny that same principle when you are complaining about state school officials being subject to the first amendment.
I doubt that you would want the first amendment application to free speech, freedom of assembly, or religion to be limited to prohibition on what Congress can do. But maybe I am wrong.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 6:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 480 of 960 (803332)
03-28-2017 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by NoNukes
03-28-2017 6:33 PM


I think the state laws are a natural, and easily forseeable outgrowth of the Supreme Court's ruling that there was no rational basis for the state to disallow same sex marriage.
Perhaps so, but in many cases - including the Oregon case - the State laws came years before the SCOTUS ruling. The laws in question are nothing to do with marriage, but about discriminating against gays. The natural outgrowth of the zeitgest was that gay people were starting to 'openly marry' even where lawful marriage was not permitted (such as in Oregon at the time of that case).
This extends to the Federal/State Totalitarian argument. Since this was a State's decision - this should be acknowledged. It was not a Federal decision, it was not a SCOTUS decision. Equal access to services is nothing to do with marriage; trying to make the argument that SCOTUS exceeded its authority to make this happen needs to be addressed and rebutted where this is presented as evidence of totalitarian tactics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2017 6:33 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 03-28-2017 7:55 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 488 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2017 5:07 AM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024