The Trump Administration 2017-

[Tank]

 

See, you don't read closely. I clearly said I was opposed to organized religion. This is OBVIOUSLY a soapbox not a cross.

 

Lol.

 

I read closely enough to know what you said does not in fact match what you claim is the point you wanted to make. I adhered to the words you chose in your own paragraph number 4. Poor word choice is your problem, not mine.

 

Here's what I said the first time I explained myself:

 

I 100% believe religion should be practice privately because the second ANY religion comes close to policy it automatically becomes non-inclusive to somebody.

And then the second:

 

I see a pretty big difference between Christianity and fundamentalist Christians, which is what lies at teh root of these problems. I wasn't trying to duck anything, i was literally saying religion and religious freedom isn't the issue here.

 

I just firmly believe religion and government have no need to interact.

I basically said the same thing a third time and then you got it.

 

But as I said in a Star Wars thread, there seems to be multiple people telling me I don't make sense. And even though I know it's a tactic or inability to comprehend on their part, it's frustrated me to the point that I need to take a break from this crap.

[monkeygirl]

 

 

 

4. The separation of church and state is not meant to bar a relgious person from government service, obviously, I never said that was the case. This is a prime example of you recontextrualizing and intentionsally reframing what I say. All I ever said was that it means religion cannot cannot dictate policy. As above, a lawmaker with certain beliefs, if he is educated, moral, and fair, can make policy that while influenced by his beliefs, doesnt have to make the beliefs themselves the actual law. If he cannot, he has no business being in government. Ive said this repeatedly, and you seem to gloss over it and insist I am saying only athiests can be politicians, which is absurd. Side note Mike Pence is the perfect example of a fundamentalist that very much wants HIS religious beliuefs to be policy so Im pretty sure any legislation he throws his weight behind is suspect.

Thats interesting. So, a devout catholic, who is also a legislator, introduces legislation to tax and spend to provide free lunches to poor school children. In the same bill, he also introduces language of providing money, on a monthly basis, to the poor, the amount of money adjusted on a sliding scale of factors.

 

The legislators motivation for this law is his sincere religious belief of an obligation to help the poor, as taught by Jesus.

 

Now, by your logic, the legislator has introduced legislation to make his beliefs themselves the actual law, and, ergo, he has no business being in government.

 

Now, that is rational to you? Thats logical and reasonable? Or perhaps there is a missing but important element that permits the Carholic legislator to do what he did in my hypo without violating principle of separation of church and state?

Why the need to fabricate entire stories with supposed motivations? Are you saying that you don't truly grasp the difference between ideas which are religious in origin and making federal laws and government policy that is based on religion? Really?

I havent the slightest inclination what you are talking about above.

 

Tank invoked a nebulous phrase that leaves much to be desired in terms of further explication as to what does or doesnt meet or satisfy his phrase. I used an example that, on the face of the phrase, satisfies his phrase.

 

I asked a simple question. I'll ask again: Are you saying that you don't truly grasp the difference between ideas which are religious in origin and making federal laws and government policy that is based on religion?

[monkeygirl]

 

 

 

I'll believe that our Federal government is serious about protecting the religious rights of its citizens ONLY when ALL religions are protected. This is not a Christian nation, no matter how many who say they're Christian live here or what's printed on our money.

Are there factual examples in which some religions are protected but other religions are denied the same protection?

My knee-jerk reactions are the Muslim ban and the illegality of polygamy

A few points.

 

The Muslim ban isnt particularly a good example primarily because the Bill of Rights arent applicable to foreigners located in another country and seeking entry into the U.S.

 

And its not a Muslim ban as all people of all faiths in those countries come within the ban( as I recall, been awhile since I read it but upon quickly re-reading I think so), so its not a good example of some religions protected but others denied the same protection.

 

and the illegality of polygamy?

[monkeygirl]

Well, I can use this thread as an example of citizens believing so. As for government, we have the old cake baker argument to go along with the Obama administration's refusal to include religious conscience exemptions as has been rather standard in government policy which led to lawsuits like Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor.

I see...you're okay with the cake baker suit that went your way but not when it didn't. So much for justice being blind. "religious conscience exemptions" for pastry chefs. yeah....because baking a cake is practically moving in with the couple and financing their orgies. Good ****ing lord.

I'm not being disingenuous. Trump did call for a Muslim ban, and that would have been wrong. I said so at the time, and I'll say it again now.

He still calls it a Muslim ban. Also, you think it WAS a Muslim ban before it got turned down twice and it is not NOW, simply because of the technicalities that were engineered to make this fit a manufactured standard? I don't mean to simply be contrary but that's pretty much the *definition* of being disingenuous

Thanks for providing US v Seeger-I was unaware. I don't like it, either but it's a legal precedent-so TY for providing.

[monkeygirl]

 

 

 

 

One of the first things Trump did when he took office was to officially side with the corporation.

 

Approving the pipeline was good policy.

 

 

 

So, I gave you an example where American law enforcement was using violence on people protesting their right to protect their sacred religious sites, and your response is that the American government's reaction to the situation - to value a corporation over the Tribal Sovereignty and religious freedom of the residents of the land - was good policy. Let me know how you feel about this when they bulldoze your church and cemetery to put in a pipeline.

 

I gave you an example of religious freedom for non-Christians was being literally attacked by our government, but that's good policy.

 

If you can't see why I'm afraid of a religious liberty task force that was started in response to Catholic nuns valuing their religion over the health of their employees, or a baker who refused to serve a gay couple, and not the fact that American citizens, Native and non-Native, were brutally attacked by the government that's supposed to protect them for protesting the violation of their religious and tribal freedom by a corporation... you just don't get it.

 

Interested in knowing why Poe feels the pipeline is 'good policy'>

[monkeygirl]

 

 

Why do you feel State legislation is necessary since it's already in the bill of Rights?

 

To ensure a strict scrutiny standard is used and when compelling government interests are applied its compelling interests in the least restrictive means.

 

In pedestrian English...?

 

 

Not sure how polygamy laws are germane as they have a rather secular background.

 

In the USA it seems to me it almost exclusively attached to the Mormon faith.

 

Why the need to fabricate entire stories with supposed motivations? Are you saying that you don't truly grasp the difference between ideas which are religious in origin and making federal laws and government policy that is based on religion? Really?

 

I'm saying that the two are impossible to disentangle. Religion informs a person and their beliefs about right and wrong.

 

Again-you're telling us that *you* can't discern the difference between an idea that is religious in nature and establishing governmental policy because the Bible tells you so? The fact that you're typing and posting here sort of belies your claimed vacuity.

 

[Guest]

I asked a simple question. I'll ask again: Are you saying that you don't truly grasp the difference between ideas which are religious in origin and making federal laws and government policy that is based on religion?

I asked for clarification on it a while ago. I haven't seen any signs of a religion being codified, but I don't know your definition. Quite honestly, it seems to me right now that the difference is whether you like it or not. I don't see anyone being forced to pray, to be part of any religion, heck, you are free to mock any religious leaders you want.

 

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I don't think you or Tank have really explained what you mean other than to repeat it and act like people are stupid for not understanding.

[Poe Dameron]

I see...you're okay with the cake baker suit that went your way but not when it didn't. So much for justice being blind.

 

I honestly have no idea what you think I said that led to that response.

 

 

 

"religious conscience exemptions" for pastry chefs. yeah....because baking a cake is practically moving in with the couple and financing their orgies. Good ****ing lord.

 

It seems silly until the government forces you to endorse something that goes against your principles.

 

 

 

Also, you think it WAS a Muslim ban before it got turned down twice and it is not NOW, simply because of the technicalities that were engineered to make this fit a manufactured standard? I don't mean to simply be contrary but that's pretty much the *definition* of being disingenuous

 

No I do not think the original travel restrictions constituted a Muslim ban. It also was not turned down twice. Please re-read my post.

 

 

 

Interested in knowing why Poe feels the pipeline is 'good policy'

 

Environmentally, it's a relatively safe transportation method. Economically, it's cheap. The pipelines themselves are relatively mild as a matter of ecological destruction. No worse than building a road, with far less spillover effects.

 

I've always thought the main reason for the fight against it was a simple kneejerk belief that anything not renewable should be shut down.

 

In the USA it seems to me it almost exclusively attached to the Mormon faith.

 

There were polygamy laws in the United States dating back before the birth of Joseph Smith. The Mormons were controversial because they went against those long-established laws and customs, not the other way around.

 

 

 

Again-you're telling us that *you* can't discern the difference between an idea that is religious in nature and establishing governmental policy because the Bible tells you so? The fact that you're typing and posting here sort of belies your claimed vacuity.

 

I'm saying that ideas become government policy one way or another and it's impossible to disentangle the two.

[Guest]

The interesting thing that they didn't get into with the baker case is what constitutes art. I think that most of us would agree that Tank couldn't and shouldn't be forced to write Kirk Camerson's next crapfest, but where is the line? Who determines what is art and what isn't?

[Poe Dameron]

The interesting thing that they didn't get into with the baker case is what constitutes art. I think that most of us would agree that Tank couldn't and shouldn't be forced to write Kirk Camerson's next crapfest, but where is the line? Who determines what is art and what isn't?

You can sidestep the eternal "What constitutes art?" question by just labeling it as speech. And that is a pretty broad concept.

 

Still, there's a lot left to be defined. In the end, all the 7-2 decision really said was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission were being a bunch of bigoted asshats (or I imagine those would have been the words Scalia would have used in his concurrence were he still around), so the Supreme Court just kicked the can down the road.

[Guest]

The decision was really carefully crafted to decide nothing. I am guessing that Kennedy wanted to go out without rocking the boat. But it was really just everyone getting together and saying "You know who could really handle this decision? Future Supreme Court."

[James Madison]

 

 

 

 

4. The separation of church and state is not meant to bar a relgious person from government service, obviously, I never said that was the case. This is a prime example of you recontextrualizing and intentionsally reframing what I say. All I ever said was that it means religion cannot cannot dictate policy. As above, a lawmaker with certain beliefs, if he is educated, moral, and fair, can make policy that while influenced by his beliefs, doesnt have to make the beliefs themselves the actual law. If he cannot, he has no business being in government. Ive said this repeatedly, and you seem to gloss over it and insist I am saying only athiests can be politicians, which is absurd. Side note Mike Pence is the perfect example of a fundamentalist that very much wants HIS religious beliuefs to be policy so Im pretty sure any legislation he throws his weight behind is suspect.

Thats interesting. So, a devout catholic, who is also a legislator, introduces legislation to tax and spend to provide free lunches to poor school children. In the same bill, he also introduces language of providing money, on a monthly basis, to the poor, the amount of money adjusted on a sliding scale of factors.

 

The legislators motivation for this law is his sincere religious belief of an obligation to help the poor, as taught by Jesus.

 

Now, by your logic, the legislator has introduced legislation to make his beliefs themselves the actual law, and, ergo, he has no business being in government.

 

Now, that is rational to you? Thats logical and reasonable? Or perhaps there is a missing but important element that permits the Carholic legislator to do what he did in my hypo without violating principle of separation of church and state?

Why the need to fabricate entire stories with supposed motivations? Are you saying that you don't truly grasp the difference between ideas which are religious in origin and making federal laws and government policy that is based on religion? Really?

I havent the slightest inclination what you are talking about above.

 

Tank invoked a nebulous phrase that leaves much to be desired in terms of further explication as to what does or doesnt meet or satisfy his phrase. I used an example that, on the face of the phrase, satisfies his phrase.

 

I asked a simple question. I'll ask again: Are you saying that you don't truly grasp the difference between ideas which are religious in origin and making federal laws and government policy that is based on religion?

 

What the hell does "based on religion" even mean? That is a nebulous phrase. There is absolutely nothing about the phrase that informs any reader what specific conduct is referenced or covered by "government policy based on religion." Arguably, my Catholic legislator example advocated for a government policy "based on religion" since he introduced legislation to provide financial assistance to the poor because the Bible tells him to help the poor.

 

Some explication is needed. You are in the best position to provide clarity to your view.

[James Madison]

The interesting thing that they didn't get into with the baker case is what constitutes art. I think that most of us would agree that Tank couldn't and shouldn't be forced to write Kirk Camerson's next crapfest, but where is the line? Who determines what is art and what isn't?

I am supposing the phrase "what constitutes as art" you are referencing speech. After all, art is characterized as speech, and for good reason, the First Amendment protects "speech." Whether the baker's conduct is or is not art, the question for determining whether art is "speech" is to ask whether the art is expressive conduct, in other words, expressive speech. This makes sense for that art which does not use any words but instead involves conduct which seeks to send or communicate a message by and through the conduct. The 1st Amendment protects expressive speech. Flag burning, Texas v. Johnson, is expressive speech. Wearing a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War is expressive speech (Tinker v. Des Moines). Displaying the U.S. flag upside down with a peace symbol affixed to the flag is expressive speech. Spence v. Washington. Nude dancing is also expressive speech. Barnes v. Glen Theatre. Art comes within the same parameter of expressive speech.

 

So, there are several considerations in determining whether some conduct is expressive speech under the free speech clause. First there is not unlimited conduct which qualifies as expressive speech just because the person engaging in the conduct intends to communicate a message. Texas v. Johnson quoting O'Brien v. U.S.

 

For expressive conduct to qualify as speech requires 1.) Intent to communicate a particular message, 2..) the likelihood is great those viewing the conduct would understand the message. Texas v. Johnson quoting O'brien v. U.S.

 

However, even expressive conduct, which is speech, may be infringed upon by the government. The government "has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the spoken or written word." Texas v. Johnson. The government cannot, however, infringe upon the expressive conduct "because it has expressive conduct." Id. Where "speech and non-speech are combined in the same course of conduct," an important governmental interest in regulating the "non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on the 1st Amendment freedoms, "Texas v. Johnson quoting O'brien v. U.S. This lenient standard is only applicable where "the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression."

 

Ok. So, assuming the baker's act of making a custom wedding cake is expressive speech (in which the compelled speech doctrine is applicable, a right not to speak, see Wooley v. Maynard, West Virginia State Board v. Barnette, and Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston) may the Colorado public accommodation law infringe upon his speech rights?

 

I think so, under the doctrine above. For a tantalizing back and forth, here are some links. https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/04/what-do-the-masterpiece-cakeshop-decisio http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/16-111_bsac_american_unity_fund.pdf

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/06/dressmakers-bakers-and-the-equality-of-r

 

Eugene Volokh, a 1st Amendment free speech scholar and expert, lawyer, and law professor, co-wrote the amicus brief. (Second link), and the first link is to his article at the Volokh Conspiracy. Yes, he is the eponymous creator of website Volokh Conspiracy.

 

However, given the paramount importance of speech in the U.S., indeed free speech has been, since the nation's inception, one of the most cherished liberties, it is understandable why the Court did not address the question of whether the baker's conduct is speech.

 

If Tank were to reside in Colorado, and Kirk Cameron asked for Tank's services, Tank could refuse on the basis Kirk's material was a "crapfest." However, what Tank could not do is refuse service to Kirk Cameron because of Cameron's religious beliefs under Colorado's public accommodation law.

[James Madison]

 

 

See, you don't read closely. I clearly said I was opposed to organized religion. This is OBVIOUSLY a soapbox not a cross.

Lol.

 

I read closely enough to know what you said does not in fact match what you claim is the point you wanted to make. I adhered to the words you chose in your own paragraph number 4. Poor word choice is your problem, not mine.

Here's what I said the first time I explained myself:

 

I 100% believe religion should be practice privately because the second ANY religion comes close to policy it automatically becomes non-inclusive to somebody.

And then the second:

 

I see a pretty big difference between Christianity and fundamentalist Christians, which is what lies at teh root of these problems. I wasn't trying to duck anything, i was literally saying religion and religious freedom isn't the issue here.

 

I just firmly believe religion and government have no need to interact.

I basically said the same thing a third time and then you got it.

 

But as I said in a Star Wars thread, there seems to be multiple people telling me I don't make sense. And even though I know it's a tactic or inability to comprehend on their part, it's frustrated me to the point that I need to take a break from this crap.

All I asked for was clarification. I used an example that satisfied the face of your comments, in an effort to get you to provide some clarity.

 

And to be honest, I think I know what you mean, but Im not entirely sure. Fozzies reference to the abolition movement of the 1800s, inspired by religious objections to slavery, and laws perhaps passed targeting slavery on the basis of those religious objections, may violate your nebulous principle.

 

Problem is, none of us can ever know for sure besides you, but you refuse to clarify.

[Metropolis]

I find it funny that Jim Acosta and CNN went off on the Tampa crowd at the Trump rally last week. Acosta and others at CNN commented that he feared for his safety. A friend of my wife went to the rally(stood outside for hours in the heat and rain) and said she saw what went on. She said the people only "got rowdy" when he was filming. She said she saw him sign autographs and take selfies with the same people that were yelling at him. Of course I thought no one would believe that without photographic evidence. Well Acosta a few of days ago posted video of him interacting with the crowd, even putting on a MAGA hat. Now I don't condone what how Trump talks about the media. I think he paints them with a broad brush when he is going after those who personally attack him. Not to mention he comes of petty most of the time. To me though what Acosta did is the height of hypocrisy. Seems par for the course for him though. I don't watch CNN and I know his name. Why do I know a White House correspondents name? I only know John Roberts name because I watch Fox News.

[Guest]

My understanding of the argument the baker was presenting was that making a wedding cake is a form of art, and therefore speech. Which is why I used the term art. It may have just been statements from his attorneys that used art as the basis of the argument, as it was used extensively in the statements to the media.

 

Either way, my use of the word art and the question raised is in no way inappropriate.

[James Madison]

My understanding of the argument the baker was presenting was that making a wedding cake is a form of art, and therefore speech. Which is why I used the term art. It may have just been statements from his attorneys that used art as the basis of the argument, as it was used extensively in the statements to the media.

 

Either way, my use of the word art and the question raised is in no way inappropriate.

Fozzie,

 

I did not suggest your use of the word "art" was inappropriate. Instead, what I said was whether an artist has engaged in expressive speech by their conduct, whether it is painting, sculpting, making a custom cake for a wedding, photography, etcetera, is determined under those legal tests I cited to regarding expressive speech. Indeed, Mr. Phillips attorney argued in their brief that Mr. Phillips, an artist, was engaging in expressive speech when he makes a custom wedding cake. Whether an artist has engaged in expressive speech by their actions in producing something, making something, as I said before, is determined under those cases I cited to discussing expressive speech and the legal principles announced in those cases.

 

The baker argued the act of making a custom wedding cake was expressive speech. Asserting his act of creating a custom wedding cake is expressive speech is necessary for him to also argue compliance with the Colorado public accommodation law is to compel him to speech by expressive conduct. Hence, I cited to the cases regarding expressive speech and compelled speech.

[monkeygirl]

What the hell does "based on religion" even mean?

Okay, so you're just not going to answer my simple question. You just wish to focus on re-defining it until the point is lost. I get it. Thanks

[James Madison]

 

What the hell does "based on religion" even mean?

Okay, so you're just not going to answer my simple question. You just wish to focus on re-defining it until the point is lost. I get it. Thanks

Blaming me for not understanding your nebulous phrase is tantamount to blaming me for any spelling errors you commit. Both are on you. Both can be addressed by you. I share no blame for those parts of your argument that require you to provide clarification.

[Ms. Spam]

Chris Collins indicted. Not really a Trump thing but insider trading his way to riches! HAHAHAHA!

[monkeygirl]

'It seems silly until the government forces you to endorse something that goes against your principles."

 

Baking a cake doesn't go against anybody's principles. Especially a baker's.

 

"There were polygamy laws in the United States dating back before the birth of Joseph Smith. The Mormons were controversial because they went against those long-established laws and customs, not the other way around."

 

Your point was that legal polygamy is not a case of religious bias because it's secular in nature. Had nothing to do with the timing of laws. This has little bearing on why polygamy remains illegal in the USA in 2018.

 

 

'ideas become government policy one way or another and it's impossible to disentangle the two.'

 

Not really. When an idea for government policy is floated, you determine if it is something that came from religious text, doctrine or dogma. I don't see this as difficult-not sure why you do.

 

"Problem is, none of us can ever know for sure besides you, but you refuse to clarify."

 

Directed to Tank, but responding anyway. We *do* clarify, over and over. You refuse to accept any words that are not perfectly framed and weighted for a legal proceedings. Were just here to discuss and share ideas.

[Poe Dameron]

Baking a cake doesn't go against anybody's principles. Especially a baker's.

 

So if a singer offered a job to perform the national anthem at a KKK rally, you would say they should go ahead and do it because singing doesn't go against their principles. Especially a singer's?

 

You say designing that cake wouldn't go against the baker's principles, and yet it does.

 

 

 

Your point was that legal polygamy is not a case of religious bias because it's secular in nature. Had nothing to do with the timing of laws. This has little bearing on why polygamy remains illegal in the USA in 2018.

 

It is rather germane in that you brought up the Mormons and I pointed out that the laws precede the founding of that religion.

 

 

 

Not really. When an idea for government policy is floated, you determine if it is something that came from religious text, doctrine or dogma. I don't see this as difficult-not sure why you do.

 

Because many people's basic morals come from religious text, doctrine, or dogma. And everything has secular reasons as well. Once again, you cannot separate the two except to take the ones you like and discard the ones you don't.

[Ms. Spam]

Meh, dangers of opening a business.

 

Omarosa tell all book states that Trump is racist and dropped the N word when filming the Apprentice. Really not a surprise. Not buying your book, babe!

[Metropolis]

Yet she had no problem expecting a job from him? And defending him while she had said job. Not saying any of this isn't true, but she said in an interview that she heard the tapes. In her book she apparently says she's only heard about the tapes. My real skepticism comes from the fact that anyone would still be holding on to these tapes.

[Ms. Spam]

Oh boy yeah, she's been all over the place saying different things. I don't believe much she says. I mean, Trump wasn't president then. The thing about grab 'em by the .... came out before he won the election and he still got elected. So I feel like stuff he said previously is just titillating and not really relevant any more because, gawd, we knew before he became president.

 

Honestly I would not want a job in the White House but some people love that kind of atmosphere. This will be just one of many tell alls that come out of the White House.