Jump to content

The Trump Administration 2017-


Recommended Posts

And thats edifying info regarding Pence but I didnt bring up Pence. Im not here to defend anything hes said or done.

 

I never mentioned Pence either. Closest I came was mentioning a law that he happened to sign. I actually didn't engage your comments about Pence aside because I thought they were off-topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When America has positioned itself for its entire history as the land of the free, and one our core manifestos says we will take the poor and huddled masses, you can't expect people without access to

Watching you guys yell at a brick wall is hilarious.

Posted Images

 

And thats edifying info regarding Pence but I didnt bring up Pence. Im not here to defend anything hes said or done.

I never mentioned Pence either, just a state version of what's already a national religious liberty law that he signed and that I endorse. I actually didn't engege your comments about Pence aside because I thought they were off-topic.

Yeah I noticed.

 

I do concur with your assessment of a pervading sentiment that religion is to be relegated exclusively to home and place of worship, and banished from the public sphere.

 

My worry is the march to banish religion from the public sphere is perhaps inexorable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well, I'll go ahead and assume that you're being honest and not just making up a scenario for argument's sake as I thought. Which is a stock argument I've come across (Flying Spaghetti Monster and the like).

 

 

 

A few years back, my city's Pagan Pride Day, where our religious ceremonies were held in a public park, dealt with really confrontational and disruptive Evangelical Christian protesters. These protesters entered our reserved spaces, interrupted our sacred ceremonies, and even specifically targeted the children at the festival, scaring them to tears.

 

Sounds as though the local government did respect the religious ceremonies and allowed the use of a public park.

 

 

 

Now, are you really going to look me in the eye and tell me that this "Purity Patrol" would have come in and protected us from these protesters?

 

As I said to Tank, the task force has nothing to do with protecting anyone, including Christians, from protests. So, no, they wouldn't.

 

 

 

This is why separation of church and state is so important.

 

Again, minority religions receive strong protections in the United States. Perhaps there's more to your story, but from what you wrote, the government and Establishment Clause protections don't seem to be your issue.

 

Maybe they broke laws in their protest, you didn't say, but I would point out that law enforcement tends to be frustratingly lenient on protesters who break the law in general. If you'd like to join my personal cause of enforcing lawful standards on protests to make them peaceful instead of mob affairs, I'd be happy to have you.

 

You "assume" I'm making a serious point - so, you still don't even fully believe that I am a member of a minority religion. Nice of you, dude, real nice.

 

This is what Sessions said about why he decided this "religious liberty task force" was needed:

 

Sessions said the cultural climate in this country — and in the West more generally — has become less hospitable to people of faith in recent years, and as a result many Americans have felt their freedom to practice their faith has been under attack.

“We’ve seen nuns ordered to buy contraceptives. We’ve seen U.S. senators ask judicial and executive branch nominees about dogma—even though the Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for public office. We’ve all seen the ordeal faced so bravely by Jack Phillips,” he said, referring to the Colorado baker who took his case to the Supreme Court after he was found to have violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

 

 

Businesses were ordered to provide insurance coverage for birth control for their employees if the employees want/need it. Prescribed medication should be between a patient and their doctor, and the religious beliefs of the patient's employer shouldn't stand in the way of their health care. As a person of a minority religion who does not share the same morals as a Christian (and who takes birth control to regulate hormonal flux to control fibromyalgia flares), if I were to take a job at the Little Sisters of the Poor's elder care facility or Hobby Lobby because I need a job and they're hiring, I would be denied access to my prescribed medication if the company is able to pick-and-choose what kind of health care its employees receive on religious grounds. And it isn't just a matter of buying it out-of-pocket, you have to have both a doctor's prescription AND the insurance say-so to access your prescribed medication - I waited 6 weeks for insurance approval once, and I was not allowed to buy the first bottle out-of-pocket bypassing insurance at all, my pharmacist was forced to hold the medication until my insurance gave the approval. That caused me undue suffering, by the way. The fact that Sessions is so concerned about Catholic nuns's religious beliefs over the health and well-being of their employees concerns the shit out of me.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Sessions's second point. I'm also very interested in seeing him make the same defense for a non-Christian.

 

And then there's Jack Phillips, who broke Colorado's anti-discrimination law citing religious grounds. You know what's also against the law? Psychotropics. You know what's a huge component of religious ceremony in many shamanic practices? Psychotropics. Now, if the local Ayahuasca Church were brought up on drug convictions for practicing their religion, do you really think Jeff "Marijuana is the Devil's Lettuce" Sessions will use his religious liberty task force to uphold their religious freedom to use illegal substances? I hope he does.

 

And no, I would not like to join your personal cause. I have many friends who were injured - one hospitalized with serious damage - by cops while peacefully protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline. Said friends are Native American, and were protesting the illegal destruction and desecration of their sacred sites by a corporation. One of the first things Trump did when he took office was to officially side with the corporation. I have been part of a peaceful protest where some 9 cop cars were called on 40-some demonstrators doing nothing but singing and dancing and holding signs, because of our proximity to a bank. I have been clearly and noticeably under police surveillance for participating in a peaceful and respectful march officially organized with the city's knowledge and input with maybe 80 other people marching with me. I am 100% down with peaceful demonstration as a form of political and social action, and I think that cops should back the fuck off if we're all following the law and exercising our right to free speech.

 

The Christian protesters at that Pagan Pride Day were not being peaceful - they were disrespectful of our boundaries (the organization had paid for use of the space), they were aggressive, they were disturbing religious ceremonies, and they were going after our most vulnerable members. We called the police, and the police said they couldn't do anything about them because of their 1A rights. But they could have arrested me had I danced one step over a line onto the bank's property. And they shot the shit out of my friend with a high-powered water cannon in sub-zero temperatures for standing up for her religious and cultural convictions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been quite dismayed the last few years to see attempts to systematically marginalize religious beliefs. That cuts against the very essence of the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.

 

 

I know this is between you and Tank-just looking for clarification on this to understand what's being said. Where do you see attempts to systematically marginalize religious beliefs? By citizens or by any of our governments? Examples?

 

 

and this:

"No he didn't. The vast majority of the Muslim world still has access to the United States."

 

Don't be disingenuous. Trump called it a Muslim ban many, many , many times. The criteria of any of its iterations were Muslim-based. It went through the courts how many times until it could be hammered into something that WASN'T *obviously and overtly* a Muslim ban. That not every single country that is Muslim in majority is not on the list does not inform that it is not a Muslim ban. The only your argument here can hold water is if you're insisting "Muslim ban" means, precisely, ALL Muslim people in ALL Muslim countries and that would require extra adjectives to inform.

 

"Ah, the old Flying Spaghetti Monster fallacy of stating an insincerely-held religious belief is equal to and has the same protections as a sincerely-held belief."

 

Can you show me where a religious belief's sincerity must be determined for a law to be effective? And who is it that determines that sincerity?

 

"I think Religious Freedom Acts should be the law in all 50 states"

 

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

 

"I'm not aware of any religion whose rights aren't being protected. The government is very accommodating to minority religious beliefs last I checked."

 

That the christian God is on our money is enough for me to believe our Federal government cares first about Christians. Perhaps it's time for you to 'check' again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

 

Of course he understands it. So does Poe. This is conservative style debate. Instead of just taking the very obvious idea/point, they have to find language problems, play dumb, fictionalize scenarios, or pretend you are stupid to try and prove you wrong. They are either playing dumb, or so wrapped up in their personal dogma they can't comprehend that it SHOULDN'T be the word of the law.

 

It's so very simple. Somebody's religion can guide their actions. But the religion itself cannot be policy. It's a very very simple concept and statement. This is why separation of church and state exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you spell out the difference? Because so far all I see is that if you like it, it's okay. Not being a jerk or being flip, but that

 

If you want other examples, try the abolitionist movement or the civil rights movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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?
Of course he understands it. So does Poe. This is conservative style debate. Instead of just taking the very obvious idea/point, they have to find language problems, play dumb, fictionalize scenarios, or pretend you are stupid to try and prove you wrong. They are either playing dumb, or so wrapped up in their personal dogma they can't comprehend that it SHOULDN'T be the word of the law.

 

It's so very simple. Somebody's religion can guide their actions. But the religion itself cannot be policy. It's a very very simple concept and statement. This is why separation of church and state exists.

Oh, is thats what is occurring? Or maybe the problem is you wanted to say X, did a poor job of expressing the fact you wanted, desired, intended to say X, then blame myself and Poe for your poor word choice.

 

I have a law degree, not a gypsy mind reading degree. Neither am I a Pythia in the temple, able to divine what you meant to say by the choice of words that do not convey what you wanted to say.

 

However, I now understand what you are saying, with your last post. Thanks for clarifying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My worry is the march to banish religion from the public sphere is perhaps inexorable.

 

I believe so as well as a matter of cultural drift. Though, for the near future anyway, it does appear that the courts will be strong on religious liberty, so the enforcement through government action will at least be curtailed.

 

 

 

You "assume" I'm making a serious point - so, you still don't even fully believe that I am a member of a minority religion. Nice of you, dude, real nice.

 

It's the internet and I don't know you. Trust issues are healthy.

 

 

 

Businesses were ordered to provide insurance coverage for birth control for their employees if the employees want/need it. Prescribed medication should be between a patient and their doctor, and the religious beliefs of the patient's employer shouldn't stand in the way of their health care.

 

The question isn't whether your employer has the power to stand in the way of birth control, it is whether the government has the power to force your employer to pay for your birth control. That's quite the fundamental difference.

 

 

 

And it isn't just a matter of buying it out-of-pocket, you have to have both a doctor's prescription AND the insurance say-so to access your prescribed medication

 

 

No you don't. I don't know what snafu you're describing, but there is no law or regulation that says you need insurance to purchase birth control. Something else is going on there.

 

 

 

The fact that Sessions is so concerned about Catholic nuns's religious beliefs over the health and well-being of their employees concerns the **** out of me.

 

It's his job to care about the rights of those Catholic nuns.

 

 

 

Now, if the local Ayahuasca Church were brought up on drug convictions for practicing their religion, do you really think Jeff "Marijuana is the Devil's Lettuce" Sessions will use his religious liberty task force to uphold their religious freedom to use illegal substances? I hope he does.

 

Fun historical fact: That's exactly what caused the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to come into law in the first place. It applied a strict scrutiny standard in order to protect Indians who used peyote in religious ceremonies.

 

The use of otherwise illegal drugs in religious ceremonies as part of sincerely-held beliefs is protected (at least on a national level) and I'm not aware of Sessions doing anything to contest that.

 

 

 

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

 

Approving the pipeline was good policy.

 

 

 

I am 100% down with peaceful demonstration as a form of political and social action, and I think that cops should back the **** off if we're all following the law and exercising our right to free speech.

 

I agree.

 

My point was about people who break the law. Now, either the protesters who bothered you were following the law, in which case they may be obnoxious, but the local law enforcement was correct in letting them be, or they were breaking the law, in which case the authorities should have been more proactive as I suggested.

 

 

 

We called the police, and the police said they couldn't do anything about them because of their 1A rights.

 

And that tells me that they didn't break the law, so, yeah. Government hands were tied.

 

 

 

But they could have arrested me had I danced one step over a line onto the bank's property.

<shrug>

 

Trespassing isn't protected.

 

Who is demanding that purity goes against their faith?

 

Anyone who demands a person act against their religious conscience.

 

I know this is between you and Tank-just looking for clarification on this to understand what's being said. Where do you see attempts to systematically marginalize religious beliefs? By citizens or by any of our governments? Examples?

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Don't be disingenuous. Trump called it a Muslim ban many, many , many times.

 

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.

 

 

 

The criteria of any of its iterations were Muslim-based. It went through the courts how many times until it could be hammered into something that WASN'T *obviously and overtly* a Muslim ban.

 

Really, just the once. Outside of the original executive order that was just too broad in that it could also affect people with green cards and such and which was quickly replaced, the travel ban was upheld.

 

The Supreme Court stayed lower court injunctions on the 2nd version and then tossed the case as moot when it expired after the 90 day time limit within the executive order itself.

 

The 3rd version was then declared legal by the Supreme court in May.

 

 

 

That not every single country that is Muslim in majority is not on the list does not inform that it is not a Muslim ban. The only your argument here can hold water is if you're insisting "Muslim ban" means, precisely, ALL Muslim people in ALL Muslim countries and that would require extra adjectives to inform.

 

I'm not insisting that it has to be all. I'm only insisting that it has to at least be a fairly large proportion. Seeing as Trump's travel restrictions only apply to about 12% of Muslims, and are indeed focused on countries that are particularly problematic, it doesn't require mental gymnastics to see that it falls well short of a Muslim ban.

 

Also, as I said, it seems like good policy to me.

 

 

 

Can you show me where a religious belief's sincerity must be determined for a law to be effective? And who is it that determines that sincerity?

 

United States v. Seeger defined it rather broadly (beyond an organized religion) when it comes to conscientious objectors being exempt from the draft. Who determines it would depend on the situation. Could be an officer, a prosecutor, a board, or a judge. Basically whoever has to make the decision at any given time with due process being available beyond that.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

That the christian God is on our money is enough for me to believe our Federal government cares first about Christians. Perhaps it's time for you to 'check' again.

 

To quote the 9th Circuit opinion of Aronow v. United States on the legality of "In God We Trust":

 

It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. ...It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted 'In God We Trust' or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. In fact, such secular uses of the motto was viewed as sacrilegious and irreverent by President Theodore Roosevelt. Yet Congress has directed such uses. While 'ceremonial' and 'patriotic' may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has 'spiritual and psychological value' and 'inspirational quality.'

 

 

 

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

 

We've discussed the Muslim ban. Not sure how polygamy laws are germane as they have a rather secular background.

 

 

 

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.

 

And, when it comes down to it, what will be acceptable and will not will often come down to whether or not a person agrees with a given subject. After all, everything has a secular argument as well.

 

 

 

This is why separation of church and state exists.

 

As I said, that's a modern construct. The separation of church and state as originally conceived, was a prohibition of the state in forcing religious beliefs and actual practices onto people. Roger Williams, the man who first articulated it believed the government could act on the Commandments that dealt with person-to-person interactions like theft and murder, but also including adultery and the like.

 

Your belief in what it means is not why it exists at all. It really exists as a means for fostering religion's vibrancy within the culture by not having it dictated by the government and wither away.

 

 

 

Of course he understands it. So does Poe. This is conservative style debate. Instead of just taking the very obvious idea/point, they have to find language problems, play dumb, fictionalize scenarios, or pretend you are stupid to try and prove you wrong.

 

I do not do this at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course he understands it. So does Poe. This is conservative style debate. Instead of just taking the very obvious idea/point, they have to find language problems, play dumb, fictionalize scenarios, or pretend you are stupid to try and prove you wrong.

I do not do this at all.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I don't think you were intentionally doing this, but I think your style of debate lends itself to micro points, which lends itself to recontexualizing, which then has the effective of seeming like somebody is saying two different things. I only say that cause I feel like we've been here may times.

 

I'll try a different angle--

 

The reason I think this task force or whatever we're calling it is bull is because if you remove any bit of brand-name religion, race, or political side, there's still an inherent problem.

 

Any time that an entity holds the majority numbers and yet claims to be persecuted, and then uses their majority power to combat their claimed persecution, I automatically cry foul.

 

Oh, is thats what is occurring? Or maybe the problem is you wanted to say X, did a poor job of expressing the fact you wanted, desired, intended to say X, then blame myself and Poe for your poor word choice.

 

I have a law degree, not a gypsy mind reading degree. Neither am I a Pythia in the temple, able to divine what you meant to say by the choice of words that do not convey what you wanted to say.

 

However, I now understand what you are saying, with your last post. Thanks for clarifying.

I said the same thing above, twice previous. The only people that said they couldn't follow me are the two people diametrically/politically opposite of me. Funny how that happens. I was plenty clear. And I know all about your law degree. I recall very clearly that despite this, you never seemed to understand that civil disobedience and protest can lead to constitutional amendments, which makes my irony meter explode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though there is a precedent for professional wrestlers in politics, Glen Jacobs aka Kane has won the race mayor of Knox County in Tennessee. I can't help but think of the pyro budget just for town halls. Forget the 4th of July. Also with this as a possibility, what the hell was the WWE thinking about reforming Team Hell No?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though there is a precedent for professional wrestlers in politics, Glen Jacobs aka Kane has won the race mayor of Knox County in Tennessee. I can't help but think of the pyro budget just for town halls. Forget the 4th of July. Also with this as a possibility, what the hell was the WWE thinking about reforming Team Hell No?

To be fair he was running against a woman who is barely a buck twenty five. One tombstone was all it took.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, is thats what is occurring? Or maybe the problem is you wanted to say X, did a poor job of expressing the fact you wanted, desired, intended to say X, then blame myself and Poe for your poor word choice.

 

I have a law degree, not a gypsy mind reading degree. Neither am I a Pythia in the temple, able to divine what you meant to say by the choice of words that do not convey what you wanted to say.

 

However, I now understand what you are saying, with your last post. Thanks for clarifying.

I said the same thing above, twice previous. The only people that said they couldn't follow me are the two people diametrically/politically opposite of me. Funny how that happens. I was plenty clear. And I know all about your law degree. I recall very clearly that despite this, you never seemed to understand that civil disobedience and protest can lead to constitutional amendments, which makes my irony meter explode.

 

You must be confusing me with someone else because I have never had any difficulty conceiving "that civil disobedience and protest can lead to constitutional amendments." I am keenly aware of this country's long history of amendments and how collective action by the people petitioning their government for an amendment has resulted in constitutional amendments.

 

 

 

I said the same thing above, twice previous. The only people that said they couldn't follow me are the two people diametrically/politically opposite of me. Funny how that happens. I was plenty clear.

 

You can say you were "clear," but the words you chose, those words that I quoted from one of your own numbered paragraphs, did not "clearly" express the actual point you desired to make. I understand your point now, as it took another poster using different wording to express a message you claimed was your point.

 

Again, thanks for clarifying, feel from to climb down from that cross you have put yourself on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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 would point out that the paragraph in question was basically a non sequitur saying that peaceful protests should be allowed in response to my statement that illegal actions should not be allowed. So your example was not particularly clear. It is also interesting that you've ignored pretty much everything I've said in order to focus on a supposed outrage in each of your responses to me. But to address it:

 

1. The building of the pipeline isn't a 1st Amendment issue at all since we're talking about a private company. As far as the Constitution goes, private companies can bulldoze other people's sacred stuff until their black hearts are content as long as they are in possession of it. Any legal remedy the tribes would have as far as sacred lands would have to do with preservation Acts.

 

So, again, you bring up an example that has nothing to do with the task force.

 

2. The question involved isn't whether tribal sovereignty can be discarded, but whether it applies. The land involved is not currently owned by the tribes. It comes close to their lands, but does not pass through. Some say that treaties give them rights to those lands, and I can't say that I have the expertise to judge, but the courts don't seem to have found those arguments persuasive.

 

3. I'm afraid I can't take your word that your friends were legally protesting in peace and were brutally assaulted by police just because.

 

4. I don't belong to any particular religion and don't possess anything sacred to break. I am actually a neutral observer in this.

 

 

 

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.

 

I don't get it because one thing really has nothing to do with the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With Trump in town tomorrow to rally for Ron Desantis I had a tough choice to make. Who would put on the better show? Trump or WWE SmackDown? At this point it's definitely Trump, but I promised my grandson i'd take him to SmackDown. Trump is giving a speech at a high school right down the road earlier in the day from work so I'm curious as the security situation in the area.

How did I miss the part where you acquired a grandson, Met?

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.