The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[unofan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'd think that if the state only accepted donations celebrating one faith, that counts as an endorsement. Or put it this way: what if they accepted donations relating to every faith except Judaism? That would probably be considered prima facie evidence of discrimination.

The thumpers had a much better argument with "historical relevance," IMHO. I don't know whether the Court shot that one down, though.

It didn't, at least with respect to monuments that had been there for multiple decades if not centuries.

What it did strike down were the wave of 10 commandments monuments that sprung up in the 90's and early 2000's that lacked any historical relevance, unless the governmental entity also allowed other religions to erect their own monuments as well.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It didn't, at least with respect to monuments that had been there for multiple decades if not centuries.

What it did strike down were the wave of 10 commandments monuments that sprung up in the 90's and early 2000's that lacked any historical relevance, unless the governmental entity also allowed other religions to erect their own monuments as well.

That makes sense.

If you've been there a century you get to stay as a landmark of historical significance. I'm sure our national monuments have Christian symbolism all over them and that should stay just as it is. Likewise the stars and bars. If it's on a monument it stays.

Practices, however, are inherently plastic and should adapt. Congress shouldn't begin their sessions with a prayer; money shouldn't have "in God we trust" on it, "the pledge shouldn't have "under God" in it. That's the kind of creeping endorsement that doesn't belong in public space. Plus it's only there to tub-thump, anyway -- Ike put God in the pledge because "ooo scary Godless commies." And if the stars and bars is on your flag, change your flag. Don't be that guy.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I view Hobby Lobby as an outlier. It's just one of those cases with a unique set of facts. Very few others will have either the facts to fit, or the money or interest necessary to pursue it. I'm sure there are many other hyper-religious owners of closely held corporations out there who look at this case and ignore it, choosing instead to continue to offer full health benefits to employees, etc... Religious freedom cases are essentially meaningless in this country. Candidly, no one cares about religion, at least not the substantial majority.

Here is what I've never understood about cases like this. Why do those who are hyperventilating over Hobby Lobby, like the Daily Kos and some posters here, get such pleasure from ideas like the Satanist statue? If I thought Hobby Lobby was truly a slippery slope to ruin, the last thing I want to see is additional cases coming through the system arguing the same position. Sure, there is a chance you might ultimately get another one up to the Supremes with a chance to modify or soften the Hobby Lobby ruling, but until then you're going to get a whole bunch of federal court decisions reaffirming a religious right to discriminate.

Sure, it's fun to laugh at the religious right when their Hobby Lobby ruling forces a city council to put a Satanist statue on the City Hall steps, but at the end of the day haven't you just reaffirmed and strengthened their religious freedom?

But I guess that shortsightedness is the same reason hyper-religious on the right will probably get bent out of shape over the Satanist statue, when what they should do is object to the statue publicly, then when the politicians cave, assist the Satanists in their religious freedom lawsuit.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I view Hobby Lobby as an outlier. It's just one of those cases with a unique set of facts. Very few others will have either the facts to fit, or the money or interest necessary to pursue it. I'm sure there are many other hyper-religious owners of closely held corporations out there who look at this case and ignore it, choosing instead to continue to offer full health benefits to employees, etc... Religious freedom cases are essentially meaningless in this country. Candidly, no one cares about religion, at least not the substantial majority.

Here is what I've never understood about cases like this. Why do those who are hyperventilating over Hobby Lobby, like the Daily Kos and some posters here, get such pleasure from ideas like the Satanist statue? If I thought Hobby Lobby was truly a slippery slope to ruin, the last thing I want to see is additional cases coming through the system arguing the same position. Sure, there is a chance you might ultimately get another one up to the Supremes with a chance to modify or soften the Hobby Lobby ruling, but until then you're going to get a whole bunch of federal court decisions reaffirming a religious right to discriminate.

Sure, it's fun to laugh at the religious right when their Hobby Lobby ruling forces a city council to put a Satanist statue on the City Hall steps, but at the end of the day haven't you just reaffirmed and strengthened their religious freedom?

But I guess that shortsightedness is the same reason hyper-religious on the right will probably get bent out of shape over the Satanist statue, when what they should do is object to the statue publicly, then when the politicians cave, assist the Satanists in their religious freedom lawsuit.

Well said. Their interest is freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Well said. Their interest is freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.

You're wrong, and I'm going to explain why, and you're not going to get it.

Genuine freedom of religion would mean no privileged position for any faith in public space. That is not what we have in this country. Here we have a fiction of religious equality, where the majority "know" that only one religion is "real," and the rest of those funny, fake faiths they just have to put up with. Everybody else gets, at best, a paternalistic "tolerance."

You don't and can't understand this because you grew up in a country where your religion was part of the cultural white noise, like consumerism. You don't hear it; we do because it jars with our most important beliefs. But imagine if a hundred times a day you had to listen to "Assalamu 'Alalikum" or any of a hundred other touchstones and idioms from a faith you didn't share. Imagine if you knew you could never be president precisely because of your religious choice.

So pardon us if we think when Christians talk about a "war" on their religion, they're only saying "losing privilege sucks."

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You're wrong, and I'm going to explain why, and you're not going to get it.

Genuine freedom of religion would mean no privileged position for any faith in public space. That is not what we have in this country. Here we have a fiction of religious equality, where the majority "know" that only one religion is "real," and the rest of those funny, fake faiths they just have to put up with. Everybody else gets, at best, a paternalistic "tolerance."

You don't and can't understand this because you grew up in a country where your religion was part of the cultural white noise, like consumerism. You don't hear it; we do because it jars with our most important beliefs. But imagine if a hundred times a day you had to listen to "Assalamu 'Alalikum" or any of a hundred other touchstones and idioms from a faith you didn't share. Imagine if you knew you could never be president precisely because of your religious choice.

So pardon us if we think when Christians talk about a "war" on their religion, they're only saying "losing privilege sucks."

I listen to touchstones that totally go against my religion constantly every day. This board spews them every few moments. What gets expressed in media, radio, television, popular culture, etc. these days is mostly totally foreign to any sort of traditional Christian beliefs.

You and those like you are so paranoid about anything remotely Christian that you've turned Christians into the ultimate boogeymen that are out to get everyone, when nothing could be further from the truth. But you're so locked into your narrative that such a possibility can't be considered. It's like the discussions around here where people argue Christians shouldn't vote based upon their beliefs, but it's ok for everyone else to vote based on their beliefs. As if a Christian voting based upon their beliefs is forcing their beliefs on others, but others voting based on their beliefs isn't forcing their beliefs on others. The incongruity of it all is staggering.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Genuine freedom of religion would mean no privileged position for any faith in public space.

That sounds more like amoral anarchy. I thought every religion, even atheism, had at its core the same set of values: don't take things that don't belong to you, don't say things you know are not true, do not injure or kill people. You have to have a foundation of ethics and morality if you are going to have a functional civil society.

You consistently confuse "religion" which at its best is benign, with "dogma" which is where all the fighting and arguments take place.

You have your own religion too, just like everyone else, you merely get far more worked up over the semantics attached to it than most people do.

 

[unofan]

I listen to touchstones that totally go against my religion constantly every day. This board spews them every few moments. What gets expressed in media, radio, television, popular culture, etc. these days is mostly totally foreign to any sort of traditional Christian beliefs.

You and those like you are so paranoid about anything remotely Christian that you've turned Christians into the ultimate boogeymen that are out to get everyone, when nothing could be further from the truth. But you're so locked into your narrative that such a possibility can't be considered. It's like the discussions around here where people argue Christians shouldn't vote based upon their beliefs, but it's ok for everyone else to vote based on their beliefs. As if a Christian voting based upon their beliefs is forcing their beliefs on others, but others voting based on their beliefs isn't forcing their beliefs on others. The incongruity of it all is staggering.

<img src="http://zackfordblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/christian-oppression-pie-chart.gif"></img>

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

That sounds more like amoral anarchy. I thought every religion, even atheism, had at its core the same set of values: don't take things that don't belong to you, don't say things you know are not true, do not injure or kill people. You have to have a foundation of ethics and morality if you are going to have a functional civil society.

You consistently confuse "religion" which at its best is benign, with "dogma" which is where all the fighting and arguments take place.

You have your own religion too, just like everyone else, you merely get far more worked up over the semantics attached to it than most people do.

In his world there seems to be those horrible oppressive Christians and then everyone else is rational thinking, reasonable, and never has any interest in pushing their views on others. It's fantasy land, but he's far from alone in creating such a false dichotomy. Everyone wants their views reflected in how their nation is run and in their government's policies. Some don't realize how dangerous it is when they try to take that away from some other group they don't like or agree with.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I listen to touchstones that totally go against my religion constantly every day.

Then you should get it. I have a very similar visceral reaction against consumerism, and it works exactly the same way -- it's not even an intrusion into your mind, but a default assumption that well of course this is the language you speak. That's the level of frustration I'm talking about, and you should be able to identify with it.

You and those like you are so paranoid about anything remotely Christian that you've turned Christians into the ultimate boogeymen that are out to get everyone, when nothing could be further from the truth. But you're so locked into your narrative that such a possibility can't be considered.

Strawman. Christians aren't boogeymen; Christians as a group are just as innocuous (or full of crap) as any other group. At issue is the wailing of the vocal minority of self-identified "persecuted" Christians, who scream like a child who has had 7 of the 8 cookies but if he doesn't have that 8th then he's being tortured. That's what sells books and glues eyeballs to TV and provokes donations to political campaigns, so that's what get trumpeted by the Usual Suspects, and that's what I'm talking about. I'll bet a fair number of Christians are themselves sickened by the crass way in which their beliefs are used as a pretext to buy fat shock jocks a bigger house or return some old geezer to his safe Senate seat. As long as they're just taking a steaming crap on the authenticity of your faith in order to profit from it, they're your problem. But when their ravings affect public policy, they become our problem and they become fair game.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

But when their ravings affect public policy, they become our problem and they become fair game.

I think this sentence epitomizes what Bob and some others in this country complain about.

So we have a public official (named "Twinkle", no less) who decides it would be a good idea for her public agency to pray that the big, bad EPA doesn't affect Alabama's coal industry.

My reaction to hearing a story like that goes something like this: 1) roll eyes; 2) privately think, "let me know how that works out for you"; and 3) immediately put it out of my mind.

But there is a certain segment of this country who immediately reacts by proclaiming Twinkle and her group to be raving lunatics, right wing religious nuts, and demand some sort of public retribution/denunciation, etc...

And, of course, now those people who take religion very seriously are immediately put on the defensive.

That's where this country has gone wrong. So she wants to pray for Alabama, and wants others to do so with her. Who cares? I'm not praying for Alabama. If Bob wants to, more power to him. But publicly mocking or denouncing those who publicly express their religious beliefs accomplishes nothing.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Then you should get it. I have a very similar visceral reaction against consumerism, and it works exactly the same way -- it's not even an intrusion into your mind, but a default assumption that well of course this is the language you speak. That's the level of frustration I'm talking about, and you should be able to identify with it.

Strawman. Christians aren't boogeymen; Christians as a group are just as innocuous (or full of crap) as any other group. At issue is the wailing of the vocal minority of self-identified "persecuted" Christians, who scream like a child who has had 7 of the 8 cookies but if he doesn't have that 8th then he's being tortured. That's what sells books and glues eyeballs to TV and provokes donations to political campaigns, so that's what get trumpeted by the Usual Suspects, and that's what I'm talking about. I'll bet a fair number of Christians are themselves sickened by the crass way in which their beliefs are used as a pretext to buy fat shock jocks a bigger house or return some old geezer to his safe Senate seat. As long as they're just taking a steaming crap on the authenticity of your faith in order to profit from it, they're your problem. But when their ravings affect public policy, they become our problem and they become fair game.

Ah, the last sentence lets the cat out of the bag. Everyone else's ravings (and there's plenty to go around) are ok, but these folks' ravings aren't. Somehow those folks (who if they're a small minority they shouldn't be much of a worry) shouldn't have the same say in things and you and your better liberal ideas of how things should work. That's the exact cancerous thinking I'm talking about. They are fair game because you don't like them and don't like what they espouse. We all consider those we don't like and don't agree with what they say, and this country continues to become an uglier place for all of us. But, you have to define them as somehow coming after you to justify treating them poorly. You realize they're just like everyone else, and your whole gambit falls apart or at the very least is exposed.

Never mind that social conservatives get very little from the Republicans over the years, so you're left with complaining about little more than that they're slowing down the pace of social engineering you want to see and you want it in overdrive.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I think this sentence epitomizes what Bob and some others in this country complain about.

So we have a public official (named "Twinkle", no less) who decides it would be a good idea for her public agency to pray that the big, bad EPA doesn't affect Alabama's coal industry.

My reaction to hearing a story like that goes something like this: 1) roll eyes; 2) privately think, "let me know how that works out for you"; and 3) immediately put it out of my mind.

But there is a certain segment of this country who immediately reacts by proclaiming Twinkle and her group to be raving lunatics, right wing religious nuts, and demand some sort of public retribution/denunciation, etc...

And, of course, now those people who take religion very seriously are immediately put on the defensive.

That's where this country has gone wrong. So she wants to pray for Alabama, and wants others to do so with her. Who cares? I'm not praying for Alabama. If Bob wants to, more power to him. But publicly mocking or denouncing those who publicly express their religious beliefs accomplishes nothing.

I agree, but its payback for decades of "I Art Holier Than Thou Because I Vote Republican". Gay people were used as a focal point in the 2004 election for people to come out and vote against them under some religious guise of saving the country from those heathens. How exactly do you expect them to react now that gay marriage for instance gets legalized across the country? Unfortunately some people who actually go to church on Sundays are getting caught up in it thanks to politicians who say they're endorsed by God while at the same time they're banging their secretary or trying to pick up men in airport bathrooms.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I agree, but its payback for decades of "I Art Holier Than Thou Because I Vote Republican". Gay people were used as a focal point in the 2004 election for people to come out and vote against them under some religious guise of saving the country from those heathens. How exactly do you expect them to react now that gay marriage for instance gets legalized across the country? Unfortunately some people who actually go to church on Sundays are getting caught up in it thanks to politicians who say they're endorsed by God while at the same time they're banging their secretary or trying to pick up men in airport bathrooms.

That's impressive how many stereotypes you squeezed into just a few sentences.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

That's impressive how many stereotypes you squeezed into just a few sentences.

Thank you. I noticed you didn't dispute any of this however....

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

your whole gambit falls apart or at the very least is exposed

Language like that is why nobody can have a civil conversation.

Imagine if I approached your comments by accusing you of ploys and gamesmanship.

I expect that kind of crap from FF and Pio, who are just pressing the feeder bar to dispense whatever Cato or Fox has for them this morning. You can actually think for yourself. When you accuse me of not trying to reason sincerely, well, screw you.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Language like that is why nobody can have a civil conversation.

Imagine if I approached your comments by accusing you of ploys and gamesmanship.

I expect that kind of crap from FF and Pio, who are just pressing the feeder bar to dispense whatever Cato or Fox has for them this morning. You can actually think for yourself. When you accuse me of not trying to reason sincerely, well, screw you.

Hey, you've been throwing out some awful strong language about ravings, etc., etc., etc. Frankly I still find it hard to believe you really see people the way your lasts posts say you do. I'd expect that nonsense from unofan or Gurth or some other person on here who gives no quarter to those who don't buy into their liberal utopian perspectives. But, for you to openly advocate that certain groups don't deserve to have their voice and their views be part of the millieux of open discussion in this nation is to me extremely troubling. I don't agree with a lot of the garbage that comes from the liberal side of things, but I don't proclaim them a problem and say that they're fair game and be fine with them being intimidated and shunted to the side of society. That's raw Darwinism and not reflective of the way this nation should work.

On the ploys and gamesmanship, that was a general comment about how people try to demonize socially conservative Christians. If you feel the shoe fits, wear it, if not, then that doesn't apply to you and you shouldn't take offense.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Thank you. I noticed you didn't dispute any of this however....

Uh, noting a load of stereotypes in a paragraph is no ringing endorsement. But, you've said similar stuff around here a thousand times, so I don't think I need to respond every time for you to know I don't agree, as I'm certain you know.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Uh, noting a load of stereotypes in a paragraph is no ringing endorsement. But, you've said similar stuff around here a thousand times, so I don't think I need to respond every time for you to know I don't agree, as I'm certain you know.

Be that as it may , my point remains. One party (the Republicans, in case you couldn't guess) has used religion for electoral purposes. I can't remember the last time a Dem candidate ran for Prez and said God told them to run. 3/4th of the 2012 declared GOP candidates did just that! That would be fine if they 1) walked the walk on the religion thing, and 2) used it in a positive way, not in a negative way.

So, remember that decade called the 80's, when we were supposed to get our moral cues from such right wing preachers/do-gooders like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert and Bill Bennett? Two perverts and a guy with a gambling problem as it turned out. Or how from President Reagan, a guy who divorced his wife even though they had a young child and who's daughter ended up making a porno flick? (ewww). Or take the 90's where a morals crusade led to the impeachment of a President, only to find out half the GOP Congress had mistresses, second families, were trying to raid the male house page dorm room at night, were taking bribes, etc. So, if true people of faith are having trouble nowadays, thank the huckster conservatives out there who disgraced you.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Religion be ****ed. I want the Los Mets jerseys banned. I don't care if its by legislation, executive order, or by a judicial injunction. They gotta go even if it has to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled rants.