Generalizations

[Ethereal]

I've heard a few liberals complaining A LOT about generalizations.

These liberals are very resentful of statements that attempt to attribute behaviors or beliefs to an entire class of people.

This smacks of hypersensitivity.

Granted, generalizations can go overboard or fail to account for underlying nuances, but the entire point of creating a class like "liberal" is so we can generalize about members of that class. If we couldn't generalize about them, then the concept of a liberal (or any other ideological class) would be fairly meaningless.

Incidentally, the concept of a "liberal" in modern parlance is quite nebulous and bears little if any resemblance to its classical instantiation.

Anyway, I thought it might make them a little less sensitive if they knew that libertarians can be generalized about, too. In fact, within the libertarian community, making generalizations about other libertarians is actually quite common.

Just as one example, I've found that libertarians can be overly focused on ideological purity to the point of being too impractical. Anyone who has spent any time within the community of libertarians has encountered the libertarian purist. They like to assume for themselves the mantle of a "true libertarian", the implication being that other self-styled libertarians don't qualify. I must admit, I used to be one of these purists myself.

See? I just made a generalization about libertarians that isn't particularly flattering, included myself within that generalization, and somehow the world is still spinning.

Now you try it. Make a generalization about the political ideology that you belong to, ask yourself if you are included within that generalization, and wait to see if the world doesn't burst into flames.

[Common]

Many conservatives are too far right for me and I never supported the far right and I still dont. The teaparty started out not being hyper right but turned into a far right ClusterF

[Chris]

Thing I don't get is why liberals/conservative/libertarians/Marxists/etc implies all. It doesn't. If you want to say all liberals you'd say all liberals.Are all liberatarians ideological purists, no, but most are. And we're not talking in syllogisms around here anyhow.

[ripmeister]

Most things of this nature are on a continuum.

[resister]

Anytime someone says "I am going to make a generalization" most of the time, they should stop right there!

[Cletus]

Thing I don't get is why liberals/conservative/libertarians/Marxists/etc implies all. It doesn't. If you want to say all liberals you'd say all liberals.Are all liberatarians ideological purists, no, but most are. And we're not talking in syllogisms around here anyhow.

Correct. Generalized terms like "Liberal" or "Conservative' don't and can't apply to all. However, if the shoe fits...

[Crepitus]

I've heard a few liberals complaining A LOT about generalizations.

These liberals are very resentful of statements that attempt to attribute behaviors or beliefs to an entire class of people.

This smacks of hypersensitivity.

Granted, generalizations can go overboard or fail to account for underlying nuances, but the entire point of creating a class like "liberal" is so we can generalize about members of that class. If we couldn't generalize about them, then the concept of a liberal (or any other ideological class) would be fairly meaningless.

Incidentally, the concept of a "liberal" in modern parlance is quite nebulous and bears little if any resemblance to its classical instantiation.

Anyway, I thought it might make them a little less sensitive if they knew that libertarians can be generalized about, too. In fact, within the libertarian community, making generalizations about other libertarians is actually quite common.

Just as one example, I've found that libertarians can be overly focused on ideological purity to the point of being too impractical. Anyone who has spent any time within the community of libertarians has encountered the libertarian purist. They like to assume for themselves the mantle of a "true libertarian", the implication being that other self-styled libertarians don't qualify. I must admit, I used to be one of these purists myself.

See? I just made a generalization about libertarians that isn't particularly flattering, included myself within that generalization, and somehow the world is still spinning.

Now you try it. Make a generalization about the political ideology that you belong to, ask yourself if you are included within that generalization, and wait to see if the world doesn't burst into flames.

Is that why there are no libertarian countries?

[jimmyz]

A label locks you in. I prefer to have all options available and will defend my right to be free and unencumbered of the label assigned to me. What am I?

[resister]

A label locks you in. I prefer to have all options available and will defend my right to be free and unencumbered of the label assigned to me. What am I?A contrarian ? :)

[jimmyz]

A contrarian ? :)

A free American

[Chris]

Is that why there are no libertarian countries?

Or liberal countries or conservative or socialist or.... Your point was what?

[Chris]

A label locks you in. I prefer to have all options available and will defend my right to be free and unencumbered of the label assigned to me. What am I?

Somewhat. But there are left and right libertarians, minarchist and anarchist libertarians. There are paleocons, sociocons, neocons, Constitutional cons, limited government cons. Hmm, but, sadly, there's only one lumpin' liberal.

[resister]

Somewhat. But there are left and right libertarians, minarchist and anarchist libertarians. There are paleocons, sociocons, neocons, Constitutional cons, limited government cons. Hmm, but, sadly, there's only one lumpin' liberal.Are Paleocons, conservatives that hunt fossils? :)

[Chris]

Are Paleocons, conservatives that hunt fossils? :)

https://i.snag.gy/s6ikdS.jpg

[resister]

https://i.snag.gy/s6ikdS.jpg

Just looked it up, that describes a lot of my political beliefs, in general! :)

[Safety]

A thread discussing generalizations, while generalizing those that supposedly generalize.

[Chris]

Just looked it up, that describes a lot of my political beliefs, in general! :)

Mine too actually. Some identify paleos with the likes of Cheney and Goldwater, others identify them with the likes of Buckley and Kirk and the new conservatives of the 50s, but I associate them with the Old Right like Robert Taft, H. L. Mencken, Garet Garrett, and others who rose in oppositon to FDR and the New Deal.

[Chris]

A thread discussing generalizations, while generalizing those that supposedly generalize.

My lumpiin' liberals was a joke, haha, of course there's all flavors of liberals, from the democratic socialism of Sanders to the necon Hillary. And let's not forget Antifa.

[Chris]

In American the case can be made for three branches of classical liberalism:

https://i.snag.gy/DIaP3o.jpg

A mainline to libertarianism and two deviations.

[Standing Wolf]

Applying a political label to oneself, for many people, is closely akin to deciding on what sports team to follow and be a fan of, or what contestant on some television talent competition to root for. Or, it's like joining a club or fraternal organization. It provides a sense of belonging and companionship, while supplying the self-labeler with a ready-made set of rules and guidelines for what to believe on many subjects; in that, of course, it resembles a religious conversion. While it's true that many take the time to examine the issues seriously, find the group or philosophy that best fits one's beliefs and values, for many others it's the lazy way out; one only has to listen to the views of those with the same label and nod agreement.

[DGUtley]

Many conservatives are too far right for me and I never supported the far right and I still dont. The teaparty started out not being hyper right but turned into a far right ClusterF

I agree. I really like the initial TP mentality -- fiscal conservativism responsible finances which arose out of the anger from the mortgage bailout and bank bailout. It was primarily spending / money policy driven. I live in a very conservative area and went to a TP rally shortly after it popped and it was all about fiscal conservatism. A buddy talked me into one 8 months later and it had gotten to the point of wackos talking about government taking over the internet, flouride in the water, etc.. I never went back.

I think they turned on the original tea party sentiment b/c the politicos don't like somebody messing with their money.

[Chris]

I get the sense from anti-label folks that we shouldn't label a fork a fork, a cat a cat, an idiot an idiot.

Do people seek to control language, and other things, because they're insecure?

[Crepitus]

Or liberal countries or conservative or socialist or.... Your point was what?

libertarians can be overly focused on ideological purity to the point of being too impractical.

[Chris]

libertarians can be overly focused on ideological purity to the point of being too impractical.

The idea is to apply principles to problem-solving. Principle trump intentions, pun not intended.

[Chris]

I agree. I really like the initial TP mentality -- fiscal conservativism responsible finances which arose out of the anger from the mortgage bailout and bank bailout. It was primarily spending / money policy driven. I live in a very conservative area and went to a TP rally shortly after it popped and it was all about fiscal conservatism. A buddy talked me into one 8 months later and it had gotten to the point of wackos talking about government taking over the internet, flouride in the water, etc.. I never went back.

I think they turned on the original tea party sentiment b/c the politicos don't like somebody messing with their money.


The TPs got hijacked by politicians and the left media.

I remember when in the TP local to my voting district started getting innudated with the religious right. We put a stop to it and stuck to lower taxes, less government and more liberty.

[ripmeister]

The idea is to apply principles to problem-solving. Principle trump intentions, pun not intended.
LOL! Yes, having principles and Trump in the same sentence is illogical. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Standing Wolf]

The TPs got hijacked by politicians and the left media.

By opportunistic politicians, certainly - but by the "left media"? As you say, yourself, in your next paragraph, the religious right attempted to hitch their own agenda to the TP bandwagon; that wasn't the creation of any "left media" - it really happened. It's nice that your local organization was able to successfully rebuff the religionists' attempts at grafting their social positions onto the Party platform; in some parts of the country, particularly in the South, such efforts to "Christianize" the movement have been more successful.

[Chris]

By opportunistic politicians, certainly - but by the "left media"? As you say, yourself, in your next paragraph, the religious right attempted to hitch their own agenda to the TP bandwagon; that wasn't the creation of any "left media" - it really happened. It's nice that your local organization was able to successfully rebuff the religionists' attempts at grafting their social positions onto the Party platform; in some parts of the country, particularly in the South, such efforts to "Christianize" the movement have been more successful.

Yes. Opportunists like Bachmann and the religious right. But also by the media who reframed and redefined the Tea Parties. Who took advantage of the opposrtunists' attempot to hijack to paint the TPs as a single Tea Party led by those opportunists.

Keep in mind it was always Tea Parties. We were organized at the voting district level. We were grassroots. We had no leaders. That is not at all the picture painted in the media.

Analogy: I think the OWS was treated the same way, especially in the media as being a pawn of liberal leaders. I believe they were truly another grassroots movement.

[Dr. Who]

By opportunistic politicians, certainly - but by the "left media"? As you say, yourself, in your next paragraph, the religious right attempted to hitch their own agenda to the TP bandwagon; that wasn't the creation of any "left media" - it really happened. It's nice that your local organization was able to successfully rebuff the religionists' attempts at grafting their social positions onto the Party platform; in some parts of the country, particularly in the South, such efforts to "Christianize" the movement have been more successful.
That's the problem with the religious right. Religion is not actually political - people simply want to impose their religious values on others and have no legitimate method of doing so, short of attempting to co-opt ostensibly conservative organizations. On their own, they tend to have little broad support and without the economic side of conservatism, the smaller government etc and they fail nationally because they are essentially big statists who want to use government to create religious based authority. Fiscally some are total liberals.

[Standing Wolf]

That's the problem with the religious right. Religion is not actually political - people simply want to impose their religious values on others and have no legitimate method of doing so, short of attempting to co-opt ostensibly conservative organizations. On their own, they tend to have little broad support and without the economic side of conservatism, the smaller government etc and they fail nationally because they are essentially big statists who want to use government to create religious based authority. Fiscally some are total liberals.

I think that political conservatism and fundamentalist Christianity have pretty much always had a symbiotic relationship, to some extent - each has used the other to advance their own cause and the personal fortunes of their leaders. It wasn't, however, till the 1970s that "Christian PACs" began to form, promising to deliver votes and dollars to politicians if they would champion legislation to - ostensibly - bring American law into greater conformity with "Christian values" and fundamentalist doctrine. Ironically, it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who was the first major beneficiary of this trend. Some secular conservatives take issue with being tarred with a "fundy Christian" brush, and rightly so - but they have only their own political leaders to blame for the association.

[Standing Wolf]

Yes. Opportunists like Bachmann and the religious right. But also by the media who reframed and redefined the Tea Parties. Who took advantage of the opposrtunists' attempot to hijack to paint the TPs as a single Tea Party led by those opportunists.

Keep in mind it was always Tea Parties. We were organized at the voting district level. We were grassroots. We had no leaders. That is not at all the picture painted in the media.

Analogy: I think the OWS was treated the same way, especially in the media as being a pawn of liberal leaders. I believe they were truly another grassroots movement.

Back when the first self-styled "Tea Party candidates" got themselves elected, I predicted that their big talk about "stirring things up in Washington" and "refusing to back down on our core beliefs" would last about three days, tops - and then they would realize that they were the most junior of junior legislators, and they would end up doing exactly as their Party leaders directed and knock off the Tea Party talk, or they would find themselves in a converted broom closet being soundly ignored for their entire, ultimately futile terms of office. I say that not at all to gloat, or because I believe it's a good thing that all that pretty much happened - in fact, I wish they'd have proved to be more effective in trimming government waste and doing something about the tax code. Unfortunately, junior members of Congress don't have a lot of power to wield or influence to peddle.

[Ethereal]

Is that why there are no libertarian countries?
America was founded on libertarian ideals. You should be more grateful.

[Dr. Who]

I think that political conservatism and fundamentalist Christianity have pretty much always had a symbiotic relationship, to some extent - each has used the other to advance their own cause and the personal fortunes of their leaders. It wasn't, however, till the 1970s that "Christian PACs" began to form, promising to deliver votes and dollars to politicians if they would champion legislation to - ostensibly - bring American law into greater conformity with "Christian values" and fundamentalist doctrine. Ironically, it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who was the first major beneficiary of this trend. Some secular conservatives take issue with being tarred with a "fundy Christian" brush, and rightly so - but they have only their own political leaders to blame for the association.

This is why the Republican party has had such an identity crisis over the last 30 years.

[resister]

This is why the Republican party has had such an identity crisis over the last 30 years.
lol, do they stand alone in this regaurd?

[Dr. Who]

lol, do they stand alone in this regaurd?

TBH more so than the Democrats. There is less infighting among the Dems, but then again they are not as disparate in ideologies. They vary in degree of left of center, but they are not as ideologically divided, which is to say that they have far more common ground. Among the Republicans you have big government vs small government, fiscal conservatives who could care less about religion mixed with the religious right. The Dems all believe in the state and only vary on degree.

[resister]

TBH more so than the Democrats. There is less infighting among the Dems, but then again they are not as disparate in ideologies. They vary in degree of left of center, but they are not as ideologically divided, which is to say that they have far more common ground. Among the Republicans you have big government vs small government, fiscal conservatives who could care less about religion mixed with the religious right. The Dems all believe in the state and only vary on degree.They sure do toe the line, dissent in the party is not tolerated like it is on the right, did I get that wrong? Dr. Who?

[Dr. Who]

They sure do toe the line, dissent in the party is not tolerated like it is on the right, did I get that wrong? Dr. Who?
I really don't know - possibly.

[Cletus]

Back when the first self-styled "Tea Party candidates" got themselves elected, I predicted that their big talk about "stirring things up in Washington" and "refusing to back down on our core beliefs" would last about three days, tops - and then they would realize that they were the most junior of junior legislators, and they would end up doing exactly as their Party leaders directed and knock off the Tea Party talk, or they would find themselves in a converted broom closet being soundly ignored for their entire, ultimately futile terms of office. I say that not at all to gloat, or because I believe it's a good thing that all that pretty much happened - in fact, I wish they'd have proved to be more effective in trimming government waste and doing something about the tax code. Unfortunately, junior members of Congress don't have a lot of power to wield or influence to peddle.

That is probably a pretty good assessment of what happened.

[resister]

I really don't know - possibly.

It is like everyone on the left is in complete agreement on all points. Is it likely the 2 partys are that different?

[Jets]

Part of the problem is distinguishing broad brushing from generalizing.

[Jets]

Many conservatives are too far right for me and I never supported the far right and I still dont. The teaparty started out not being hyper right but turned into a far right ClusterF

Sounds like a description of reactionaries.

[Standing Wolf]

They sure do toe the line, dissent in the party is not tolerated like it is on the right, did I get that wrong? Dr. Who?

Dissent is tolerated on the Right? Really, r? I have not seen a great deal of "toleration" expressed or demonstrated among Republicans in recent years. Particularly since the Trump era, but even before, all it takes for a Republican to be labeled a "RINO" or worse is for him to come out against the favored bill, policy or war du jour. Decorated military veterans in Congress are labeled "traitors" and worse for breaking with the Party on a single issue. Not true?

[Standing Wolf]

TBH more so than the Democrats. There is less infighting among the Dems, but then again they are not as disparate in ideologies. They vary in degree of left of center, but they are not as ideologically divided, which is to say that they have far more common ground. Among the Republicans you have big government vs small government, fiscal conservatives who could care less about religion mixed with the religious right. The Dems all believe in the state and only vary on degree.

I'd have to say that the Left more closely resembles a corporation of very disparate special interests, trying very hard to appear united and occasionally embarrassed by one another but, for the most part, keeping their mouths shut about it for the sake of a largely illusory unity. The LGBT folks, the anti-gun people, the immigrant rights advocates, and so on, obviously generate more power and influence when they stick together and present a united front, and so there is a great deal of pressure not to rock the common boat.

[Chris]

That's the problem with the religious right. Religion is not actually political - people simply want to impose their religious values on others and have no legitimate method of doing so, short of attempting to co-opt ostensibly conservative organizations. On their own, they tend to have little broad support and without the economic side of conservatism, the smaller government etc and they fail nationally because they are essentially big statists who want to use government to create religious based authority. Fiscally some are total liberals.


Religion is often hijacked for political purposes. Like Bin Laden and al Queda, ISIS. There's so little danger of anything like that here, it's inconceivable. But some do need their scapegoats.

[Chris]

I think that political conservatism and fundamentalist Christianity have pretty much always had a symbiotic relationship, to some extent - each has used the other to advance their own cause and the personal fortunes of their leaders. It wasn't, however, till the 1970s that "Christian PACs" began to form, promising to deliver votes and dollars to politicians if they would champion legislation to - ostensibly - bring American law into greater conformity with "Christian values" and fundamentalist doctrine. Ironically, it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who was the first major beneficiary of this trend. Some secular conservatives take issue with being tarred with a "fundy Christian" brush, and rightly so - but they have only their own political leaders to blame for the association.



Since the advent of the modern conservative movement in the 1950s, comprised of ex-liberals and ex-communists, in reaction to the rise of communism throughout the worlds, there has always been a strong and at times vehement division between those conservatives who embrased religion and those who did not. Buckley, for example, while strongly personally religious, believe you instilled virtue by example and not coercively through the government, as opposed to, for example, Russel Kirk who saw it as a role of the government--which is still something very different that the religious right that arose from the religious left disappointed in their hope Jimmy Carter would usher in a religious revival.

[Chris]

Back when the first self-styled "Tea Party candidates" got themselves elected, I predicted that their big talk about "stirring things up in Washington" and "refusing to back down on our core beliefs" would last about three days, tops - and then they would realize that they were the most junior of junior legislators, and they would end up doing exactly as their Party leaders directed and knock off the Tea Party talk, or they would find themselves in a converted broom closet being soundly ignored for their entire, ultimately futile terms of office. I say that not at all to gloat, or because I believe it's a good thing that all that pretty much happened - in fact, I wish they'd have proved to be more effective in trimming government waste and doing something about the tax code. Unfortunately, junior members of Congress don't have a lot of power to wield or influence to peddle.

Because their were no candidates from the Tea Parties. The Tea Parties were dead set against the Republican establishment. Some politicians claimed affinity to garner votes. Bachmann, for example, who has since disappeared. Rand Paul I think really believed in the Tea Parties, in the movement, and wrote a decent book on it, and is still around.

It's Tea Parties, not Tea Party.

One could draw an analogy with the earlier Contract with America where young Republicans were fed up with the establishment and woth it got elected. Gingrish sold out to the establishment. Joe Scarborough is a host on liberal MSNBC.

[Chris]

TBH more so than the Democrats. There is less infighting among the Dems, but then again they are not as disparate in ideologies. They vary in degree of left of center, but they are not as ideologically divided, which is to say that they have far more common ground. Among the Republicans you have big government vs small government, fiscal conservatives who could care less about religion mixed with the religious right. The Dems all believe in the state and only vary on degree.

That is partly because the Democrats were generally in control for so long the establishment Republicans kowtowed to their power to get anything passed.

[Mister D]

Religion is often hijacked for political purposes. Like Bin Laden and al Queda, ISIS. There's so little danger of anything like that here, it's inconceivable. But some do need their scapegoats.
Dr. Who is a little confused. First of all, religion is political in so far as religious people participate in politics. That is what Dr. Who objects to and that is what passes for a "Religious Right". People like Dr. Who believe religion has no place in the public sphere and this stems from both a general dislike for religion and from a genuine misunderstanding of what a separation of church and state actually means. She's not alone in either case.

Lastly, the truth is that Dr. Who and others like her have absolutely no qualms about the enforcement of values "on others" particularly their values. They slap the label "religion" on values they don't like as if it disqualified those values from the public sphere.

[Chris]

Dr. Who is a little confused. First of all, religion is political in so far as religious people participate in politics. That is what Dr. Who objects to and that is what passes for a "Religious Right". People like Dr. Who believe religion has no place in the public sphere and this stems from both a general dislike for religion and from a genuine misunderstanding of what a separation of church and state actually means. She's not alone in either case.

Lastly, the truth is that Dr. Who and others like her have absolutely no qualms about the enforcement of values "on others" particularly their values. They slap the label "religion" on values they don't like as if it disqualified those values from the public sphere.


Very much so religious people participate in democracy, and according, no doubt, to their religious faith and principles.

That was not the idea of seperating church and state, that, according to Jefferson, echoing Roger Williams, was to keep the state out of the church.

"[W]hen they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wildernes of the world, God hathe ever broke down the wall it selfe, removed the Candlestick, &c. and made his Garden a Wildernesse." --Roger Williams, 1644

[Mister D]

Very much so religious people participate in democracy, and according, no doubt, to their religious faith and principles.

That was not the idea of seperating church and state, that, according to Jefferson, echoing Roger Williams, was to keep the state out of the church.

"[W]hen they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wildernes of the world, God hathe ever broke down the wall it selfe, removed the Candlestick, &c. and made his Garden a Wildernesse." --Roger Williams, 1644
Exactly. Some of us seem to think it means religion has no place in public sphere.

[Chris]

Exactly. Some of us seem to think it means religion has no place in public sphere.

Well, we all put faith in something, be it God or the State or Liberty or....

[Dr. Who]

Well, we all put faith in something, be it God or the State or Liberty or....
The problem in not separating Church and State, is whose Church? Let's say the Muslim faith becomes dominant at some point. What if they wanted all women to cover their heads at all times and wanted prohibitions against the use of alcohol, the sale of pork, dating... The old blue laws were reflective of Christian values. Stores were closed on Sunday, disregarding those who worship on Saturday or those who don't worship at all. The Temperence movement which effectively spearheaded Prohibition was fundamentally Christian in origin - actually Protestant - the Catholics were officially against it. All Prohibition did was boost organized crime and cause even more drinking than before. Realistically, keeping religion out of law making is sensible. Why should anyone's religious values be imposed on another who doesn't agree with them? Religion is for the individual to practice, not to force on others, whether they like it or not. If you don't believe in shopping on Sunday, don't shop on Sunday. If you don't believe in same sex marriage, marry the opposite sex etcetera. Religious based laws are a terribly slippery slope.

[Mister D]

The problem in not separating Church and State, is whose Church? Let's say the Muslim faith becomes dominant at some point. What if they wanted all women to cover their heads at all times and wanted prohibitions against the use of alcohol, the sale of pork, dating... The old blue laws were reflective of Christian values. Stores were closed on Sunday, disregarding those who worship on Saturday or those who don't worship at all. The Temperence movement which effectively spearheaded Prohibition was fundamentally Christian in origin - actually Protestant - the Catholics were officially against it. All Prohibition did was boost organized crime and cause even more drinking than before. Realistically, keeping religion out of law making is sensible. Why should anyone's religious values be imposed on another who doesn't agree with them? Religion is for the individual to practice, not to force on others, whether they like it or not. If you don't believe in shopping on Sunday, don't shop on Sunday. If you don't believe in same sex marriage, marry the opposite sex etcetera. Religious based laws are a terribly slippery slope.
Chris, as you can see I was spot on.

[Trish]

Religion is often hijacked for political purposes. Like Bin Laden and al Queda, ISIS. There's so little danger of anything like that here, it's inconceivable. But some do need their scapegoats.

Religion was created for the purpose of enforcement. Religion is politics. It's how leaders were able to manipulate and manage large groups of people, imo.

[Chris]

The problem in not separating Church and State, is whose Church? Let's say the Muslim faith becomes dominant at some point. What if they wanted all women to cover their heads at all times and wanted prohibitions against the use of alcohol, the sale of pork, dating... The old blue laws were reflective of Christian values. Stores were closed on Sunday, disregarding those who worship on Saturday or those who don't worship at all. The Temperence movement which effectively spearheaded Prohibition was fundamentally Christian in origin - actually Protestant - the Catholics were officially against it. All Prohibition did was boost organized crime and cause even more drinking than before. Realistically, keeping religion out of law making is sensible. Why should anyone's religious values be imposed on another who doesn't agree with them? Religion is for the individual to practice, not to force on others, whether they like it or not. If you don't believe in shopping on Sunday, don't shop on Sunday. If you don't believe in same sex marriage, marry the opposite sex etcetera. Religious based laws are a terribly slippery slope.

Basicaly, the way I read the Constitution, every churt (religion) is allowed in the government, there's no religious text, you just get elected. And contrarily, no government should be allowed in the church ( religion), we have, after all, liberty of conscience, freedom of those and speech.

Prohibition is what gave Progressivisim a bad name and led FRD to abscond the uo-to-then a-political term liberal.

[Chris]

Religion was created for the purpose of enforcement. Religion is politics. It's how leaders were able to manipulate and manage large groups of people, imo.

Religion in its most primitive form is tied to family*. Then Christ came along to free you as an individual--no, I'm an atheist, but know where the roots of modern individualism lie.


* From Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, La Cité antique, cited in Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism:

https://i.snag.gy/A3ELIr.jpg

[Dr. Who]

Exactly. Some of us seem to think it means religion has no place in public sphere.
You might too if the dominant population of your state became other than Christian and started lobbying for laws that supported their religious values, but not yours.

[Mister D]

You might too if the dominant population of your state became other than Christian and started lobbying for laws that supported their religious values, but not yours.
I might misinterpret the concept of a separation of church and state? No, it would mean the same thing regardless of my personal circumstances. Like I said, you have no problem forcing values on other people. You just slap the label "religion" on what you don't like. Give it a rest.

[Chris]

You might too if the dominant population of your state became other than Christian and started lobbying for laws that supported their religious values, but not yours.

Were any of us to live in a state under majoritarian rule without a Constitution protecting religious rights.

[Standing Wolf]

Chris, as you can see I was spot on.

Please do enlighten us as to what the good Doctor wrote that you believe was incorrect or misguided.

[Dr. Who]

I might misinterpret the concept of a separation of church and state? No, it would mean the same thing regardless of my personal circumstances. Like I said, you have no problem forcing values on other people. You just slap the label "religion" on what you don't like. Give it a rest.
What values do I force on anyone? Does not forbidding something force it on another?

[Mister D]

Were any of us to live in a state under majoritarian rule without a Constitution protecting religious rights.
Dr. Who does not believe that religious people have the right to participate in the public sphere. It's funny how a hatred for religion so often entails a hatred for democracy.

[Mister D]

What values do I force on anyone? Does not forbidding something force it on another?

Aren't you one of those folks who demands a business owner, for example, serve everyone regardless of whether or not he wants to? Yeah, that's you.

[Dr. Who]

Were any of us to live in a state under majoritarian rule without a Constitution protecting religious rights.

Historically there were many laws passed that were inherently unconstitutional i.e. the blue laws, prohibition, anything gay, at the behest of a Christian majority. Were it not for the changing composition of SCOTUS, many of those laws would never have been repealed.

[Mister D]

Please do enlighten us as to what the good Doctor wrote that you believe was incorrect or misguided.
I already did. Twice. She thinks a separation of church and state means that political participation cannot or at least should not be motivated by religious conviction. I would place you in the same leaking boat.

[Mister D]

Historically there were many laws passed that were inherently unconstitutional i.e. the blue laws, prohibition, anything gay, at the behest of a Christian majority. Were it not for the changing composition of SCOTUS, many of those laws would never have been repealed.
You're flailing. First of all, Prohibition was ended by the legislature, the SC upheld it and blue laws exist all over the US. Secondly, whatever unconstitutional laws you might be referring to were not unconstitutional because they were motivated by religious conviction. You simply do not understand the concept of a separation of church and state.

[Dr. Who]

Dr. Who does not believe that religious people have the right to participate in the public sphere. It's funny how a hatred for religion so often entails a hatred for democracy.
You mistaken my desire to separate religion from lawmaking as hate. It's not about hate, it's about keeping governance unencumbered by faith based influences. Today those influences might favor your opinion, tomorrow those same influences may infringe upon your freedom.

[Mister D]

You mistaken my desire to separate religion from lawmaking as hate. It's not about hate, it's about keeping governance unencumbered by faith based influences. Today those influences might favor your opinion, tomorrow those same influences may infringe upon your freedom.

Honestly, I think there is more fear in your heart than hatred. If you could deal with the former the latter would evaporate. In any case, you appear to agree with me. You do not believe that religion has any place in the public sphere.

[Chris]

Historically there were many laws passed that were inherently unconstitutional i.e. the blue laws, prohibition, anything gay, at the behest of a Christian majority. Were it not for the changing composition of SCOTUS, many of those laws would never have been repealed.

Blue laws were local laws and it took time to incorporate various portions of the BoR to find them unconstitutional. Warren of the Warren Court that did that was a conservative nominated by Eisenhower. That court also ended racial segregation, incorporating the 14th amendment's due process.

Prohibition was, one more time, Progressive's baby.

[Mister D]

Blue laws were local laws and it took time to incorporate various portions of the BoR to find them unconstitutional. Warren of the Warren Court that did that was a conservative nominated by Eisenhower. That court also ended racial segregation, incorporating the 14th amendment's due process.

Prohibition was, one more time, Progressive's baby.
It was also dealt with properly in the legislature. That's the democratic and political way. That's the way that gives citizens a voice. Now partisans of both parties greedily eye potential picks for the judiciary because we have become an apolitical society. The courts determine our fate.

[Chris]

You mistaken my desire to separate religion from lawmaking as hate. It's not about hate, it's about keeping governance unencumbered by faith based influences. Today those influences might favor your opinion, tomorrow those same influences may infringe upon your freedom.


Is Canada so different? In the US there is no prohibition against religious influence from the faithful. Other than declaring there shall be no religious tests, the first amendment says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's a prohibition on what laws Congress can pass, not on the people.

[Mister D]

And so called "blue laws" exist all over the country. All the bars around here close at 2AM and aren't allowed to open until 10AM on Sundays.

[Chris]

It was also dealt with properly in the legislature. That's the democratic and political way. That's the way that gives citizens a voice. Now partisans of both parties greedily eye potential picks for the judiciary because we have become an apolitical society. The courts determine our fate.

Yes, that's the way it should be in a representative republic.

[DGUtley]

Historically there were many laws passed that were inherently unconstitutional i.e. the blue laws, prohibition, anything gay, at the behest of a Christian majority. Were it not for the changing composition of SCOTUS, many of those laws would never have been repealed.

Thats how some of us feel about other such laws -- inherently unconstitutional notwithstanding what SCOTUS has said.

[Dr. Who]

You're flailing. First of all, Prohibition was ended by the legislature, the SC upheld it and blue laws exist all over the US. Secondly, whatever unconstitutional laws you might be referring to were not unconstitutional because they were motivated by religious conviction. You simply do not understand the concept of a separation of church and state.
I disagree, at least in modern practice. It may well have originally meant the injunction against creating a state religion, but in modern practice, it also means not pandering to faith based rules and regulations. For instance, most people do not want the legalization of Sharia law or Halacha. Why not? As to existing blue laws, they exist so long as they remain unchallenged. Where they were challenged, they are overturned. The following are USSC decisions regarding blue laws:


McGowan v. Maryland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGowan_v._Maryland) (1961)
Braunfeld v. Brown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunfeld_v._Brown) (1961)
Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_v._Crown_Kosher_Super_Market_of_Mass.,_I nc.) (1961)
Thornton v. Caldor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v._Caldor) (1985)

Furthermore, in my post I said: "Were it not for the changing composition of SCOTUS, many of those laws would never have been repealed". Many is not all.

[Mister D]

Is Canada so different? In the US there is no prohibition against religious influence from the faithful. Other than declaring there shall be no religious tests, the first amendment says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's a prohibition on what laws Congress can pass, not on the people.
It's not. Dr. Who is just not the perfectly reasonable, tolerant person she likes to portray herself as.

[Chris]

And so called "blue laws" exist all over the country. All the bars around here close at 2AM and aren't allowed to open until 10AM on Sundays.

We can't buy liquor till noon on Sundays. Always a surprise, as in, it's Sunday, shoot. :)

[Chris]

I disagree, at least in modern practice. It may well have originally meant the injunction against creating a state religion, but in modern practice, it also means not pandering to faith based rules and regulations. For instance, most people do not want the legalization of Sharia law or Halacha. Why not? As to existing blue laws, they exist so long as they remain unchallenged. Where they were challenged, they are overturned. The following are USSC decisions regarding blue laws:


McGowan v. Maryland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGowan_v._Maryland) (1961)
Braunfeld v. Brown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunfeld_v._Brown) (1961)
Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_v._Crown_Kosher_Super_Market_of_Mass.,_I nc.) (1961)
Thornton v. Caldor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v._Caldor) (1985)

Furthermore, in my post I said: "Were it not for the changing composition of SCOTUS, many of those laws would never have been repealed". Many is not all.


The first thre were decided by a conservative court, the Warren Court. What, the court changed from an earlier liberal one?

[Mister D]

I disagree, at least in modern practice. It may well have originally meant the injunction against creating a state religion, but in modern practice, it also means not pandering to faith based rules and regulations. For instance, most people do not want the legalization of Sharia law or Halacha. Why not? As to existing blue laws, they exist so long as they remain unchallenged. Where they were challenged, they are overturned. The following are USSC decisions regarding blue laws:


McGowan v. Maryland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGowan_v._Maryland) (1961)
Braunfeld v. Brown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunfeld_v._Brown) (1961)
Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_v._Crown_Kosher_Super_Market_of_Mass.,_I nc.) (1961)
Thornton v. Caldor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v._Caldor) (1985)

Furthermore, in my post I said: "Were it not for the changing composition of SCOTUS, many of those laws would never have been repealed". Many is not all.
Dr. Who, the outcome of Gallagher v Crown was that the blue law in question was constitutional. Ditto Braunfeld v. Brown. I didn't bother looking at the other two. Instead of throwing more spaghetti you should probably apologize.

[Mister D]

We can't buy liquor till noon on Sundays. Always a surprise, as in, it's Sunday, shoot. :)
That violates the establishment clause! :shocked:

[Chris]

That violates the establishment clause! :shocked:

Liquor establishments seem to survive.

[Mister D]

Where did Wolf go? Never mind. I wouldn't want to be associated with this either.

[Chris]

What we need instead of separation of church and state is separation of business and state.

[Dr. Who]

Thats how some of us feel about other such laws -- inherently unconstitutional notwithstanding what SCOTUS has said.
The Civil Rights Act is not unconstitutional. Now how people have chosen to pursue their political agendas cannot be legislated around. Whether the gay customer who wanted a cake for a gay reception had an axe to grind or whether the religious baker was trying to make a political point or whether both are true, activists are going to act. The baker could have declined for any other reason than announcing that it was against his religious values if he felt that strongly and simply referred the customer to a competitor. The customer could have simply gone to a different baker and said nothing. However our society encourages memorializing your every thought on Twitter, so it became political.

[Mister D]

What we need instead of separation of church and state is separation of business and state.
I have long known Dr. Who's real thoughts on the matter but what offends me is that this is the same person who will get on her high horse and berate others for their prejudices.

[Mister D]

The Civil Rights Act is not unconstitutional. Now how people have chosen to pursue their political agendas cannot be legislated around. Whether the gay customer who wanted a cake for a gay reception had an axe to grind or whether the religious baker was trying to make a political point or whether both are true, activists are going to act. The baker could have declined for any other reason than announcing that it was against his religious values if he felt that strongly and simply referred the customer to a competitor. The customer could have simply gone to a different baker and said nothing. However our society encourages memorializing your every thought on Twitter, so it became political.
You will force your values on others and you will do so without any sense of irony.

[Chris]

The Civil Rights Act is not unconstitutional. Now how people have chosen to pursue their political agendas cannot be legislated around. Whether the gay customer who wanted a cake for a gay reception had an axe to grind or whether the religious baker was trying to make a political point or whether both are true, activists are going to act. The baker could have declined for any other reason than announcing that it was against his religious values if he felt that strongly and simply referred the customer to a competitor. The customer could have simply gone to a different baker and said nothing. However our society encourages memorializing your every thought on Twitter, so it became political.

It's constitutional inasmuch as it prevents the government from discriminating. Forcing that on private business owners is unconstitutional. Yes, I know, you think not, you want your views and values imposed on the people.

[Mister D]

It's constitutional inasmuch as it prevents the government from discriminating. Forcing that on private business owners is unconstitutional. Yes, I know, you think not, you want your views and values imposed on the people.
Bullseye

[Dr. Who]

Dr. Who, the outcome of Gallagher v Crown was that the blue law in question was constitutional. Ditto Braunfeld v. Brown. I didn't bother looking at the other two. Instead of throwing more spaghetti you should probably apologize.

No, because you missed the point, they can only exist if they are for a secular purpose, not to preserve the Christian Sabbath. If any municipality bans Sunday shopping for religious reasons, that law is unconstitutional.

McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation) (1961),[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGowan_v._Maryland#cite_note-1) was a United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they havesecular (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism)purpose.

The USCC also finds in Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. that:

" the statute in question violated the First Amendment. In a relatively brief opinion, Burger explained that it was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause for a state to require employers to relieve an employee of work on his or her Sabbath, as "an absolute and unqualified right" that applied "no matter what burden or inconvenience this imposes on the employer or fellow workers."

The Court concluded that "[t]his unyielding weighting in favor of Sabbath observers over all other interests contravenes a fundamental purpose of the Religion Clauses."

Thus in large municipalities where most people wanted to be able transact business on Sunday, blue laws were abandoned, because they could not be sustained for religious reasons nor can any individual refuse to work on any given day for religious reasons if it would negatively impact his or her employer. Many industrial businesses operate 24/7. If you have enough workers who work various shifts, some with days of in the middle of the week, it's pretty hard to tell them that they can't get groceries or go to a bar on a day when they have to work.

Thus any municipality that has a large number of shift workers will not have Sunday closing laws. It may work in a municipality where everyone works Monday to Friday only.

[Dr. Who]

It's constitutional inasmuch as it prevents the government from discriminating. Forcing that on private business owners is unconstitutional. Yes, I know, you think not, you want your views and values imposed on the people.

Lose the Civil Rights Act and return to widespread discrimination. The outcome of that would be massive violence. You choose.

[Dr. Who]

And so called "blue laws" exist all over the country. All the bars around here close at 2AM and aren't allowed to open until 10AM on Sundays.
Closing at 2AM isnt exactly a blue law. Not being open at all is a blue law.

[resister]

In general, this thread contains many Generalizations!

[resister]

And so called "blue laws" exist all over the country. All the bars around here close at 2AM and aren't allowed to open until 10AM on Sundays.
Shit, it midnight around here and 1pm on Sunday. This was a dry county not to long ago!

[Dr. Who]

It's constitutional inasmuch as it prevents the government from discriminating. Forcing that on private business owners is unconstitutional. Yes, I know, you think not, you want your views and values imposed on the people.

The entire point of the Civil Rights Act was to ensure that all citizens are accommodated on the same basis. I don't understand how anyone can approve of refusing service on the basis of hate. On its face that should be against public policy because it creates tensions that generally result in violence and disorder where innocent people get hurt and die. Properties get torched and bombed. It's sick. Consider what happened that led to that legislation.

[Mister D]

No, because you missed the point, they can only exist if they are for a secular purpose, not to preserve the Christian Sabbath. If any municipality bans Sunday shopping for religious reasons, that law is unconstitutional.

McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation) (1961),[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGowan_v._Maryland#cite_note-1) was a United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they havesecular (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism)purpose.

The USCC also finds in Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. that:

" the statute in question violated the First Amendment. In a relatively brief opinion, Burger explained that it was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause for a state to require employers to relieve an employee of work on his or her Sabbath, as "an absolute and unqualified right" that applied "no matter what burden or inconvenience this imposes on the employer or fellow workers."

The Court concluded that "[t]his unyielding weighting in favor of Sabbath observers over all other interests contravenes a fundamental purpose of the Religion Clauses."

Thus in large municipalities where most people wanted to be able transact business on Sunday, blue laws were abandoned, because they could not be sustained for religious reasons nor can any individual refuse to work on any given day for religious reasons if it would negatively impact his or her employer. Many industrial businesses operate 24/7. If you have enough workers who work various shifts, some with days of in the middle of the week, it's pretty hard to tell them that they can't get groceries or go to a bar on a day when they have to work.

Thus any municipality that has a large number of shift workers will not have Sunday closing laws. It may work in a municipality where everyone works Monday to Friday only.

This woman is so obnoxious...

Dr. Who, you just spent the last 45 minutes reading the articles you linked to earlier. Your point was that when challenged blue laws were always or usually overturned. Now you know that when challenged blue laws have not been overturned but often upheld despite their clear religious origin. I didn't miss any point. You just didn't know what you were talking about. That happens to you a lot.

[Chris]

Lose the Civil Rights Act and return to widespread discrimination. The outcome of that would be massive violence. You choose.

Or keep it and discriminate againt the people rights to own property, associate freely, and to choose freely for themselves.

The outcome would be 'widespread discrimination. The outcome of that would be massive violence" only in your imagination. It has no basic in reality.


And, do take note, Who, you have abandoned your constitutional argument.

[Chris]

In general, this thread contains many Generalizations!



Generalization^^

[Mister D]

$#@!, it midnight around here and 1pm on Sunday. This was a dry county not to long ago!
There are many dry communities in the US. It's constitutional. All they need to do is demonstrate a secular purpose for clearly religious laws. Not much of a hurdle.

[Chris]

The entire point of the Civil Rights Act was to ensure that all citizens are accommodated on the same basis. I don't understand how anyone can approve of refusing service on the basis of hate. On its face that should be against public policy because it creates tensions that generally result in violence and disorder where innocent people get hurt and die. Properties get torched and bombed. It's sick. Consider what happened that led to that legislation.

Yes, BY THE GOVERNMENT. No one argues that. Most applaud it.

Whoa, wait a minute, I said absolutely nothing of approving refusing service, why do you need to make that up--oh, yea, to make you look like a moral superior to me as immoral inferior. But I didn't say that, did I. I said instead the government has no constitutional poer to enforce the law on private citizens, no right to impose your views and values on others. DO try to argue with what I say and not what you imagine for self-aggrandizement.

[Chris]

This woman is so obnoxious...

Dr. Who, you just spent the last 45 minutes reading the articles you linked to earlier. Your point was that when challenged blue laws were always or usually overturned. Now you know that when challenged blue laws have not been overturned but often upheld despite their clear religious origin. I didn't miss any point. You just didn't know what you were talking about. That happens to you a lot.



Who, you've argued yourself in a circle. You started out to prove blues laws were found unconstitutional only to end up citing McGowan v. Maryland (1961) that found them constitutional.


The Supreme Court of the United States held in its landmark case, McGowan v. Maryland (1961), that Maryland's blue laws violated neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It approved the state's blue law restricting commercial activities on Sunday, noting that while such laws originated to encourage attendance at Christian churches, the contemporary Maryland laws were intended to serve "to provide a uniform day of rest for all citizens" on a secular basis and to promote the secular values of "health, safety, recreation, and general well-being" through a common day of rest. That this day coincides with Christian Sabbath is not a bar to the state's secular goals; it neither reduces its effectiveness for secular purposes nor prevents adherents of other religions from observing their own holy days.

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law#Court_cases

[Mister D]

Or keep it and discriminate againt the people rights to own property, associate freely, and to choose freely for themselves.

The outcome would be 'widespread discrimination. The outcome of that would be massive violence" only in your imagination. It has no basic in reality.


And, do take note, Who, you have abandoned your constitutional argument.

Now she is just trying to rationalize the enforcement of her values on others and that's fine. Just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[Mister D]

@resister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2122) when I'm wrong I admit it. I was wrong here. Dry counties do not have to demonstrate a secular purpose. US municipalities may prohibit the sale of alcohol at their discretion.

[Mister D]

Wow. I had no idea...


New Jersey has no dry counties, but as of 2013, 35 municipalities (out of 565 statewide) prohibit the retail sale of alcohol.[98] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state#cite_note-dry_towns-98) Most of the dry towns are in South Jersey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Jersey), and some of them are dry because of their origins as Quaker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Friends), Methodist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist), or other Protestant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) religious communities.[99] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state#cite_note-99) Dry towns in New Jersey cannot forbid the possession, consumption, or transportation of alcohol, but have the option to permit or prohibit BYOB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYOB_%28beverage%29) at restaurants and social affair permits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_licenses_in_New_Jersey) for non-profit organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization).[1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state#cite_note-100)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state#New_Jersey

[Ethereal]

Dr. Who is a little confused. First of all, religion is political in so far as religious people participate in politics. That is what Dr. Who objects to and that is what passes for a "Religious Right". People like Dr. Who believe religion has no place in the public sphere and this stems from both a general dislike for religion and from a genuine misunderstanding of what a separation of church and state actually means. She's not alone in either case.

Lastly, the truth is that Dr. Who and others like her have absolutely no qualms about the enforcement of values "on others" particularly their values. They slap the label "religion" on values they don't like as if it disqualified those values from the public sphere.
The liberal religion is statism and collectivism, the most dangerous religions in history.

[Ethereal]

What values do I force on anyone? Does not forbidding something force it on another?
Forced redistribution of wealth, the collectivization of property, minimum wage laws, hate speech laws, regulations on commercial activities that are unrelated to the preservation of individual rights, etc.

[Mister D]

Forced redistribution of wealth, the collectivization of property, minimum wage laws, hate speech laws, regulations on commercial activities that are unrelated to the preservation of individual rights, etc.

But that's different because it's not "religion". Have you ever heard such self-serving nonsense?

[resister]

@resister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2122) when I'm wrong I admit it. I was wrong here. Dry counties do not have to demonstrate a secular purpose. US municipalities may prohibit the sale of alcohol at their discretion.Good on you MR. D I too, believe in admitting when I am wrong, rare as chicken lips, here!

[Ethereal]

But that's different because it's not "religion". Have you ever heard such self-serving nonsense?
Liberals tend to forget (often times intentionally) that the state relies a great deal on force and the threat thereof.

[Dr. Who]

This woman is so obnoxious...

Dr. Who, you just spent the last 45 minutes reading the articles you linked to earlier. Your point was that when challenged blue laws were always or usually overturned. Now you know that when challenged blue laws have not been overturned but often upheld despite their clear religious origin. I didn't miss any point. You just didn't know what you were talking about. That happens to you a lot.
My point always was that any law based solely on religion is unconstitutional - what part of that didn't I communicate? All laws based on religion have been overturned when challenged. Those Sunday closings that have been supported, have remained because they were justified for secular reasons and currently generally only apply in places that are essentially small towns or basically suburban enclaves who have access to Sunday shopping in close proximity to their immediate municipality. You couldn't get a Walmart in a town or county that had Sunday closing laws. Most places that have any form of blue laws are modified i.e. you can't sell alcohol or non-essential goods, so they are not 100% no business on Sunday. People may not be all that motivated to spend the money to challenge partial restrictions. So they remain. The most stringent blue laws remain in the bible belt where people are tolerant, specifically Arkansas and Mississippi. Eventually, they will all disappear.

[Ethereal]

My point always was that any law based solely on religion is unconstitutional...

The first amendment only prohibits the US Congress from passing laws respecting an establishment of religion. It was never intended to erase religion from all public life in America. Indeed, virtually every state and local government in America had laws relating to religion.

[Dr. Who]

This woman is so obnoxious...

Dr. Who, you just spent the last 45 minutes reading the articles you linked to earlier. Your point was that when challenged blue laws were always or usually overturned. Now you know that when challenged blue laws have not been overturned but often upheld despite their clear religious origin. I didn't miss any point. You just didn't know what you were talking about. That happens to you a lot.
I'm obnoxious, LOL. At least I don't lead every response with an insult. Furthermore, any law that is based on religion, when challenged, fails. Every single state, county and municipal blue law has not yet been challenged. Challenges to Arkansas dry laws are working their way through the courts and as far as I know, have yet to reach SCOTUS.

[Dr. Who]

The first amendment only prohibits the US Congress from passing laws respecting an establishment of religion. It was never intended to erase religion from all public life in America. Indeed, virtually every state and local government in America had laws relating to religion.
It's not about erasing religion, but where the religious value imposed law is not supported by even one individual, such a law cannot be sustained constitutionally. You cannot force people to have a sabbath day. Those who want to observe the sabbath will do so without force of law.

[Dr. Who]

Or keep it and discriminate againt the people rights to own property, associate freely, and to choose freely for themselves.

The outcome would be 'widespread discrimination. The outcome of that would be massive violence" only in your imagination. It has no basic in reality.


And, do take note, Who, you have abandoned your constitutional argument.
Of course it has basis in reality - look at what was happening in the 1960s. Furthermore, a law that suggests that you cannot pass laws that discriminate, essentially supports the spirit of the constitution. Additionally, the commerce clause of the Constitution authorized Congress to enact this type of legislation. America has had more than 50 years to overturn the Civil Rights Act. It hasn't happened because most people recognize that it will not benefit the nation to do so and most people don't believe that discrimination is justified.

[Ethereal]

It's not about erasing religion, but where the religious value imposed law is not supported by even one individual, such a law cannot be sustained constitutionally. You cannot force people to have a sabbath day. Those who want to observe the sabbath will do so without force of law.
Again, the first amendment was never meant to limit what state and local governments could do. That was obvious at the time of its passage.

[Dr. Who]

Forced redistribution of wealth, the collectivization of property, minimum wage laws, hate speech laws, regulations on commercial activities that are unrelated to the preservation of individual rights, etc.

I don't recall speaking to any of those topics in this thread. I don't believe that I have ever discussed hate speech laws, I may have commented on minimum wage laws once or twice, but it's not something I've discussed in a long time. I assume by forced redistribution of wealth that you are referring to any number of social programs, so yes at some point or other I have commented on the social safety net, or universal healthcare. I discuss them, I'm not imposing them on anyone. That is not within my power.

[Chris]

Of course it has basis in reality - look at what was happening in the 1960s. Furthermore, a law that suggests that you cannot pass laws that discriminate, essentially supports the spirit of the constitution. Additionally, the commerce clause of the Constitution authorized Congress to enact this type of legislation. America has had more than 50 years to overturn the Civil Rights Act. It hasn't happened because most people recognize that it will not benefit the nation to do so and most people don't believe that discrimination is justified.

I have replied half a dozen times on the 60s and you have ignored it. I won't be played again. Your narrative is fanciful in that it factually tells the opposite story you think it does. But you'll have to actually read what I've posted to see why that is.

[Dr. Who]

Again, the first amendment was never meant to limit what state and local governments could do. That was obvious at the time of its passage.

It's a rather strange constitution that only applies to federal government where any rights protected thereunder can be usurped by the individual states, counties and munipalities. That generally renders the constitution pretty much useless for practical purposes and the USA not really a nation, but a relationship of convenience, even less cohesive than the EU.

[Standing Wolf]

It's a rather strange constitution that only applies to federal government where any rights protected thereunder can be usurped by the individual states, counties and munipalities. That generally renders the constitution pretty much useless for practical purposes and the USA not really a nation, but a relationship of convenience, even less cohesive than the EU.

Exactly right. You and I have no enforceable rights as an American if any Podunk legislature or pandering Governor can override the U.S. Constitution. These are the sort of people who don't believe that the Fourteenth Amendment was lawfully ratified. These are the sort of people who don't understand that when a federal court takes up a case against a state or local government, it's one or more U.S. citizens exercising their right to seek justice as empowered by the Tenth Amendment - not the "feds stickin' their noses where they don't belong". You are arguing with people suffering from invincible, deliberate, self-imposed ignorance.

[Dr. Who]

It's constitutional inasmuch as it prevents the government from discriminating. Forcing that on private business owners is unconstitutional. Yes, I know, you think not, you want your views and values imposed on the people.


Or keep it and discriminate againt the people rights to own property, associate freely, and to choose freely for themselves.

The outcome would be 'widespread discrimination. The outcome of that would be massive violence" only in your imagination. It has no basic in reality.


And, do take note, Who, you have abandoned your constitutional argument.


Yes, BY THE GOVERNMENT. No one argues that. Most applaud it.

Whoa, wait a minute, I said absolutely nothing of approving refusing service, why do you need to make that up--oh, yea, to make you look like a moral superior to me as immoral inferior. But I didn't say that, did I. I said instead the government has no constitutional poer to enforce the law on private citizens, no right to impose your views and values on others. DO try to argue with what I say and not what you imagine for self-aggrandizement.


I have replied half a dozen times on the 60s and you have ignored it. I won't be played again. Your narrative is fanciful in that it factually tells the opposite story you think it does. But you'll have to actually read what I've posted to see why that is.
I have ignored nothing. I just will not substitute your opinion for my own, nor do I really care about your exchange with other members at my expense. As to the post to which you were responding, theory is theory, reality, is something entirely different. The reality of observing the purist restrictions that constitutionalists advocate is the rampant violence that occurred in the 60s, which is why I mention them. If the historical reactions of people who oppose the freedom to discriminate is irrelevant to you, then fine. There is no point in further discussion because I live in the real world, where real people will not tolerate being treated like sh*t no matter how adamant the constitutional purists about rights of association. The Constitution only exists today because of amendments and the efforts of SCOTUS to keep it relevant. Reduced to its original form it would be tossed as an anachronism in the 21st century.

Additionally, your remarks overlay a libertarian perspective on top of the Constitution which I do not view as a purely libertarian document. Such a view is very biased in favor of a form of government that I do not believe, for many reasons, could ever sustain a large population. It utterly ignores human psycho social dynamics and assumes that widespread tribal behavior will not result in warfare in the context of what is supposed to be one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. What justice is there if you are not tolerated by the majority and can be denied a place to eat, sleep or work because of rights of association as if you are not equally a citizen?

[Dr. Who]

Exactly right. You and I have no enforceable rights as an American if any Podunk legislature or pandering Governor can override the U.S. Constitution. These are the sort of people who don't believe that the Fourteenth Amendment was lawfully ratified. These are the sort of people who don't understand that when a federal court takes up a case against a state or local government, it's one or more U.S. citizens exercising their right to seek justice as empowered by the Tenth Amendment - not the "feds stickin' their noses where they don't belong". You are arguing with people suffering from invincible, deliberate, self-imposed ignorance.
It's something that I will never understand. If citizens cannot rely on the Constitution to protect their rights thereunder, what is the point of having a federal Constitution or even nation status? You could just have trade agreements, formalized defense compacts and a common currency. America could be as much of a backwater as South America with the same intrigue.

[Chris]

I have ignored nothing. I just will not substitute your opinion for my own, nor do I really care about your exchange with other members at my expense. As to the post to which you were responding, theory is theory, reality, is something entirely different. The reality of observing the purist restrictions that constitutionalists advocate is the rampant violence that occurred in the 60s, which is why I mention them. If the historical reactions of people who oppose the freedom to discriminate is irrelevant to you, then fine. There is no point in further discussion because I live in the real world, where real people will not tolerate being treated like sh*t no matter how adamant the constitutional purists about rights of association. The Constitution only exists today because of amendments and the efforts of SCOTUS to keep it relevant. Reduced to its original form it would be tossed as an anachronism in the 21st century.

Additionally, your remarks overlay a libertarian perspective on top of the Constitution which I do not view as a purely libertarian document. Such a view is very biased in favor of a form of government that I do not believe, for many reasons, could ever sustain a large population. It utterly ignores human psycho social dynamics and assumes that widespread tribal behavior will not result in warfare in the context of what is supposed to be one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. What justice is there if you are not tolerated by the majority and can be denied a place to eat, sleep or work because of rights of association as if you are not equally a citizen?


You presented a narrative about constitutional correction of things like blue laws and prohibition. You were vague enough to allow it to seem like the problem was one of Christian conservatism and the solution was liberal progressivism. But once you delve more into the actual facts, the opposite is true. That is what you have and continue to ignore. Prohibition was a Progressive effort undone by a cpnservative court.

Now you wanter off into all new narrative and I'm just not interested anough to wander down that path because much of it consists of you telling me what I think rather than replying to what I've posted.

[DGUtley]

Dr. Who is a little confused. First of all, religion is political in so far as religious people participate in politics. That is what Dr. Who objects to and that is what passes for a "Religious Right". People like Dr. Who believe religion has no place in the public sphere and this stems from both a general dislike for religion and from a genuine misunderstanding of what a separation of church and state actually means. She's not alone in either case.

Lastly, the truth is that Dr. Who and others like her have absolutely no qualms about the enforcement of values "on others" particularly their values. They slap the label "religion" on values they don't like as if it disqualified those values from the public sphere.


Dr. Who does not believe that religious people have the right to participate in the public sphere. It's funny how a hatred for religion so often entails a hatred for democracy.


I already did. Twice. She thinks a separation of church and state means that political participation cannot or at least should not be motivated by religious conviction. I would place you in the same leaking boat.


It's not. Dr. Who is just not the perfectly reasonable, tolerant person she likes to portray herself as.


I have long known Dr. Who's real thoughts on the matter but what offends me is that this is the same person who will get on her high horse and berate others for their prejudices.


This woman is so obnoxious...

Dr. Who, you just spent the last 45 minutes reading the articles you linked to earlier. Your point was that when challenged blue laws were always or usually overturned. Now you know that when challenged blue laws have not been overturned but often upheld despite their clear religious origin. I didn't miss any point. You just didn't know what you were talking about. That happens to you a lot.
WARNING -- Mister D -- Discuss thread topic and not other posters. Thank you.

[DGUtley]

The Civil Rights Act is not unconstitutional. Now how people have chosen to pursue their political agendas cannot be legislated around. Whether the gay customer who wanted a cake for a gay reception had an axe to grind or whether the religious baker was trying to make a political point or whether both are true, activists are going to act. The baker could have declined for any other reason than announcing that it was against his religious values if he felt that strongly and simply referred the customer to a competitor. The customer could have simply gone to a different baker and said nothing. However our society encourages memorializing your every thought on Twitter, so it became political.

I was not referring to the CRA. I don't think it was necessary legally b/c of the 14th Amendment; but I think in practice (on the street) it was needed. I was thinking more along the lines of the result-oriented decisions we've seen out of the SC in the past 50 years that belie constitutionality. For example, the ACA is, imho, unconstitutional on two grounds -- both of which have been rejected by this Court, but this Court is wrong. I think the gay marriage decision was wrongly decided. I think it was the right result but unconstitutionally decided. JMHO. I don't see a right of marriage in the constitution as it is a state issue; but I do see an equal protection right. Hence, though I appreciate the end the means is unconstitutional and could lead to unforeseen results on non-related cases. This is just two ways that I think the USC lost its way recently. Yes, I know -- legally I'm wrong but theologically / theoretically, I'm correct.

[Standing Wolf]

I was not referring to the CRA. I don't think it was necessary legally b/c of the 14th Amendment; but I think in practice (on the street) it was needed. I was thinking more along the lines of the result-oriented decisions we've seen out of the SC in the past 50 years that belie constitutionality. For example, the ACA is, imho, unconstitutional on two grounds -- both of which have been rejected by this Court, but this Court is wrong. I think the gay marriage decision was wrongly decided. I think it was the right result but unconstitutionally decided. JMHO. I don't see a right of marriage in the constitution as it is a state issue; but I do see an equal protection right. Hence, though I appreciate the end the means is unconstitutional and could lead to unforeseen results on non-related cases. This is just two ways that I think the USC lost its way recently. Yes, I know -- legally I'm wrong but theologically / theoretically, I'm correct.

That is the key that so many people seem to whiff on. I don't know how many times I've been told, "There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution about marriage, and laws having to do with marriage are not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government". When equal treatment and due process are denied to U.S. citizens by local or state governments, and the states' courts are no help, the federal courts are very much the appropriate venue for relief.

What I don't quite understand is your characterization of the court's action as being "unconstitutional". In what way?

[Chris]

I was not referring to the CRA. I don't think it was necessary legally b/c of the 14th Amendment; but I think in practice (on the street) it was needed. I was thinking more along the lines of the result-oriented decisions we've seen out of the SC in the past 50 years that belie constitutionality. For example, the ACA is, imho, unconstitutional on two grounds -- both of which have been rejected by this Court, but this Court is wrong. I think the gay marriage decision was wrongly decided. I think it was the right result but unconstitutionally decided. JMHO. I don't see a right of marriage in the constitution as it is a state issue; but I do see an equal protection right. Hence, though I appreciate the end the means is unconstitutional and could lead to unforeseen results on non-related cases. This is just two ways that I think the USC lost its way recently. Yes, I know -- legally I'm wrong but theologically / theoretically, I'm correct.




I think it was the right result but unconstitutionally decided.

Agree. There is no right to marriage, which seems to be an invention of the court over time. However, there is a right to free association, which could have been argued, but wasn't. It's for that reason I see the result as right, people free to marry whom they choose.

Ted Olson, almost a decade ago, argued along the same lines, that marriage is a fundamental relationship that the government cannot discriminate on.

Part 1...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OE-gNhcl6A

[Chris]

That is the key that so many people seem to whiff on. I don't know how many times I've been told, "There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution about marriage, and laws having to do with marriage are not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government". When equal treatment and due process are denied to U.S. citizens by local or state governments, and the states' courts are no help, the federal courts are very much the appropriate venue for relief.

What I don't quite understand is your characterization of the court's action as being "unconstitutional". In what way?


When equal treatment and due process are denied to U.S. citizens by local or state governments, and the states' courts are no help, the federal courts are very much the appropriate venue for relief.


To that point we agree, though the precedent of incorporation is required before SCOTUS can enforce the supreme law of the land.

Where there was disagreement in the above discussion, and elsewhere, is where the court goes beyond regulating the government, at various levels, and starts regulating the liberty of the people.

[Standing Wolf]

There might not be a "right to marriage" if the government were not very intimately associated with its legal formalization. Many people are not aware that it is illegal, under the law of every state, for a clergyman or other official to perform a marriage ceremony without a state-issued license. Many people are also under the impression that marriage contracts in the United States were originally a church function, and that somehow the civil government "horned in" or intruded on the institution; not true at all - marriage, since Colonial times, has been under the control and regulation of the civil government. The status of being lawfully wed affects literally thousands of other matters, from a legal perspective...so the idea that we sometimes hear - that "government should just get out of the marriage business" - is just about as impractical and ridiculous as ideas get.

As long as lawful marriage is a State institution - as it must be - access to that institution, absent a compelling public interest, such as the prohibitions against participation by children, the mentally deficient, or those who are already married, must be permitted to all sane, single adult citizens on an equal basis. There is no compelling public interest in conducting an inventory of genitals before issuing a marriage license, to ensure that the couple has "one of each".

[Standing Wolf]

Where there was disagreement in the above discussion, and elsewhere, is where the court goes beyond regulating the government, at various levels, and starts regulating the liberty of the people.

Are you thinking about/referring to the Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, and her refusal to abide by the law in refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

[Chris]

Are you thinking about/referring to the Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, and her refusal to abide by the law in refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

She was a government official and a such I have no problem with the court ruling her type of discrimination unconstitutional.

I draw the line between public officials and private citizens.

[DGUtley]

. . . . .What I don't quite understand is your characterization of the court's action as being "unconstitutional". In what way?

My choice of terms was incorrect and/or unfortunate. What I meant was that the basis of constitutionality (or lack thereof) was unsound, not that the Court acted unconstitutionally.

[Chris]

Ted Olsen in the video above, when asked about the right to marriage, says: "The Supreme Court has said that marriage, the right to marry a person of your choice, is a part of liberty, privacy, association and spirituality guaranteed to each individual under the Constitution."

That differs from saying it's a fundamental right. It's an inferred right based on other fundamental rights.

Olson, it should be noted, is a conservative, Solicitor General under GWB.

[Mister D]

My point always was that any law based solely on religion is unconstitutional - what part of that didn't I communicate? All laws based on religion have been overturned when challenged. Those Sunday closings that have been supported, have remained because they were justified for secular reasons and currently generally only apply in places that are essentially small towns or basically suburban enclaves who have access to Sunday shopping in close proximity to their immediate municipality. You couldn't get a Walmart in a town or county that had Sunday closing laws. Most places that have any form of blue laws are modified i.e. you can't sell alcohol or non-essential goods, so they are not 100% no business on Sunday. People may not be all that motivated to spend the money to challenge partial restrictions. So they remain. The most stringent blue laws remain in the bible belt where people are tolerant, specifically Arkansas and Mississippi. Eventually, they will all disappear.

Historically there were many laws passed that were inherently unconstitutional i.e. the blue laws, prohibition, anything gay, at the behest of a Christian majority. Were it not for the changing composition of SCOTUS, many of those laws would never have been repealed.

For the record, blue laws continue to exist throughout large swathes of the country and national Prohibition was ended via the legislature. Local prohibition continues exist at the behest of a Christian majority and is perfectly constitutional. You were wrong. Please stop. Thank you.

And blue laws will disappear when people no longer want them. Period.

[Mister D]

You presented a narrative about constitutional correction of things like blue laws and prohibition. You were vague enough to allow it to seem like the problem was one of Christian conservatism and the solution was liberal progressivism. But once you delve more into the actual facts, the opposite is true. That is what you have and continue to ignore. Prohibition was a Progressive effort undone by a cpnservative court.

Now you wanter off into all new narrative and I'm just not interested anough to wander down that path because much of it consists of you telling me what I think rather than replying to what I've posted.
And remember the repeal of Prohibition had nothing to do with its constitutionality which was upheld by the courts several times. It was repealed because people didn't like it. That said, local prohibition continues to exist throughout large parts of the country.

[Chris]

And remember the repeal of Prohibition had nothing to do with its constitutionality which was upheld by the courts several times. It was repealed because people didn't like it. That said, local prohibition continues to exist throughout large parts of the country.

Right, once you dig into the dirty details it's difficult to put together simple, smooth, slick narratives to support this or that view or value. There were several posts on how blue laws were found unconstitutional then a turn about on blue laws found to be constitutional. The strength of any given narrative, like a theory in science, is how well it accounts for all the facts, not just a few, ignoring counterfactuals.

[Mister D]

Right, once you dig into the dirty details it's difficult to put together simple, smooth, slick narratives to support this or that view or value. There were several posts on how blue laws were found unconstitutional then a turn about on blue laws found to be constitutional. The strength of any given narrative, like a theory in science, is how well it accounts for all the facts, not just a few, ignoring counterfactuals.
The central question here is the influence of religion in politics. I think it's patently obvious that not only is such influence constitutional it's also impossible to prevent in a democracy (broad sense of the term). I say again that some people think religion has no place in public life. The faithful should leave their convictions at home because they are "religion" and thus somehow disqualified.

[Chris]

The central question here is the influence of religion in politics. I think it's patently obvious that not only is such influence constitutional it's also impossible to prevent in a democracy (broad sense of the term). I say again that some people think religion has no place in public life. The faithful should leave their convictions at home because they are "religion" and thus somehow disqualified.

Such ideas as people of faith shouldn't be an influence on their own governance is preposterous. We all have convictions we live by and want represented in a democracy.

[Mister D]

Such ideas as people of faith shouldn't be an influence on their own governance is preposterous. We all have convictions we live by and want represented in a democracy.
Exactly. That's all I've been arguing.

[Mister D]

And you put it well.

[Chris]

So do you. But there's opposition to that, that wants to impose a secular religion to exclude others.

[DGUtley]

And remember the repeal of Prohibition had nothing to do with its constitutionality which was upheld by the courts several times. It was repealed because people didn't like it. That said, local prohibition continues to exist throughout large parts of the country.

When my older sister got married, my brother and I were driving to Newark, Ohio from Sebring, Ohio. I forget the route but we stopped at a roadside store to get gas and wanted to get beer. We were told it was a dry county or township. We were stunned. I believe there are some dry areas in Ohio yet.

[Mister D]

So do you. But there's opposition to that, that wants to impose a secular religion to exclude others.
Right. "Religion" is a just label they slap on values they don't like but the nature of all of our values remains the same. They act as if their values are based on something more than their own beliefs, sentiments, and desires.

[resister]

When my older sister got married, my brother and I were driving to Newark, Ohio from Sebring, Ohio. I forget the route but we stopped at a roadside store to get gas and wanted to get beer. We were told it was a dry county or township. We were stunned. I believe there are some dry areas in Ohio yet.
Talk about shake the dust from thy heels!

[Ethereal]

I don't recall speaking to any of those topics in this thread. I don't believe that I have ever discussed hate speech laws, I may have commented on minimum wage laws once or twice, but it's not something I've discussed in a long time. I assume by forced redistribution of wealth that you are referring to any number of social programs, so yes at some point or other I have commented on the social safety net, or universal healthcare. I discuss them, I'm not imposing them on anyone. That is not within my power.
You simply delegate the imposition of those things to a government proxy. But it's no less an imposition on that account.

[Chris]

When my older sister got married, my brother and I were driving to Newark, Ohio from Sebring, Ohio. I forget the route but we stopped at a roadside store to get gas and wanted to get beer. We were told it was a dry county or township. We were stunned. I believe there are some dry areas in Ohio yet.

I recall, years back, in Utah, at Ogden AFB, the area was dry, but you could drive an hour or so to find private bars where anyone with a Utah DL could invite you in.

[Mister D]

When my older sister got married, my brother and I were driving to Newark, Ohio from Sebring, Ohio. I forget the route but we stopped at a roadside store to get gas and wanted to get beer. We were told it was a dry county or township. We were stunned. I believe there are some dry areas in Ohio yet.
I looked up my state of NJ last night. There are 35 "dry" municipalities. I had no idea.

[Ethereal]

It's a rather strange constitution that only applies to federal government where any rights protected thereunder can be usurped by the individual states, counties and munipalities. That generally renders the constitution pretty much useless for practical purposes and the USA not really a nation, but a relationship of convenience, even less cohesive than the EU.

It's only strange if you ignore the fact that the States were independent, sovereign entities who only ceded a very limited amount of their powers in order to create a common defense and a common market.

And you are indeed correct that the USA is NOT a "nation", but a federation. That's why it's called the FEDERAL government. The Constitution was never meant to consolidate the entirety of American society under a unitary political system. Granted, it has, in many respects, turned out that way, but that was never the original intent.

[Ethereal]

Exactly right.

She's exactly wrong, actually.

The first amendment only limits what the US Congress may do. It says it right there in plain English. And that's exactly how the founders understood it at the time they ratified it.


You and I have no enforceable rights as an American if any Podunk legislature or pandering Governor can override the U.S. Constitution.

The only trustworthy guarantor of our rights are the people themselves. Putting one's faith in any government - federal, state, or local - to uphold those rights is pure folly.

The only reason why one would tend to prefer a local or state government to a federal government is because the former are less powerful, which makes it easier to resist any attempts by them to infringe upon the rights of the individual.


These are the sort of people who don't believe that the Fourteenth Amendment was lawfully ratified.

So what? A strong argument could be made that it wasn't.


These are the sort of people who don't understand that when a federal court takes up a case against a state or local government, it's one or more U.S. citizens exercising their right to seek justice as empowered by the Tenth Amendment - not the "feds stickin' their noses where they don't belong".

How does the tenth amendment - which is meant to protect state and local governments from federal infringement - empower federal courts to override state and local government?


You are arguing with people suffering from invincible, deliberate, self-imposed ignorance.

I'm merely repeating what the founding fathers themselves said at the time of the constitutional conventions:


The Federalist Papers : No. 45 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp)

...The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS...

Apparently, James Madison was also suffering from "invincible, deliberate, self-imposed ignorance".

[Ethereal]

I have ignored nothing. I just will not substitute your opinion for my own, nor do I really care about your exchange with other members at my expense. As to the post to which you were responding, theory is theory, reality, is something entirely different. The reality of observing the purist restrictions that constitutionalists advocate is the rampant violence that occurred in the 60s, which is why I mention them. If the historical reactions of people who oppose the freedom to discriminate is irrelevant to you, then fine. There is no point in further discussion because I live in the real world, where real people will not tolerate being treated like sh*t no matter how adamant the constitutional purists about rights of association. The Constitution only exists today because of amendments and the efforts of SCOTUS to keep it relevant. Reduced to its original form it would be tossed as an anachronism in the 21st century.

"I live in the real world"

Powerful argument.

Only, the founding fathers also lived in the real world, and they were pretty clear about the original intent of the US Constitution. It was never meant to usurp the sovereignty and independence of State and local governments. The fact that you get emotional about the thought of discriminatory practices occurring in such a context is neither here nor there.


Additionally, your remarks overlay a libertarian perspective on top of the Constitution which I do not view as a purely libertarian document. Such a view is very biased in favor of a form of government that I do not believe, for many reasons, could ever sustain a large population. It utterly ignores human psycho social dynamics and assumes that widespread tribal behavior will not result in warfare in the context of what is supposed to be one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. What justice is there if you are not tolerated by the majority and can be denied a place to eat, sleep or work because of rights of association as if you are not equally a citizen?

You are right about that, the US Constitution is not a purely libertarian document. In fact, it's not a libertarian document at all. The only reason the Constitution contains a Bill of Rights (which is its only libertarian component) is because the people who opposed the Constitution - the so-called anti-federalists - vehemently insisted on its inclusion.

In any case, the USA is not supposed to be one nation, and to think as much is fairly Utopian. Someone living in rural Mississippi has no meaningful connection to someone living in urban California. They merely possess a common interest with regards to defense and trade, which is what the Constitution was meant to facilitate. The idea that these two disparate individuals, living thousands of miles away from one another, belong to the same "nation" renders the concept of a "nation" so nebulous as to be perfectly meaningless.

[Ethereal]

It's something that I will never understand.

That might have something to do with the fact that you're not an American with deep ties to this country's founding.


If citizens cannot rely on the Constitution to protect their rights thereunder...

Why would anyone rely on a legal document to protect their rights?

And what about their right to democratic self-government, which is also codified by the constitution vis-a-vis the tenth amendment?


...what is the point of having a federal Constitution or even nation status?

The point of the federal constitution was to create a common defense and common market, not to turn Americans into a big, happy family with the US government inhabiting the role of daddy.


You could just have trade agreements, formalized defense compacts and a common currency. America could be as much of a backwater as South America with the same intrigue.

You think America is advanced and prosperous because it has a big and powerful central government?

[Ethereal]

The central question here is the influence of religion in politics. I think it's patently obvious that not only is such influence constitutional it's also impossible to prevent in a democracy (broad sense of the term). I say again that some people think religion has no place in public life. The faithful should leave their convictions at home because they are "religion" and thus somehow disqualified.
Given the fact that virtually every state and local government at the time of the formation of the constitution had a religious character of some sort, it seems pretty silly for "liberals" like Dr. Who to argue the unconstitutionality of such.

[Mister D]

Given the fact that virtually every state and local government at the time of the formation of the constitution had a religious character of some sort, it seems pretty silly for "liberals" like Dr. Who to argue the unconstitutionality of such.
This all stems from a fear and distrust of religion. If you do not share that malady I suppose it's hard to understand and it all sounds irrational.

[Ethereal]

Also, what rational basis is there for viewing the US government as a protector of individual rights? If anything, it is the biggest violator of such. Do people like Standing Wolf and Dr. Who actually expect US government officials and agents to use their vast powers for good instead of evil? Why? Because big, powerful governments have such a sterling track record of restraint and honesty? Putting one's faith in the US government to protect your rights is like relying on a serial rapist to babysit your daughter. It's absolutely delusional. Only a virtuous and enlightened people can be trusted to protect individual rights. And insofar as that is not generally a realistic expectation, the next best thing you can do is to strictly limit the power of governments by limiting the scale at which they operate. That is why the founding fathers pursued a FEDERAL form of government, because federalism tends to limit government power. By empowering the federal government to become the protector and guarantor of every individual's rights (real or perceived), you impart totalitarian powers onto that government in the vain hope that they'll use them to promote justice. But, as I've already explained, such a hope is patently ridiculous.

[Ethereal]

This all stems from a fear and distrust of religion. If you do not share that malady I suppose it's hard to understand and it all sounds irrational.
It also stems from a fear of genuine democracy. The idea of communities engaging in real self-government horrifies them. We need the steady hand of the sainted elites to guide the unwashed masses, lest they make the wrong choices for themselves.

[Mister D]

It also stems from a fear of genuine democracy. The idea of communities engaging in real self-government horrifies them. We need the steady hand of the sainted elites to guide the unwashed masses, lest they make the wrong choices for themselves.
I said so before. I put democracy second because they will immediately appeal to democracy just as soon as it's in their favor.

[Chris]

Yeah but they know better than you what is good for you. They just do. That's all.

[Ethereal]

I said so before. I put democracy second because they will immediately appeal to democracy just as soon as it's in their favor.
But only democracy in the abstract. Once you start talking about real democracy, they recoil.

[Ethereal]

Yeah but they know better than you what is good for you. They just do. That's all.
Well, they do live in the "real world", after all. The one where big, powerful governments protect individual rights instead of serially violating them.

[Dr. Who]

"I live in the real world"

Powerful argument.

Only, the founding fathers also lived in the real world, and they were pretty clear about the original intent of the US Constitution. It was never meant to usurp the sovereignty and independence of State and local governments. The fact that you get emotional about the thought of discriminatory practices occurring in such a context is neither here nor there.



You are right about that, the US Constitution is not a purely libertarian document. In fact, it's not a libertarian document at all. The only reason the Constitution contains a Bill of Rights (which is its only libertarian component) is because the people who opposed the Constitution - the so-called anti-federalists - vehemently insisted on its inclusion.

In any case, the USA is not supposed to be one nation, and to think as much is fairly Utopian. Someone living in rural Mississippi has no meaningful connection to someone living in urban California. They merely possess a common interest with regards to defense and trade, which is what the Constitution was meant to facilitate. The idea that these two disparate individuals, living thousands of miles away from one another, belong to the same "nation" renders the concept of a "nation" so nebulous as to be perfectly meaningless.
Then the reality of America is at odds with its constitution. Pledging allegiance to the flag makes no sense if there is no nation. The term national interest(s) makes no sense. Manifest destiny especially makes no sense. America has become what its citizens want it to be, but it cannot be that and comply with the intent of the Constitution. This inherent schizophrenia basically requires that SCOTUS minutely parse the words of Constitution and the various amendments to come up with rulings that are Constitutionally sound, while also recognizing that the nature of America is anything but that which it was at its birth. It's probably time for a referendum.

[Ethereal]

Then the reality of America is at odds with its constitution.

Perhaps. But certainly not in the way you mean it. Because America has not become, in any meaningful sense, a "nation". States and communities still have their own distinct characters and identities based on local traditions, customs, and culture, despite the attempt of crusading Utopians to erase them. So if the "reality of America" is at odds with the constitution, it's only because the constitution has been perverted by Utopians who want to supplant America's underlying diversity with a nebulous collectivism that treats 320 million disparate individuals as members of some kind of borg-like entity.


Pledging allegiance to the flag makes no sense if there is no nation.

The pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist in the late 1800's. It is a disgusting perversion meant to indoctrinate America's youth with mindless nationalism.


The term national interest(s) makes no sense. Manifest destiny especially makes no sense.

Okay? So what?


America has become what its citizens want it to be...

Then why do so many Americans feel increasingly disenfranchised and alienated? Do you think the popularity of Trump and Bernie Sanders are indications that Americans are satisfied with the status quo you're so passionately defending?


...but it cannot be that and comply with the intent of the Constitution. This inherent schizophrenia basically requires that SCOTUS minutely parse the words of Constitution and the various amendments to come up with rulings that are Constitutionally sound, while also recognizing that the nature of America is anything but that which it was at its birth. It's probably time for a referendum.

It's time to dissolve the "union" and accept reality. America is not a unified nation and it never was. To keep acting like it is is dangerous and Utopian. People can only maintain loyalty and respect for abstract legalisms like "the USA" for so long before they start demanding something realer and closer to home. Nobody wants to be in a big, dysfunctional political marriage with their despised political opponents. But because they've been indoctrinated with nationalism for so long, they don't know how to move forward without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

[Dr. Who]

Perhaps. But certainly not in the way you mean it. Because America has not become, in any meaningful sense, a "nation". States and communities still have their own distinct characters and identities based on local traditions, customs, and culture, despite the attempt of crusading Utopians to erase them. So if the "reality of America" is at odds with the constitution, it's only because the constitution has been perverted by Utopians who want to supplant America's underlying diversity with a nebulous collectivism that treats 320 million disparate individuals as members of some kind of borg-like entity.



The pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist in the late 1800's. It is a disgusting perversion meant to indoctrinate America's youth with mindless nationalism.



Okay? So what?



Then why do so Americans feel increasingly disenfranchised and alienated? Do you think the popularity of Trump and Bernie Sanders are indications that Americans are satisfied with the status quo you're so passionately defending?



It's time to dissolve the "union" and accept reality. America is not a unified nation and it never was. To keep acting like it is is dangerous and Utopian. People can only maintain loyalty and respect for abstract legalisms like "the USA" for so long before they start demanding something realer and closer to home. Nobody wants to be in a big, dysfunctional political marriage with their despised political opponents. But because they've been indoctrinated with nationalism for so long, they don't know how to move forward without experiencing cognitive dissonance.
I don't know if the only solution is to dissolve the union. Perhaps asking people whether they want a dissolution of the union and for each state to become a nation or a new Constitution that actually reflects a central government leaving some autonomy of the States, but still recognizing federal authority in matters of national interests.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't know if the only solution is to dissolve the union. Perhaps asking people whether they want a dissolution of the union and for each state to become a nation or a new Constitution that actually reflects a central government leaving some autonomy of the States, but still recognizing federal authority in matters of national interests.
It is not yet too late to restore federalism.

[Mister D]

Perhaps. But certainly not in the way you mean it. Because America has not become, in any meaningful sense, a "nation". States and communities still have their own distinct characters and identities based on local traditions, customs, and culture, despite the attempt of crusading Utopians to erase them. So if the "reality of America" is at odds with the constitution, it's only because the constitution has been perverted by Utopians who want to supplant America's underlying diversity with a nebulous collectivism that treats 320 million disparate individuals as members of some kind of borg-like entity.



The pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist in the late 1800's. It is a disgusting perversion meant to indoctrinate America's youth with mindless nationalism.



Okay? So what?



Then why do so many Americans feel increasingly disenfranchised and alienated? Do you think the popularity of Trump and Bernie Sanders are indications that Americans are satisfied with the status quo you're so passionately defending?



It's time to dissolve the "union" and accept reality. America is not a unified nation and it never was. To keep acting like it is is dangerous and Utopian. People can only maintain loyalty and respect for abstract legalisms like "the USA" for so long before they start demanding something realer and closer to home. Nobody wants to be in a big, dysfunctional political marriage with their despised political opponents. But because they've been indoctrinated with nationalism for so long, they don't know how to move forward without experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Whatever appeal American nationalism once had was lost when the national concept became divorced from history, culture and biology or, to borrow a favorite neocon phrase, when we became a "propositional nation". You are spot on about legalisms. That's all a term like "American" really is.

[Chris]

But but but the legalism is a positive thing!

[Mister D]

But but but the legalism is a positive thing!
In this case, I guess it depends on what you think about real, concrete communities and the commonalities (be they religious, ethnic or historical) they're predicated upon. If you prefer a boarding house full of strangers each jealously guarding their individual rights then these legalisms might be your thing. Sadly, many of our members are caught are attracted to both and don't understand they're incompatible. That's the primary problem with what we call social democracy socialism. It's a half-hearted attempt to recreate the social ties we need but still resent.