Beware, liberals are about to frame Christians!

[theprestige]

I'm confused. Haven't courts outlawed murder? (Most places anyway.)

: boggled :

You're confused. Legislatures outlaw murder, not the courts. More generally, "murder" connotes the immoral taking of human life, whether or not it has actually been outlawed as such.

People who consider abortion to be the immoral taking of human life might refer to it as "murder", which is reasonable. They will likely also urge their legislature to outlaw it as such, which is also reasonable. They will also likely oppose people who do not view it as murder and who wish to not outlaw it, which is also reasonable. Thus Ziggurat's argument, which I suspect does not confuse or boggle you as much as your disingenuity implies.

 

[Manopolus]

This isn't a persecution complex. Evangelicals know that your two bullets are unacceptable compromise. Let's not pretend liberals are doing evangelicals any favors. Liberal advances are a blow to evangelicals and they justifiably oppose it.

Number two in what you just quoted isn't that at all. It protects Evangelicals from having to send their children to Catholic-themed schools and being taught to perform Hail Marys every bit as much as it does an atheist from similar circumstances. We pretty much spelled out in The Constitution that using government authority to enforce religion was unacceptable. There are lesser situations short of enforcing blasphemy laws with beheadings that this concept also pertains to. The church/state separation protects religion much more than it hurts it -- in the form that it protects religious diversity.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Number two in what you just quoted isn't that at all. It protects Evangelicals from having to send their children to Catholic-themed schools and being taught to perform Hail Marys every bit as much as it does an atheist.

Education and indoctrination are two entirely separate things anyway.

But Evangelicals seems to think they are the same thing and they have a right to do it in a Christian nation. Not surprisingly, their Constitutional interpretation allows them to do a lot of things you say they can't.

You are an enemy to their cause. I just think we should embrace that rather than tell them we are not going to damage the existence.

 

[Manopolus]

Would you accept this argument?
No one is forcing anyone to murder an infant - the courts have simply refused any attempt to outlaw the act. If you don't like infant murder, don't murder an infant. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Do you see why this argument doesn't work? You have assumed things which are in fact in dispute. You are welcome to your beliefs, but you cannot expect to convince people with this reasoning if they don't share those beliefs.

We don't tend to pass laws against something that is "in dispute." Seriously, think about it. If a full half (or more) of the country disagrees with you, how the hell do you condone outlawing it in a democracy. In these "hot button" issues, what generally happens is that we piddle around the edges of the issue while not actually doing anything -- and then use it to divide the electorate again for the next election. The fact that it is a "divisive" issue is the exact reason for the hands-off approach.

When you've got two equal factions divided on the issue, no law is always preferable to outlawing something. It's just the obviously appropriate approach in areas of disagreement. The side which desires mostly to control the actions of others is always denied that power in such situations, and rightfully so.

It tends to work the same on the gun issue, BTW. Until there's a huge public outcry from a strong majority of the public, we'll just piddle around the edges and use it to further excite and divide the electorate. There's no chance of actually getting anything meaningful done without strong public support.

 

[Giordano]

But Evangelicals seems to think they are the same thing and they have a right to do it in a Christian nation.

You are an enemy to their cause. I just think we should embrace that rather than tell them we are not going to damage the existence.

I honestly think that you are overly generalizing here. There appear to be increasing numbers of Evangelists, especially among the younger believers, who do not think that Christianity should be tied to civil government. At least some of this represents the realization that such a tie might rebound on them leading to governmental control. But they also appear to favor the general separateness of the civil and religious spheres of influence.

There are certainly people who want to view the USA as a Christian nation, but there are also Evangelists who don't buy into that concept and share the liberal view on separation of church and state.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I honestly think that you are overly generalizing here. There appear to be increasing numbers of Evangelists, especially among the younger believers, who do not think that Christianity should be tied to civil government. At least some of this represents the realization that such a tie might rebound on them leading to governmental control. But they also appear to favor the general separateness of the civil and religious spheres of influence.

There are certainly people who want to view the USA as a Christian nation, but there are also Evangelists who don't buy into that concept and share the liberal view on separation of church and state.

Fair enough. II do mean the groups Travis links to here and in the social issues forum.

My point is they are right to oppose your political objectives giordano. They will clearly be the losers in that case.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I honestly think that you are overly generalizing here. There appear to be increasing numbers of Evangelists, especially among the younger believers, who do not think that Christianity should be tied to civil government. At least some of this represents the realization that such a tie might rebound on them leading to governmental control. But they also appear to favor the general separateness of the civil and religious spheres of influence.

There are certainly people who want to view the USA as a Christian nation, but there are also Evangelists who don't buy into that concept and share the liberal view on separation of church and state.

Anything over zero would be an increase, I think.

 

[Manopolus]

But Evangelicals seems to think they are the same thing and they have a right to do it in a Christian nation. Not surprisingly, their Constitutional interpretation allows them to do a lot of things you say they can't.

You are an enemy to their cause. I just think we should embrace that rather than tell them we are not going to damage the existence.

They do have the right to do it -- just not at the expense of the public. Private schools do exist, for instance, and no one is suggesting outlawing them. Private property has no restrictions with regard to religious activity. The separation restricts government, not individuals. Of course, it does apply pretty evenly to any person or group working on the government's behalf... which seems to cause some confusion on the other side. I think they are sometimes confused as to WHO is acting on the government's behalf (such as school teachers, etc.).

 

[BobTheCoward]

They do have the right to do it -- just not at the expense of the public. Private schools do exist and no one is suggesting outlawing them.

But they want to do it in public schools and you want to prevent them.

 

[Manopolus]

But they want to do it in public schools and you want to prevent them.

I pay for public schools (at least in part). That suggests that I am rightfully someone that should be involved in the decision, don't you think? Keeping religion out is no more than an acknowledgement that not everybody follows their religion in this case. Of course, that's BEFORE you consider the fact that a public school is a government entity and teachers are employees of the local government. It becomes pretty clear once you consider that. The government shouldn't involve itself with brainwashing, which is arguably what religion is when distributed to children in particular.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I pay for public schools (at least in part). That suggests that I am rightfully someone that should be involved in the decision, don't you think? Keeping religion out is no more than an acknowledgement that not everybody follows their religion in this case. Of course, that's BEFORE you consider the fact that a public school is a government entity. It becomes pretty clear once you consider that.

I don't think they care.

 

[Manopolus]

I don't think they care.

I'm pretty sure that's something we can agree upon. The whole damn thing is nothing but an attempt by religious groups to use the government to increase their own power. It's got nothing to do with what anyone actually thinks is right. Mostly, it's just people using religious identity to increase their own political clout -- which is also against the stated ideals of the religion itself in no uncertain terms, oddly enough (Matthew 6:5, among other verses).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You're confused. Legislatures outlaw murder, not the courts. More generally, "murder" connotes the immoral taking of human life, whether or not it has actually been outlawed as such.

People who consider abortion to be the immoral taking of human life might refer to it as "murder", which is reasonable. They will likely also urge their legislature to outlaw it as such, which is also reasonable. They will also likely oppose people who do not view it as murder and who wish to not outlaw it, which is also reasonable. Thus Ziggurat's argument, which I suspect does not confuse or boggle you as much as your disingenuity implies.

Snicker.

 

[Ziggurat]

We don't tend to pass laws against something that is "in dispute."

Sure we do. All the bloody time.

Seriously, think about it. If a full half (or more) of the country disagrees with you, how the hell do you condone outlawing it in a democracy.

First, you've changed the subject: arguing that laws should reflect the majority opinion is different from saying that there's no dispute, you're merely arguing for a particular method of dealing with the dispute. Second, have you forgotten already that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling removed much of the issue from democratic consideration? Third, what is legal is different than what is moral, and what the law is can diverge from what the law should be. There's nothing illogical about having a belief which contradicts the law or majority opinion, nor is there anything wrong with wanting to change the law and convince your fellow citizens to help do that.

In these "hot button" issues, what generally happens is that we piddle around the edges of the issue while not actually doing anything -- and then use it to divide the electorate again for the next election. The fact that it is a "divisive" issue is the exact reason for the hands-off approach.

That is a tactical decision which tells us nothing about the rightness or wrongness of either position. Furthermore, it's not even obvious that this is the right tactical decision (see: slavery and the Civil War).

When you've got two equal factions divided on the issue, no law is always preferable to outlawing something. It's just the obviously appropriate approach in areas of disagreement. The side which desires mostly to control the actions of others is always denied that power in such situations, and rightfully so.

Except again, you're assuming things which are in dispute. You are appealing to the interests of the pregnant woman who wants an abortion (the person whose actions are being controlled), but ignoring the interests of the fetus, because you do not think the fetus has interests worthy of equivalent consideration. But not everyone agrees on this point. If the fetus has similarly important interests, then preventing the death of that fetus is less onerous than preventing an abortion, because death is basically the biggest restriction possible on someone's freedom.

 

[Travis]

But they want to do it in public schools and you want to prevent them.

Do what in public schools?

 

[Corsair 115]

I can't but help be a little amused that Travis delights in the skewering of the religious right, but seems less interested in skewering the 'social progressive' left which is quite happily putting freedom of speech under assault, to say nothing of its continued advancement of divisive identity politics.

But, I guess we all have our ideological blind spots...

 

[Manopolus]

Sure we do. All the bloody time.



First, you've changed the subject: arguing that laws should reflect the majority opinion is different from saying that there's no dispute, you're merely arguing for a particular method of dealing with the dispute. Second, have you forgotten already that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling removed much of the issue from democratic consideration? Third, what is legal is different than what is moral, and what the law is can diverge from what the law should be. There's nothing illogical about having a belief which contradicts the law or majority opinion, nor is there anything wrong with wanting to change the law and convince your fellow citizens to help do that.



That is a tactical decision which tells us nothing about the rightness or wrongness of either position. Furthermore, it's not even obvious that this is the right tactical decision (see: slavery and the Civil War).



Except again, you're assuming things which are in dispute. You are appealing to the interests of the pregnant woman who wants an abortion (the person whose actions are being controlled), but ignoring the interests of the fetus, because you do not think the fetus has interests worthy of equivalent consideration. But not everyone agrees on this point. If the fetus has similarly important interests, then preventing the death of that fetus is less onerous than preventing an abortion, because death is basically the biggest restriction possible on someone's freedom.

As far as anybody can tell, a fetus doesn't seem to have an ideological preference though. They might even arguably prefer an early retreat to non-existence over being unwanted if they can be said to have a preference at all (which they can't). Of course, the sorts of notions of the inviolability of human life concerned here can be taken to extremes beyond trying to protect a few stray sexual cells that got hooked up for reasons other than the intent to create a new life. The dividing line is a bit unclear, yes.

...but that's exactly why it is a personal decision rather than a government one.

The very fact that the issue is intertwined with religion suggests that the government should stay out of it almost entirely. Quite frankly, anti-abortion groups would have a lot more credibility if they left religion out of it, since the government is heavily restricted on religious issues anyway. The way things are, it has all the appearances of being a religion (or group of religions) trying to perform a hostile takeover of the government, mainly because that is exactly how it is organized politically. Ultimately, that's what it is whether that's the intent or not with this type of organization.

Of course, the repeated assumption that they speak for all Christians doesn't help. There are plenty of Christians out there (including my former pastor) that disagree with the whole anti-abortion lobby. That sets up a situation where the government is being asked to choose between one take on the religion and another... which is explicitly forbidden constitutionally, even if you assume we're a "Christian" country (which we aren't in any fashion other than a mere description of the majority population).

 

[psionl0]

Barbwire is not insignificant. They are part of the support network that was behind Kim Davis in Kentucky. If they can help things like that happen then they are not insignificant.

That they agree with the actions of a county clerk doesn't make them significant. Did they influence her decision to make a stand? Did they bankroll her defence?

Read through their archive here. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/barbwire

Right Wing Watch - another "significant" web site.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do what in public schools?

Go back to public prayer that was distinctly Christian, led by the teacher, and purposely excluded other faith.

 

[theprestige]

Snicker.

Huh. I honestly didn't expect you to concede all of my points so quickly. Go me!