elengil wrote:Scriptural statements of belief by definition have no place in 'freedom of religion' causes.
The first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, therefore, protects the exercise of religion that is based on scriptural statements. By changing the definition of 'marriage,' the government has forced Christians of a certain ilk to blaspheme every time they check the 'married' box on a form. Forcing Christians to call men, women is the same. Forcing bakers to use their creative energies in support of blasphemous concepts is the same. This is certainly an interference in the free exercise of religion, it is coercing these Christians to bow down to a secular god.
. . . our laws are not based on Christianity but on a founding principle enshrined in the Constitution that says there is no established religion that everyone must follow.
And that no law may prohibit the free exercise of religion. These laws/rulings regarding marriage and gender are prohibiting the free exercise of religion by coercing behavior that violates beliefs.
Evangelicals are free to believe it, they are free to abstain from what they believe is wrong,
No, they are no longer free to abstain from what they believe is wrong, because the government is passing laws (or issuing rulings) pertaining to biblical concepts, which the first amendment protects the right of people to believe in.
but they are not free to use law to enforce their views on others - the very definition of "shoving their religion down the throats" of people who don't share those beliefs
I'm guessing you don't see the irony of this statement -- it perfectly describes what the courts have done in response to LGBTQ lawsuits, and also perfectly describes the behavior you are defending in the TERF thread.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
This board has had the debate about gay marriage with Cerin about a million times. If some people want to have that debate yet again, I don't think it belongs in this thread.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
My township just posted this on their Facebook page:
A message to our voters:
Many residents are receiving multiple Absentee Ballot Applications. We know that this is very frustrating and assure you that the Township Clerk’s Office is not responsible for sending them. We do not send out unsolicited Absentee Ballot Applications. They are being sent by third-party entities, and very often contain wrong information or are for voters no longer at the address. If you receive one in the mail, the best action to take is to destroy it. If you requested one from the Clerk, please complete it and return it to the Township Hall as soon as possible.
We're a tiny town of no electoral significance, but evidently some scammer(s) still saw fit to target the area.
Dave_LF wrote:We're a tiny town of no electoral significance, but evidently some scammer(s) still saw fit to target the area.
I often wonder if exactly the reason these little towns of no significance are targeted is trial runs to see if it's worth it in larger, more significant areas.
The dumbest thing I've ever bought
was a 2020 planner.
"Does anyone ever think about Denethor, the guy driven to madness by staying up late into the night alone in the dark staring at a flickering device he believed revealed unvarnished truth about the outside word, but which in fact showed mostly manipulated media created by a hostile power committed to portraying nothing but bad news framed in the worst possible way in order to sap hope, courage, and the will to go on? Seems like he's someone we should think about." - Dave_LF
How many 'tiny towns of no electoral significance' does it take to lose an election?
Yov, same sex marriage is certainly relevant to the discussion about this election. Sadly, it will not be long before marriage between two consenting adults will once again be illegal in much of the country.
Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I had no intention of engaging specifically in a discussion on marriage equality in this thread. I was (attempting to) engage in a discussion on the First Amendment principle of there being no establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof which is an individual freedom for yourself, not the ability to enforce your religious principles or prohibitions on others. Any law that attempts to prevent a person from doing X because the religion of someone else prohibits it violates this principle. It is just as true for marriage as it is for the consumption of pork or the sale of alcohol or the raising of beef for meat. No one's religion should be used to force or prevent someone else from fully enjoying their own individual freedom. That *IS* shoving your religion down other people's throats.
The dumbest thing I've ever bought
was a 2020 planner.
"Does anyone ever think about Denethor, the guy driven to madness by staying up late into the night alone in the dark staring at a flickering device he believed revealed unvarnished truth about the outside word, but which in fact showed mostly manipulated media created by a hostile power committed to portraying nothing but bad news framed in the worst possible way in order to sap hope, courage, and the will to go on? Seems like he's someone we should think about." - Dave_LF
but they are not free to use law to enforce their views on others - the very definition of "shoving their religion down the throats" of people who don't share those beliefs
I'm guessing you don't see the irony of this statement -- it perfectly describes what the courts have done in response to LGBTQ lawsuits, and also perfectly describes the behavior you are defending in the TERF thread.
There is no law or lawsuit being discussed in the TERF thread. The only sideways mention of law I've seen is my statement that violent threats or actions are absolutely unjustified and likely to be criminal. Would you like to expand beyond that exactly what behavior you think I'm defending otherwise?
Because right now you clearly are also not seeing the irony of not wanting other views shoved down your throat while categorically choosing not to see that religious beliefs enforced on others is exactly the same thing.
The dumbest thing I've ever bought
was a 2020 planner.
"Does anyone ever think about Denethor, the guy driven to madness by staying up late into the night alone in the dark staring at a flickering device he believed revealed unvarnished truth about the outside word, but which in fact showed mostly manipulated media created by a hostile power committed to portraying nothing but bad news framed in the worst possible way in order to sap hope, courage, and the will to go on? Seems like he's someone we should think about." - Dave_LF
Dave_LF Township wrote:If you receive one in the mail, the best action to take is to destroy it.
I think this is bad/wrong advice from the Township. Anything potentially related to election fraud should be collected for possible investigation. I would say it is fraudulent to impersonate or carry out actions that are legally assigned to election officials.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
elengil wrote:I had no intention of engaging specifically in a discussion on marriage equality in this thread. I was (attempting to) engage in a discussion on the First Amendment principle of there being no establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof which is an individual freedom for yourself, not the ability to enforce your religious principles or prohibitions on others. Any law that attempts to prevent a person from doing X because the religion of someone else prohibits it violates this principle. It is just as true for marriage as it is for the consumption of pork or the sale of alcohol or the raising of beef for meat. No one's religion should be used to force or prevent someone else from fully enjoying their own individual freedom. That *IS* shoving your religion down other people's throats.
elengil, exactly. We are not a theocracy, very much intentionally so. Citizens of the USA are not subject to any Christian Canon, Halakha, Sharia, Hindu, Buddhist or any other religious laws. Period.
Dave_LF wrote:My township just posted this on their Facebook page:
Quote:
A message to our voters:
Many residents are receiving multiple Absentee Ballot Applications. We know that this is very frustrating and assure you that the Township Clerk’s Office is not responsible for sending them. We do not send out unsolicited Absentee Ballot Applications. They are being sent by third-party entities, and very often contain wrong information or are for voters no longer at the address. If you receive one in the mail, the best action to take is to destroy it. If you requested one from the Clerk, please complete it and return it to the Township Hall as soon as possible.
We're a tiny town of no electoral significance, but evidently some scammer(s) still saw fit to target the area.
Dave, When we requested our absentee ballots earlier this year my husband got his but I did not so I called the town and they sent another one but they told me that if the original should show up I should destroy it as if 2 ballots were turned in it would invalidate both.
That said, it would be interesting to get to the bottom of anyone sending out fake ballots. You might be surprised how a few skillfully placed ballots could tilt a gerrymandered area. There seems to be a lot of smaller targeted tactics at play in this election, like getting fake (non-serious) candidates on the ballot. They seem to have learned a lot from Konstantin Kilimnik and Paul Manafort.
So, the elephant in the room: Trump's enormous debt to foreign entities, his taxes, and other issues that make him very much a National security risk. All Presidential candidates should be vetted for security clearances before the get the security codes and all the secrets. It could be for sale to the highest bidder. Shesh.
Dave_LF Township wrote:If you receive one in the mail, the best action to take is to destroy it.
I think this is bad/wrong advice from the Township. Anything potentially related to election fraud should be collected for possible investigation. I would say it is fraudulent to impersonate or carry out actions that are legally assigned to election officials.
Yes. Better to ask it be turned in so they can bring evidence to authorities. Compliance with the request might be low, but any compliance would be helpful in a situation like this. Though it could be possible they've already collected enough of the fakes to make a case. At best it's a snail-mail variant of phishing and at worst it's an attempt to suppress votes by confusing people.
I actually thought that Trump came off much better in the first question regarding Barrett’s appointment. I almost got the impression from Biden that he didn’t actually believe his own answer. Trump’s plain and direct speaking style is undoubtedly an advantage.
About five minutes in, Trump went off the rails with his rant about socialism and the far left. Biden seemed to gain confidence.
Fifteen minutes in, Biden seems to be doing better and has regained some of his mojo. He’s presenting more like he did back in the famous 2008 debate with Sarah Palin, although there’s no doubt he’s showing some signs of the intervening 12 years.
Twenty minutes in, back on Barrett. Biden sounds formulaic – this topic isn’t a winner for him.
The moderator’s questions strike me as fair, but he’s struggling with Trump.
As a trivial aside, Biden is nowhere near as rich as Trump, and doesn’t spend as much on his clothes (the President wears made-to-measure Brioni), but he’s the better dressed. His jacket fits better, his tie looks better under the studio lighting, and I’ve always liked his signature three-point pocket square fold.
Onto COVID – I’m not sure why Biden hasn’t simply raised Trump’s denials of the seriousness of the crisis in March and April. But “get out of your bunker and off the golf course” is a good line.
Trump’s answer on COVID is actually pretty good.
Interesting that the President keeps calling Biden “Joe”. Probably a good move.
Biden’s “empty chair at the dining table” line is also pretty good. He’s got a few of them, either from him or his speechwriters. I’m not sure how well they land though, it looks like he’s gone into a fencing match against someone who’s trying to hit him with a baseball bat.
Both Biden and the moderator are struggling to deal with the way Trump keeps confidently rolling off claims which may or may not be correct (I suspect many aren’t, but I have no way of fact-checking him live).
“She said it.”
“She didn’t say it.”
“She did say it.”
The debate isn’t as bad as I expected, but it has a lot of tiresome moments.
“ur dumb”
“no u”
I like the Constitution backdrop.
The moderator struggles with Trump’s Gish Gallop. If these debates are going to work, they’ll need to find a way to grapple with it.
“…you were holding much smaller events…”
“Because nobody would show up.”
Sorry, that line got a laugh from me, although I’m not sure if I was laughing with the President or at him.
Trump seems to simultaneously be accusing Biden of refusing to shut the economy and then wanting to shut it down.
There’s the $750 tax line.
Biden’s answer on job losses is great, but I’m not sure if he’s really making a point about economic policy – poor front-line workers would have lost their jobs first in any case.
But now he’s rambling.
These men aren’t great at keeping on-message. A few times I was left wondering what their point actually was.
I feel like I’m watching a boxing match where both fighters are blindfolded.
Trump has insisted that he paid millions of dollars in income taxes in 2016 and 2017.
Biden really should have had a stronger answer to the question on Trump’s taxes. It doesn’t help that Trump comes out with shotgun interjections, but Biden should have been prepared for this.
Forty-five minutes in, I actually think Trump might be coming off better overall. He was coming in with low expectations, hasn’t said anything obviously ridiculous, and seems more confident and energetic. Biden seems tired of dealing with Trump, but it makes him look tired overall.
Biden should have taken a leaf out of Jonathan Swan’s book, calmly pressed the President on the details, and reacted with incredulity when Trump said anything odd. “Your position has been totally discredited by everyone” is not a great answer.
“It’s hard to get any word in with this clown”.
I appreciate Biden’s frustration, but it looks like Trump is getting to him. Something like Ronald Reagan’s resigned “there you go again” in the 1984 debate with Walter Mondale would work better.
“He doesn’t want to talk about what you need.”
Good idea, but he should have been calmer when he said it.
While I think Trump has seemed to hold the upper hand, I don’t expect the debate to make all that much difference. Both candidates talked to their own supporters.
Trump just accused Biden of unfairly keeping African-Americans in gaol, and twenty seconds later, said he couldn’t even talk about law enforcement because of his radical left supporters. I wonder why Biden doesn’t go on the attack over these lines in the same way Trump does.
For all his talk of working-class people in Pennsylvania, I’m struggling to understand how Biden’s answers would appeal to them. Which is odd, because he comes from a working-class background in Pennsylvania and I don’t.
Good hit by Biden on the “defund the police” question.
Watching these debates, I don’t know why Democrats don’t hit hip-pocket issues more. “We will get you healthcare” has been a winning message for centre-left parties throughout the western world since the 1940s.
On that note, did the President just blame Biden for veterans dying because they didn’t have health insurance?
Once the discussion turned to Beau, Biden really got Trump on the ropes. His personal story is definitely one of Biden’s advantages, to the point that I think his best message is: “I’m an ordinary guy from Scranton, I’m not as rich as most politicians, and I know from experience how much life can suck sometimes”. Plus Trump’s refusal to shut up backfired this time.
Trump clearly doesn’t like to talk about climate change. But Biden didn’t really take the opportunity presented. He said “in fact” three sentences in a row.
That said, he’s doing better now – “America as the global moral leader” and “rebuilding the economy” are constructive talking points.
“Create hard, hard good jobs”. Biden really should have practiced his soundbites. Trump seems to have a knack for coming up with them on the fly.
Trump’s final response on voter fraud was pretty nutty, which is not surprising given the things he’s said on the issue (what exactly has he caught on video?). I think Biden handled it pretty well.
And the debate comes to its conclusion with the President of the United States of America calling on his supporters to engage in vigilantism on election day. Fun times.
I'm trying to figure out who the bigger loser was, the moderator or the audience. Probably the audience. Unless the moderator was not, in fact, paid to be there.
Túrin, thanks for your commentary. Your impressions were more positive than mine. I felt that it was simply chaotic because of the Trump interruptions. I feel kind of bad for Chris Wallace -- he looked quite shaken at some points, I guess he is able to exert more control on his show interviews. I expect he will be criticized from both sides.
cross post with River
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
One friend of mine who watched it says the moderator needs to be able to turn off Trump's mike. It's about the only way to keep him in check!
She said the moderator of one of the 2016 debates she watched had just as much trouble keeping him from interrupting and bullying the other speaker.
When the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long,
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
Yes, I agree! They really need to get some control over it!
When the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long,
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
Sunsilver wrote:One friend of mine who watched it says the moderator needs to be able to turn off Trump's mike. It's about the only way to keep him in check!
She said the moderator of one of the 2016 debates she watched had just as much trouble keeping him from interrupting and bullying the other speaker.
They can't turn off the mike's unless both parties agree to it and Trump is not likely to agree to it because that is probably part of his debate strategy, interrupting, not following the rules or being considerate to the other party. It's a form of bullying. He's rude and vulgar. It's what he does.
Túrin, it's interesting that you mentioned Trump calling Biden 'Joe' because it's one of the things Trump's niece said that would get under Trump's skin.. to be called 'Donald'. I don't think it bothered Biden as much as it would have bothered Trump who sees it as a way of demeaning someone, in this case belittling Biden as 'lesser' or subservient. I also find it weird when Trump refers to himself in the third person.
River wrote:What about a Cone of Silence? Or a fire blanket? Any rules about dropping one of those on his head?
On a serious note, Trump's dog whistle to (illegal) right-wing militias/vigilantism if he doesn't get his way/re-elected is simply horrific. This isn't the first time he's called for that either.
Some of the groups are already putting out banners on Twitter with "Stand Back and Stand By" on them. This might actually be the moment which comes to define this debate. And there's another two to go.
