Anti-CRT law also bans Christianity

[Dutch Uncle]

However fabricating a problem is fabricating a problem.

The government does not do what you and she are trying to say it does. That's fabrication, not "overstating".

What are you claiming I said? Is “under God” not in the Constitution? Aren’t many of our laws Christian-based? Especially Republican agenda items?

Here’s what the Libertarian Party has to say about it: https://www.lp.org/platform/
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

They are to be neutral. But, they can accommodate religion--Xmas holidays, Good Friday....

…and Ramadan, Hanukkah, etc. Agreed they should be neutral but as this discussion is pointing out, many on this forum want their beliefs forced upon others even if those beliefs are religiously based.

 

[Flash]

…and Ramadan, Hanukkah, etc. Agreed they should be neutral but as this discussion is pointing out, many on this forum want their beliefs forced upon others even if those beliefs are religiously based.

Ramadan and Hanukkah are not universal holidays because not nearly as many people practice them. If government is going to provide x number of holidays for workers, it can make those on the dates most will be celebrating.

I don't think people want religious beliefs forced on others since abortion is not necessarily a religious belief. It is a political issue since the debate is whether government will make it legal or illegal. People also want laws against murder, assault, rape, etc. because it protects life and safety. But, most atheists or those with no religious affiliation still support laws against murder, child molestation. Most religious people and non-religious favor laws protecting life and property.

Is wanting government to have universal health insurance forcing religion on people because they cite the Bible wanting to take care of the poor?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Ramadan and Hanukkah are not universal holidays because not nearly as many people practice them. If government is going to provide x number of holidays for workers, it can make those on the dates most will be celebrating.

When did popularity of a religion trump the Constitution? <—- see what I did there?

Are you stating that if Islam became the predominant religion of the US, that you’re fine with schools, businesses and our government only recognizing Islamic holidays? Passing laws with Islamic undertones like “proper” dress for women and girls?

Is our government a Christian government or a secular government? Which should it be?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't think people want religious beliefs forced on others since abortion is not necessarily a religious belief. It is a political issue since the debate is whether government will make it legal or illegal. People also want laws against murder, assault, rape, etc. because it protects life and safety. But, most atheists or those with no religious affiliation still support laws against murder, child molestation. Most religious people and non-religious favor laws protecting life and property.

Is wanting government to have universal health insurance forcing religion on people because they cite the Bible wanting to take care of the poor?

Dude, you are conflating individual rights with removing the rights of others.

Clearly you equate a woman taking Plan B with murder and child molestation. I disagree. A zygote is not a human being, not a child and certainly not an American citizen. Why do you make them equal?

 

[Flash]

When did popularity of a religion trump the Constitution? <—- see what I did there?

Are you stating that if Islam became the predominant religion of the US, that you’re fine with schools, businesses and our government only recognizing Islamic holidays? Passing laws with Islamic undertones like “proper” dress for women and girls?

Is our government a Christian government or a secular government? Which should it be?

It is secular. We do have civil rights laws allowing employees to accommodate people for religious practices and holidays.

And, it does not trump the Constitution but is the justification for allowing government to set holidays for those dates. To meet the constitutional guidelines for freedom and establishment cases, the first test is whether the law/policy has a secular purpose.

What is the secular purpose for making a holiday for Xmas? Government has a right to protect workers through laws on working conditions and hours, so setting one of those holidays as Xmas accommodates what most people already celebrate and many would not show up for work, anyway. The same argument was used to uphold as constitutional the Sunday closing laws (blue laws).

If government chooses to set 12 monthly holidays for workers, they make the Dec holiday Xmas. It is not about religion but an employee holiday .

Treating all religions equally does not make something constitutional; for example, you cannot allow each religion to cite a prayer in school.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It is secular. We do have civil rights laws allowing employees to accommodate people for religious practices and holidays.

And, it does not trump the Constitution but is the justification for allowing government to set holidays for those dates. To meet the constitutional guidelines for freedom and establishment cases, the first test is whether the law/policy has a secular purpose.

What is the secular purpose for making a holiday for Xmas? Government has a right to protect workers through laws on working conditions and hours, so setting one of those holidays as Xmas accommodates what most people already celebrate and many would not show up for work, anyway. The same argument was used to uphold as constitutional the Sunday closing laws (blue laws).

If government chooses to set 12 monthly holidays for workers, they make the Dec holiday Xmas. It is not about religion but an employee holiday .

Treating all religions equally does not make something constitutional; for example, you cannot allow each religion to cite a prayer in school.

So you’re okay with the Federal government giving a wink and a nod to Christians but not Jews or Muslims? Interesting.

 

[Flash]

Dude, you are conflating individual rights with removing the rights of others.

Clearly you equate a woman taking Plan B with murder and child molestation. I disagree. A zygote is not a human being, not a child and certainly not an American citizen. Why do you make them equal?

The point is not whether a zygote is a human life-that is an individual opinion. The point is that many people want abortion prohibited and that is their political opinion and government has the right to prohibit it after 24 weeks (and longer if Roe is overturned).

That political opinion does not necessarily have anything to do with religion. I am not comparing taking Plan B with murder but the political choice of deciding what acts we want criminalized--murder, abortion, marijuana, assisted suicide, gambling, prostitution.

It is not the seriousness of the crime but the choice of government to criminalizes that act. You can be for government criminalizing gambling or marijuana or prostitution without it being your religious view you are trying to force on others.

All I am saying is that those who oppose abortion are not trying to force religious views on us any more than those who want misdemeanor theft criminalized. I don't know if abortion is in the Bible, but theft is; but, nobody wants theft legalized because people are trying to force their religion on us. They only use that argument for abortion.

If Roe is overturned then there will be no right being taken away from anyone.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The point is not whether a zygote is a human life-that is an individual opinion. The point is that many people want abortion prohibited and that is their political opinion and government has the right to prohibit it after 24 weeks (and longer if Roe is overturned).

That political opinion does not necessarily have anything to do with religion. I am not comparing taking Plan B with murder but the political choice of deciding what acts we want criminalized--murder, abortion, marijuana, assisted suicide, gambling, prostitution.

It is not the seriousness of the crime but the choice of government to criminalizes that act. You can be for government criminalizing gambling or marijuana or prostitution without it being your religious view you are trying to force on others.

All I am saying is that those who oppose abortion are not trying to force religious views on us any more than those who want misdemeanor theft criminalized. I don't know if abortion is in the Bible, but theft is; but, nobody wants theft legalized because people are trying to force their religion on us. They only use that argument for abortion.

If Roe is overturned then there will be no right being taken away from anyone.

When people conflate depriving others of rights such as murder or child molestation with individual choices like marijuana and Plan B, it muddies the waters about the line be unalienable rights and the authority of government.

Disagreed that abortion is not, at base, a religious issue just like anti-gay marriage.

 

[Flash]

When people conflate depriving others of rights such as murder or child molestation with individual choices like marijuana and Plan B, it muddies the waters about the line be unalienable rights and the authority of government.

Disagreed that abortion is not, at base, a religious issue just like anti-gay marriage.

If I want to prohibit abortion and my reasons are totally religious, it does not make that law unconstitutional because it violates the establishment of religion clause. My reasons are irrelevant, it is the motive and text of the law that matter. So, the "forcing their religion" on us is a political and not a legal issue.

All government laws force their opinions on us.

I know few atheists who oppose abortion but many atheists who opposed gay marriage that had nothing to do with religion or hating gays. They just didn't see a reason for messing with marriage, disliking it "forced" on them, etc. Our perceptions of the motives of others are often distorted by our prejudices.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

If I want to prohibit abortion and my reasons are totally religious, it does not make that law unconstitutional because it violates the establishment of religion clause. My reasons are irrelevant, it is the motive and text of the law that matter. So, the "forcing their religion" on us is a political and not a legal issue.

All government laws force their opinions on us.

I know few atheists who oppose abortion but many atheists who opposed gay marriage that had nothing to do with religion or hating gays. They just didn't see a reason for messing with marriage, disliking it "forced" on them, etc. Our perceptions of the motives of others are often distorted by our prejudices.

Do you believe the purpose of government is to protect our rights or to give us our rights/limit our unalienable rights?

 

[Flash]

Do you believe the purpose of government is to protect our rights or to give us our rights/limit our unalienable rights?

One function of the government is to protect our rights but it also grants those rights by enumerating those we possess.

The purpose of government as created by the constitutional convention was to give increased powers to the central government to correct some of the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution creates the structure of government, grants powers to that government, and limits the powers of government.

Madison said the purpose of government was to "cure the mischiefs of factions.

For those who say "government does not give rights," only the Constitution (and the states)insured our right to confront our accusers, speedy trial, right to trial in civil cases, grand jury indictment, right to an attorney, impartial jury, excessive bail.....

 

[Dutch Uncle]

One function of the government is to protect our rights but it also grants those rights by enumerating those we possess.

The purpose of government as created by the constitutional convention was to give increased powers to the central government to correct some of the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution creates the structure of government, grants powers to that government, and limits the powers of government.

Madison said the purpose of government was to "cure the mischiefs of factions.

For those who say "government does not give rights," only the Constitution (and the states)insured our right to confront our accusers, speedy trial, right to trial in civil cases, grand jury indictment, right to an attorney, impartial jury, excessive bail.....

Thanks but disagreed although I agree that’s the common Democratic Party view and, after Trump, the Republican Party view.

I prefer the Libertarian view: https://www.lp.org/platform/
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

 

[Flash]

Thanks but disagreed although I agree that’s the common Democratic Party view and, after Trump, the Republican Party view.

I prefer the Libertarian view: https://www.lp.org/platform/
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

I consider myself libertarian and do not see any conflict between my beliefs or previous statements and the platform statement above. However, that is very general and does not cover the specifics. For example, if government cannot abridge freedom of speech and press, does that mean those rights are absolute (if they cannot be abridge)?

No speech can be restricted (threats, slander) or no press restrictions (pornography, child pornography, libel)?

Also, what about those rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights that are not inalienable (fair trial, search, jury trial)?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I consider myself libertarian and do not see any conflict between my beliefs or previous statements and the platform statement above. However, that is very general and does not cover the specifics. For example, if government cannot abridge freedom of speech and press, does that mean those rights are absolute (if they cannot be abridge)?

No speech can be restricted (threats, slander) or no press restrictions (pornography, child pornography, libel)?

Also, what about those rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights that are not inalienable (fair trial, search, jury trial)?

You can’t have it both ways: You can’t have both Freedom of Speech and “abridge” what you don’t like.

That’s different than making it illegal for one person to threaten to murder another either online or in person. The purpose of government is to protect rights and resolve disputes between conflicting rights.

On the Starbucks thread both far Right and far Left members are supporting big business to dominate workers, gutting the rights of Americans to self-help.

Other threads are heavy with either Lefties seeking to ban high capacity magazines because a few mentally ill wackos used them to murder people or Righties seeking to keep women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Congrats! You’re in the “norm”.

 

[Flash]

You can’t have it both ways: You can’t have both Freedom of Speech and “abridge” what you don’t like.

That’s different than making it illegal for one person to threaten to murder another either online or in person. The purpose of government is to protect rights and resolve disputes between conflicting rights.

That is exactly what you are doing (having freedom of speech and abridging what you don't like). Making it illegal to threaten a person is abridging free speech. It does not protect life because a threat is not an act. If the person harms another then he is prosecuted for that action.

Personally, I favor the exception made for threats, but I also recognize is it abridging free speech. So, we are having it both ways although it is consistent with the intent of the 1st Amendment which protected speech about public issues. Murder is very different since it is an act and not speech.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That is exactly what you are doing (having freedom of speech and abridging what you don't like). Making it illegal to threaten a person is abridging free speech. It does not protect life because a threat is not an act. If the person harms another then he is prosecuted for that action.

Personally, I favor the exception made for threats, but I also recognize is it abridging free speech. So, we are having it both ways although it is consistent with the intent of the 1st Amendment which protected speech about public issues. Murder is very different since it is an act and not speech.

Disagreed. I’m protecting the rights of others from attack.

There’s a difference between screaming “I’m going to put a bullet in Trump’s head” and “Donald Trump is a kiddie fucking wannabe dictator”.

You seem to see them as the same abridgment of free speech. I do not. One is a threat, the other is an opinion supported by fact.

 

[Flash]

Disagreed. I’m protecting the rights of others from attack.

There’s a difference between screaming “I’m going to put a bullet in Trump’s head” and “Donald Trump is a kiddie fucking wannabe dictator”.

You seem to see them as the same abridgment of free speech. I do not. One is a threat, the other is an opinion supported by fact.

They are not the same according to constitutional law. "I'm going to put a bullet in Trump's head" is a specific act aimed at a specific person. If we can prove you are capable and serious about that act is it not protected speech and you can be prosecuted.

"Donald Trump is a kiddie fucking wannabe dictator" does not threaten any specific person with a specific violent act and is not a threat and is protected speech. You would have difficulty supporting it by fact, but that is irrelevant.

However, in the first example you are protecting a person from the threat of an attack and not an actual attack.

What about this example: At about 1:15 a.m. on Oct. 22, 2008, Bagdasarian posted on a Yahoo message board under the username “californiaradial”: “Re: Obama fk the niggar, he will have a .50 cal in the head soon.” Twenty minutes later, the same user also posted: “shoot the nig country fkd for another 4 years+, what nig has done ANYTHING right???? long term???? never in history, except sambos.”

Or this one:'“They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J. . . .They are not going to make me kill my black brothers.”'

 

[Dutch Uncle]

They are not the same according to constitutional law. "I'm going to put a bullet in Trump's head" is a specific act aimed at a specific person. If we can prove you are capable and serious about that act is it not protected speech and you can be prosecuted.

"Donald Trump is a kiddie fucking wannabe dictator" does not threaten any specific person with a specific violent act and is not a threat and is protected speech. You would have difficulty supporting it by fact, but that is irrelevant.

However, in the first example you are protecting a person from the threat of an attack and not an actual attack.

What about this example: On a Yahoo message board. Obama is a [racial slur] and is going to take a 45 caliber to the head.

Or this one:'“They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J. . . .They are not going to make me kill my black brothers.”'

Both are threats to deprive others of their rights.

 

[Flash]

Both are threats to deprive others of their rights.

Both men were convicted of threatening the president and both convictions were overturned.

The LBJ case was based on a condition which might never occur and he did not threaten harm.

A person must claim he is going to commit a violent act against a specific person. Secret Service investigates many threats each year but conclude most are just expressions of hate and not serious.