One last try: Please help explain liberals to me (okay, maybe 3 last attempts)

[emilynghiem]

OK, so this is what I'm hearing from liberal politics.
Please help explain these to me why one is right and the other is wrong:

A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why?
Why should Christians be expected to be tolerant of groups they blame for religious violence,
but it's okay for atheists to openly condemn Christians collectively for their beliefs?

B. It's okay for liberals to demand "free choice of abortion" without govt regulations much less penalties
on the FREE CHOICE.
But it's NOT okay for conservatives to demand "free choice of health care" without govt penalties.

If conservatives push "right to life" at the expense of free choice, that is pushing beliefs through govt.
so why is it okay for liberals to push "right to health care" through govt at the expense of free choice?

Why is one political belief okay to push by force onto people who believe in free choice,
but not the other?

C. And now this:

If homosexual people only want to seek same sex relations, that's okay.
They should not be forced to participate in heterosexual relations just because of majority pressures.

But if heterosexual people only want to use the restroom in same sex company, that's not okay?

Why is one okay but the other is a problem?

I'm not finding any luck getting answers or explanations to A or B.

Can any liberals explain C to me?
I understand if someone has changed or is in process of changing BIOLOGICAL gender,
then that is a medical personal issue. but as for preferences, why is one
"homosexual" belief rejected as intolerant but the other is considered natural? Why?

Syriusly? hazlnut? Can anyone explain to me why one belief is rejected and the other is imposed?

Its liberalism run amuck. The worst parts of liberalism seem to have convened. If you got a pecker, use the men’s room. If you don’t, use the ladies room Worked for 4 million years.

But it’s also something that may have happened 12 times nationwide???
Its like the flag burning issue. Hardly ever happens but when it does there is enough noise to think it’s happening on every street corner.

Good comparison with the flag burning issue candycorn

I think the reason this is happening is that liberals
have forever criticized rightwing Christians for pushing faith based agends through govt,
seeking to judge and condemn others for opposing or not believing the same.

And now it's their turn to act the same way.
Both sides need to learn what the other feels like.

So with the right to health care/right to life issue
they have flipped sides on who is arguing for free choice without govt restrictions.

and same with pushing beliefs about Christianity
and beliefs about homosexuality. Until it happens
to an issue you care about, you may not get why the other side is acting as they do.
When you start acting like them on another issue, then you might get it!

BTW with the flag burning issue, I just argue that it's bad for the
environment to burn flags. so even liberals shouldn't pollute the air
and waste materials that could be recycled by burning things in protest.

As for the bathroom issue, why not focus on biological gender that can
be determined by medical science. And work out the rest in private.

After people finish venting, maybe reasonable solutions might find
greater audience. this must be some phase we have to go through
to get to the other side. No way out but through, so we learn from the experience
and exchanges going on publicly about this. more good will come of it.

thanks for sharing!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's a suggestion. Get away from the keyboard, go outdoors, and go talk to some real people, not Internet anonyms.

I believe she does. Probably more so than most here.

Based on what?

Emily has been a very involved activist in politics and her local city projects for many years, and much more. She walks the walk. Research her.

If you're not interested enough to present the research yourself, you can't be all that impressed with whoever she claims to be.

I, meanwhile, am less than impressed with her OP or her follow-up "arguments."

Dear Arianrhod I invested over 60,000 in financial lending to nonprofit volunteers with 5-6 groups
trying to save two distressed neighborhoods in Houston from being destroyed by corrupt politics,
because they both had plans to restore their communities through educational development of campuses
that would represent and serve the residents in order to empower them to be self-reliant.

These plans were censored because the Democrat leadership depends on monied interests to get into office. since developers wanted that land, that's where the power and property control shifted, despite well written plans by the residents, including some passed into federal laws
that were part of subgrant agreements on funding. These were sideswiped to take that money
and bypass the residents plans but to benefit those of city and corporate developers competing for control of the properties.

I am hoping current Mayor Sylvestor Turner is different and smart enough to beat this game instead of falling victim to it.

But in the past it cost me about 20 years, including the last 7 working two jobs to pay off the loans on my credit cards, in order to keep the nonprofits going that have served as the lifelines of these communities that political competitors sought to "bleed out" of their own neighborhoods in order to finish taking over. It is nothing short of legalized invisible genocide,
even silenced in the media.

It amazes me to this day that preachers can get in the media and scream about police abuse,
but not invest one dime in saving historic churches built by Freed Slaves in our national landmark district. The media silence is deafening, and I even wrote a short essay about how George Zimmerman should have hidden in Freedmen's Town and the media would have left him alone.

I give credit for the plans to the community leaders who put them together.

I have expanded on their plans and proposed this as a model for restoring and uplifting distressed districts nationwide (through prison reform networks with public radio) and turning prisons and sweatshops into schools using the same "campus model":
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
proposed for replication along the border for immigration reform and restitution for trafficking:
Earned Amnesty

The credit really belongs to the heroes I was trying to support who aren't paid to do the
work saving their communities while millions of taxdollars were going to destruction instead.

But sadly, many of them, including one of the co-authors of the campus concepts
Lenwood Johnson may not see the realization of their life work, because it has gone on for so long and the Black leadership is still too divided politically to unite and demand
reimbursement of the abused funds, in order to invest in their own legacy they could build
in this historic district: see Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

Gladys House wrote the Veteran housing and health service plans,
that have gone unfunded despite budget planning and proposals to VA and HUD.

Why? Because she is a Black Female Republican business leader and conflicts
with Sheila Jackson Lee and other Democrat leaders who want the credit but won't invest the work or the dollars.

While Gladys and I work two jobs each (she might work 3-4 now)
trying to fund plans while everyone else points the finger and plays the blame game.

I've even tried to offer to pay the closing costs to buy the last row of historic houses
for Gladys' vet housing project. But because we're both women, and the men won't
listen to the women but want to be in charge, nothing is getting done.

We need male leadership to get this going, but they are divided and falling victim to politics.
At this point, I even blame the gender divide more than the racism that is part of
Freedmen's Town history, built on segregation.

The issue turning the local men leaders against Gladys is so bad,
I even gave up and don't know how to help overcome this.

I've reached out to ministers and found an academic link that looks hopeful,
but working two jobs to pay the debts this already cost me is killing me.

so it's taking forever, and I wish more able adept leaders would step in and
take this over and help Gladys, Lenwood and the other resident leaders
to develop their campus plans as a model for the nation that I think would
solve the problems that both Occupy and BLM has brought up with the lack of Black ownership.

The solutions are there, and it's a matter of uniting the Black leadership around them.

I'm Asian American and trying to help the Vietnamese landowners sell those
last houses to a nonprofit that can fulfill Gladys vet housing plans.

The communities and leadership are divided over this left/right rich/poor
political infighting that detracts attention and resources from solutions to the problems.

so that's why it's taken so long and has exhausted everything we tried to invest
to buy time until these plans can finally be recognized and promoted nationally.
Even Sheila Jackson Lee signed the original campus development plans,
and no funding has followed up because the Mayors gave tax money to
developers to strip the neighborhood, seize and destroy national historic
property and landmarks. So politics has been killing us, inside and out.

That is why I am so opposed to political bullying and division which I blame
for wasting resources that could have gone into saving not just one but
two national historic landmarks in Houston: Freedmen's Town and the Astrodome.

Our past Mayor Annise Parker would rather spend tax dollars and also
millions in campaigning to fight for the bathroom issue while letting
a national historic site go without funding to buy houses for Vets to
set up sustainable jobs and financial education in business management.

Very sad. Maybe it's someone else's story to finish telling, as it was
going on before I got there. But I do believe the future solutions to
all the past conflicts and grievances with the history of slavery
and ownership can be solved by applying the campus model out of
Freedmen's Town as a system of investing restitution back into community development.

That plan speaks for itself, and it came from a cumulative process combining
the work of many groups together that all have part of the plan.

My job was just to support the people in putting it together,
but it will take networking across party lines and investing resources
in building up instead of billions wasted campaigning by party to tear
each other down.

And I'm not sure which people are ready to lead solutions that
rise above this ongoing trend of both sides blaming the other,
for political points in the media, while nothing is getting done
and no resources are going to people really doing the work and developing
working plans.

This falls as a hasty generalization fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

cnm more about the spirit or principles in the Constitution
since these are not written literally in there as "political beliefs"

Yet the USSC interprets them through the Constitution so how can they not be political?

We can interpret them through the Constitution
in ways WE AGREE on, so it's not imposing.

If we stick to what we AGREE on that represents the public.
Not taking one side of a conflict and bullying the other into submission to a compromise.

If you want examples of where people agree on faith based policies
1. we used to agree on marriage being through the govt
now that we don't all agree, it may have to be removed or changed

2. we used to allow prayer and teaching of whatever in schools
but now that we don't agree on things biased toward Christian or homosexual beliefs,
these policies are being challenged

3. "justice" itself is a faith based concept. nobody has ever seen justice
or prove it exists or if it will. We can AGREE what is justice and what isn't.
yet we have a JUSTICE system based on laws and processes proclaiming
"justice for all" as the goal or "equal justice under law"

All of these are technically faith based.
Yet because we AGREE on this concept, we agree to these procedures
and principles through govt

Again where we do NOT agree, such as the death penalty being
part of justice that invokes conflicting beliefs on both sides,
this is still disputed and begs a better solution than forced compliance
when people who believe in restorative justice want the right to fund that instead.

4. belief about war is another huge one, where provisions have been
given for "conscientious objectors" in specific circumstances

generally because people AGREE that murder is wrong and should be illegal,
and that war is necessary, we allow these policies in govt
although technically there are faith and belief issues involved.

As long as people consent, then it can be justified to allow
issues of belief to be implemented in public policy.

but you can see the disaster that erupts if beliefs are imposed
by govt WITHOUT the consent of others affected. that goes against
laws of human nature, to violate one's free will/consent/beliefs,
where of course people will dissent and petition to correct the problem causing objections.

this is why I cite what Jefferson wrote in the DOI that
"just powers of government are derived from consent of the governed"
where mutual informed consent is the basis of law and binding social contracts.
(These are void if the people affected did not consent, including if something was
fraudulent and misrepresented.)

Texas law also states that authority resides with the people who reserve the right
to abolish or alter government as they deem expedient (with respect to the republican
form of government).

Once one person or group takes it upon themselves to "push an agenda" they believe in through govt without including the equal consent of others affected, that contradicts the very SPIRIT of laws and govt, based on consent of the governed and equal justice/protection of laws, and that is why people protest and seek politically to oppose or change it.

You're ridiculous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

emilynghiem said:


"OK, so this is what I'm hearing from liberal politics."

No, you're not.

What you're hearing are lies from the right.

 

[emilynghiem]

A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why??

Show us which liberal atheists say that.

1. My friend D is one such liberal atheist Democrat who admits to using
votes for the Democratic Party as his only means of opposing the religious conservative right
he is more afraid of taking liberties away than he fears any liberals will

He does complain about the messed up health care mandates,
and why taxpayers are paying for coverage for govt officials
but they aren't providing coverage for taxpayers paying for them.

He is honest about that in private, but politically he will support and push
for Democrats to oppose Republicans at any cost just to make that political statement to say NO to them.

That's one person I know personally who hasn't changed his mind for the 20 years
I've known him. The most he's done is admit he is technically more agnostic than atheist,
but when you put him in a room with hardcore Christians he will revert back to his atheist stances in reaction to them

NOTE I brought this up in a meeting yesterday and one man in the group, also from Texas,
said he knew a lot of people who side with the liberals/Democrats as their way of defense collectively

2. I can cite two cases from memory where atheists or atheist related organizations sued
to remove Christian references from public property

A. the recent case where an organization sued from across the country
over a cross on a teacher's memorial on public school grounds.
some freedom from religion foundation that funded the legal complaints or petitions.

B. the case of the cross that resulted in a court fine against the city for each day it remained,
that was finally settled by selling the land to a private organization for preservation,
after THAT move was contested on the grounds that govt was still favoring religion.

That case stood out to me because even the proposed solution to remove it from public property
in a way that would preserve it was contested by the suing parties. This seems to indicate they didn't just want the problem
solved in the most expedient manner by separating public and private, they wanted the cross removed to make a statement.

Do you want the links to these?

if you are arguing these are not "atheists per se" pushing these arguments,
that's fine, you can remove atheist and put secular political advocates or whatever label.

The question remains why is it OKAY to sue to remove references to Christian beliefs
where people contest these as conflicting or excluding them,
but NOT okay to ask to remove references to Homosexual beliefs
where people say this conflicts or excludes their beliefs they have a right to.

Can you answer that NYcarbineer without the atheist label inserted anywhere?
Thanks for your help on this!

I stopped reading when it became clear you weren't going to answer my question.

Hi NYcarbineer you can take out any and all references to "atheist"
and still discuss the same conflict left over after removing the offensive distracting verbiage or labels.

So YES, that's perfectly FINE to remove ATHEIST so that is no longer an issue.
does THAT resolve the issue? If not what is your issue if I've already agreed to remove
references to Atheist?

Which is better for you:
Do you want to start with the leftover?
Or start completely over?

If you can't follow how I am asking any of this, as Syriusly and others can't either,
can YOU reword the question where it is clear?

How would YOU ask this same thing NYcarbineer?

the question/conflict I am trying to present in the OP
is why is it okay to preclude Conservative/Christian/rightwing beliefs from govt
while pushing "policies and beliefs supported by liberal groups"
not only through govt but to the point of PENALIZING by threatening
FINES through govt on people who don't share those beliefs?

NYcarbineer I am having trouble wording this.
a. if I try to get so specific that I don't use "shortcut" words like "liberal or atheist"
then the questions get so drawn out in detail, people won't read them and can't follow them
b. If I shorten them so people can get what I mean, then
the deconstructionists like you Pogo or others get "stuck" on
a strawman argument and can't get past that to get to the POINT of what I'm asking underneath.

How would YOU and/or Pogo word these questions
where it's not a strawman, does not include unnecessary or distracting/unfair labels
as a shortcut, but doesn't drag out into too much legalistic or verbalistic
details trying to be specific that the point gets lost that way either.

Can I ask you and Pogo honestly why it's okay
to remove Christian beliefs and references from public institutions,
but not okay when people ask to remove beliefs about homosexuality?

Is that fair enough?

Why is it fair to threaten financial penalties against people for beliefs
on ONE SIDE of the bathroom policies but not against people of the other side.

Aren't both sides equally at fault for pushing policies that the other side
argues violates their beliefs. so shouldn't both sides be warned to be
equally considerate of people of the other viewpoints?

Shouldn't govt protect all people of all beliefs equally from infringement,
and not take a side, endorsing one set of beliefs while PENALIZING the other?

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem said:


"OK, so this is what I'm hearing from liberal politics."

No, you're not.

What you're hearing are lies from the right.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
1. You said yourself you did not see the ACA mandates as depriving any choices/liberties or freedoms.
I assume you are on the left, and not lying about that.

2. Are you open minded to when the rightwing says abortion is murder and "no choices are lost
by banning abortion because it isn't a valid choice anyway"

If you are saying (1) from the left and
the rightwing is saying (2), my question
is why is it okay to push (1) through govt but not (2).

Are you saying you would ACCEPT if the rightwing pushed the right to life
through govt and imposed fines on people who didn't comply?

Now Mr. "Paintmyhouse" DID admit he would accept
what the govt passed, either way, and just bitch about it after the fact.

Would you accept right to life and other faith based arguments
about things like abortion, marriage, etc. as long as
the govt passed it as law? Or would you argue, as was
done with DOMA and now with the NC bill, that these
are unconstitutional and are NOT consistent with govt duty and standards.

Thanks C_Clayton_Jones!

 

[emilynghiem]

A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why??

Show us which liberal atheists say that.

1. My friend D is one such liberal atheist Democrat who admits to using
votes for the Democratic Party as his only means of opposing the religious conservative right
he is more afraid of taking liberties away than he fears any liberals will

He does complain about the messed up health care mandates,
and why taxpayers are paying for coverage for govt officials
but they aren't providing coverage for taxpayers paying for them.

He is honest about that in private, but politically he will support and push
for Democrats to oppose Republicans at any cost just to make that political statement to say NO to them.

That's one person I know personally who hasn't changed his mind for the 20 years
I've known him. The most he's done is admit he is technically more agnostic than atheist,
but when you put him in a room with hardcore Christians he will revert back to his atheist stances in reaction to them

NOTE I brought this up in a meeting yesterday and one man in the group, also from Texas,
said he knew a lot of people who side with the liberals/Democrats as their way of defense collectively

2. I can cite two cases from memory where atheists or atheist related organizations sued
to remove Christian references from public property

A. the recent case where an organization sued from across the country
over a cross on a teacher's memorial on public school grounds.
some freedom from religion foundation that funded the legal complaints or petitions.

B. the case of the cross that resulted in a court fine against the city for each day it remained,
that was finally settled by selling the land to a private organization for preservation,
after THAT move was contested on the grounds that govt was still favoring religion.

That case stood out to me because even the proposed solution to remove it from public property
in a way that would preserve it was contested by the suing parties. This seems to indicate they didn't just want the problem
solved in the most expedient manner by separating public and private, they wanted the cross removed to make a statement.

Do you want the links to these?

if you are arguing these are not "atheists per se" pushing these arguments,
that's fine, you can remove atheist and put secular political advocates or whatever label.

The question remains why is it OKAY to sue to remove references to Christian beliefs
where people contest these as conflicting or excluding them,
but NOT okay to ask to remove references to Homosexual beliefs
where people say this conflicts or excludes their beliefs they have a right to.

Can you answer that NYcarbineer without the atheist label inserted anywhere?
Thanks for your help on this!

I stopped reading when it became clear you weren't going to answer my question.

Dear NYcarbineer
I thought I resolved the issue by agreeing that Atheist could be removed from the
questions and the issues raised are still valid.

If not, can you please reword what your question is that isn't resolved
by removing Atheist references and just addressing the root conflict that is left.

 

[emilynghiem]

Lotta strawmen in that OP.

If there's gonna be a "last three attempts" I'll wait for the first two to go by.

All OP's Strawmen converge to form

Straw Maximus!!​

Okay ClosedCaption and Pogo
Removing all references to Atheist and liberal if you can do without that,

Why is it okay to remove references to Christian beliefs from public policy and institutions,
but not okay to remove references to homosexual beliefs from public schools, policies and institutions.

Can either of you, Syriusly, C_Clayton_Jones
anyone here explain why one is argued as necessary and right,
while the other is rejected as intolerant where people are judged for supporting such removal.

If you are saying both sides are doing both -- pushing only THEIR agenda through govt
and then complaining when the other side rejects that, but pushes THEIR agenda through govt --

then WHY is it okay for the govt to take one side's beliefs over the other?

Shouldn't the govt remain neutral, equal and inclusive of people of either side's beliefs, by saying
both sides need to resolve their own issues and not force one on the other through public policy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals are worthless, they need us we don't need them.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Liberals created this country, wrote its Constitution, and forged its case law – the case law used to defend the rights of all Americans from attack by the racists, bigots, and cowards on the hateful, reactionary right.

The same rightwing racists, bigots, and cowards who today seek to disadvantage transgender Americans through force of law for no other reason than who they are.

Conservatism is the bane of the American Nation.

 

[cnm]

We can interpret them through the Constitution
in ways WE AGREE on, so it's not imposing.

Complete fantasy, if anyone who doesn't have a court interpretation go their way considers they're imposed upon. As do you, apparently.

How can a court agree to have both slavery and no slavery, for example, without imposing on anyone's beliefs?

A little bit of slavery?

 

[emilynghiem]

"One last try: Please help explain liberals to me (okay, maybe 3 last attempts)"

What would be the point; like most others on the right your mind is closed, encased in the concrete of lies, ignorance, fear, straw man fallacies, and the rightwing echo chamber.

^ Hey C_Clayton_Jones I have some bait you might take
on this argument that I am close minded, I assume compared with you:

I am prochoice to the point i would agree that if people can find some way
to contain their beliefs within a fixed community, then the Satanists who believe
that even killing should not be punished could have the right to practice that
belief legally among other people who consent to the same policy; but it would
have to stay contained so that nobody could murder someone against their will;
you could only kill other people within that belief system who agree to it.

I am prochoice and believe in consent of the governed as long as it does
not affect other people in ways they don't consent to.

Yet I am openminded enough to support the right of people who believe
abortion is murder, or executions are murder, to have laws that don't
infringe on their beliefs or force them to pay or support public policies against their beliefs.

My goal is to treat, include and protect their beliefs equally as mine,
whether we agree or not.

To this end, C_Clayton_Jones, when my friend Juda needed help to pay
expenses for her events with Choices for Life, and she is so against abortion
she wants it to be illegal and nowhere practiced in America or anywhere,
I donated 400 last time to buy an ad in her program for the Nurturing Network
and donated 100 this time, 50 toward expenses to her Freedom March in MS,
and 50 toward expenses of mothers raising kids born of rape conception they didn't believe in aborting.

so financially I have extended my support to Prolife causes, because I believe
that work is necessary to protect free choice to its fullest.

I don't agree with my friend Juda that abortion should be illegal,
but I will fund her outreach to raise awareness and social acceptance
of mothers who choose to have and raise their children conceived by rape.

I don't have to agree with her politics and all her beliefs, to support
the outreach she does that I do believe is necessary for fully educated choices.

C_Clayton_Jones may I dare ask
if you have ever given a dime to a group or event with the opposite political beliefs you have?
If you are prolife have you donated to prochoice groups, events or programs?
If you are prochoice have you donated to prolife outreach?

If you've done something similar, that's great,
please share it. You can also explain how i am
being "closeminded" by supporting the equal rights and beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife advocates by seeking solutions
that satisfy both standards and violate neither one.

Is that being closeminded to limit govt to only what
does not infringe on the beliefs of citizens?

 

[emilynghiem]

Liberals are worthless, they need us we don't need them.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Liberals created this country, wrote its Constitution, and forged its case law – the case law used to defend the rights of all Americans from attack by the racists, bigots, and cowards on the hateful, reactionary right.

The same rightwing racists, bigots, and cowards who today seek to disadvantage transgender Americans through force of law for no other reason than who they are.

Conservatism is the bane of the American Nation.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
I agree that the negative generalizations are unfair and counterproductive.

I would clarify that the
* Classic liberalism of John Locke is today's conservative focus on Limited Govt
where human rights are inherent by nature, and not dependent on Govt to exist
* Radical liberalism of Rousseau is today's liberal focus on using Govt to establish political rights
and enforce the will of the people by that centralized collective authority

Sorry but I don't find as many liberals these days teaching
people they naturally have rights and authority if they learn how to use them.

I am surrounded by liberals who teach dependence on govt
and political candidates and parties to lobby and represent their values
in the media and govt. Instead of creating their own businesses,
community policies and programs directly as the Greens are more known for doing.

Whenever I run into progressives who push for more proactive independence
as I do, they are usually Greens and/or Libertarians if they are indy Constitutionalists.

The Democrats I know end up spending their full time energy and resources
feeding the party machine which sucks resources away from any independent leadership and projects.
If they can't hijack and take credit politically for the Green agenda, Black or Pink (women's or anti war pro peace)
they won't support it. Only if it helps them succeed to use it politically for office, if they know they can win.

I'm hearing the Republicans have fallen into selling out for politics the same way.
I was hoping the Tea Party constitutional movement would get the party and country
back on track, but anything associated with the rightwing is still being demonized and rejected as bad and wrong.

in your assessment, do you even include where
the conservative side came from emphasizing that
rights and freedoms belong to people and states first, before people
give permission for federal govt to exercise certain duties.

Do you agree it is a liberal idea for people to do more and more things
through govt as a way to seek equal provision of services and access to public benefits?

And it is a conservative idea to reward taxpayers with more independence
and able to keep more of their own income by investing directly in building
schools, businesses and other private sector programs by free market,
and minimalizing how much we need govt to regulate and protect us from crime, abuses,
and issues of public safety and national security -- things even conservatives
agree are the duty of govt.

not everyone agrees that social programming is the duty of govt.

Mostly my liberal friends support that as a priority
while my conservative friends favor shifting govt to local controls.

Is this a fair way to describe the two veins or traditions
as part of American history and govt relations?

 

[emilynghiem]

We can interpret them through the Constitution
in ways WE AGREE on, so it's not imposing.

Complete fantasy, if anyone who doesn't have a court interpretation go their way considers they're imposed upon. As do you, apparently.

How can a court agree to have both slavery and no slavery, for example, without imposing on anyone's beliefs?

A little bit of slavery?

Dear cnm if we cannot get the slaves to agree to slavery then it isn't by consent.
so it is imposing beliefs of one group on the other that DOESN'T CONSENT.
If social contract and laws must be enforced by consent, then slavery won't make the standard.

get it?

BTW the closest we might come is replacing indentured servitude
with student internships that provide services, housing and education
while the person goes through training. So even if they are paid lower
student or training wages, this can be compensated for by providing
other services at low cost or free. Still all of it has to be by consent,
all voluntary none of it by coercion or "involuntary servitude" / slave labor.
But it is possible to convert the current sweatshop and slave labor
trafficking into a system of credits for work, so nobody is harmed or exploited.

 

[cnm]

Oh. So you want any particular group to be able to write their own Constitution, without a national standard.

You could have just said.

 

[Syriusly]

Lotta strawmen in that OP.

If there's gonna be a "last three attempts" I'll wait for the first two to go by.

All OP's Strawmen converge to form

Straw Maximus!!​

Okay ClosedCaption and Pogo
Removing all references to Atheist and liberal if you can do without that,

Why is it okay to remove references to Christian beliefs from public policy and institutions,
but not okay to remove references to homosexual beliefs from public schools, policies and institutions.

Can either of you, Syriusly, C_Clayton_Jones
anyone here explain why one is argued as necessary and right,
while the other is rejected as intolerant where people are judged for supporting such removal.

First of all- stop with this 'Christian beliefs'- Christians are not being targeted- I am just as opposed to a teacher promoting Jesus Christ in a public classroom as I am a teacher promoting Mohammed or Buddha.

You keep making up these false equivalencies.

Why do you think that homosexuality is the same thing as religion?

Do you think then that homosexuals are protected by the same laws which prevent persons from discriminating against Christians based upon their religious faith?

 

[cnm]

Dear cnm if we cannot get the slaves to agree to slavery then it isn't by consent.
so it is imposing beliefs of one group on the other that DOESN'T CONSENT.
If social contract and laws must be enforced by consent, then slavery won't make the standard.

get it?

No I don't get it. The Confederacy did not consent to have no slavery imposed on its plans for the new territories. It was coerced into that [course of action]. Was that coercion wrong?

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals are worthless, they need us we don't need them.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Liberals created this country, wrote its Constitution, and forged its case law – the case law used to defend the rights of all Americans from attack by the racists, bigots, and cowards on the hateful, reactionary right.

The same rightwing racists, bigots, and cowards who today seek to disadvantage transgender Americans through force of law for no other reason than who they are.

Conservatism is the bane of the American Nation.

Ahahaha I'm sorry you are offended but conservatives have no use for liberals. Liberals on the other hand rely on our money and work ethic. Without us the fools would starve to death.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why is it okay to remove references to Christian beliefs from public policy and institutions,
but not okay to remove references to homosexual beliefs from public schools, policies and institutions.

Separation of church and state. Concentrate on the word "separation".

 

[Freewill]

Let your education begin here:

Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think"

If that is too much reading then try this video:



Or just 1000 words:

 

[Pogo]

A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why??

Show us which liberal atheists say that.

1. My friend D is one such liberal atheist Democrat who admits to using
votes for the Democratic Party as his only means of opposing the religious conservative right
he is more afraid of taking liberties away than he fears any liberals will

He does complain about the messed up health care mandates,
and why taxpayers are paying for coverage for govt officials
but they aren't providing coverage for taxpayers paying for them.

He is honest about that in private, but politically he will support and push
for Democrats to oppose Republicans at any cost just to make that political statement to say NO to them.

That's one person I know personally who hasn't changed his mind for the 20 years
I've known him. The most he's done is admit he is technically more agnostic than atheist,
but when you put him in a room with hardcore Christians he will revert back to his atheist stances in reaction to them

NOTE I brought this up in a meeting yesterday and one man in the group, also from Texas,
said he knew a lot of people who side with the liberals/Democrats as their way of defense collectively

2. I can cite two cases from memory where atheists or atheist related organizations sued
to remove Christian references from public property

A. the recent case where an organization sued from across the country
over a cross on a teacher's memorial on public school grounds.
some freedom from religion foundation that funded the legal complaints or petitions.

B. the case of the cross that resulted in a court fine against the city for each day it remained,
that was finally settled by selling the land to a private organization for preservation,
after THAT move was contested on the grounds that govt was still favoring religion.

That case stood out to me because even the proposed solution to remove it from public property
in a way that would preserve it was contested by the suing parties. This seems to indicate they didn't just want the problem
solved in the most expedient manner by separating public and private, they wanted the cross removed to make a statement.

Do you want the links to these?

if you are arguing these are not "atheists per se" pushing these arguments,
that's fine, you can remove atheist and put secular political advocates or whatever label.

The question remains why is it OKAY to sue to remove references to Christian beliefs
where people contest these as conflicting or excluding them,
but NOT okay to ask to remove references to Homosexual beliefs
where people say this conflicts or excludes their beliefs they have a right to.

Can you answer that NYcarbineer without the atheist label inserted anywhere?
Thanks for your help on this!

I stopped reading when it became clear you weren't going to answer my question.

Hi NYcarbineer you can take out any and all references to "atheist"
and still discuss the same conflict left over after removing the offensive distracting verbiage or labels.

So YES, that's perfectly FINE to remove ATHEIST so that is no longer an issue.
does THAT resolve the issue? If not what is your issue if I've already agreed to remove
references to Atheist?

Which is better for you:
Do you want to start with the leftover?
Or start completely over?

If you can't follow how I am asking any of this, as Syriusly and others can't either,
can YOU reword the question where it is clear?

How would YOU ask this same thing NYcarbineer?

the question/conflict I am trying to present in the OP
is why is it okay to preclude Conservative/Christian/rightwing beliefs from govt
while pushing "policies and beliefs supported by liberal groups"
not only through govt but to the point of PENALIZING by threatening
FINES through govt on people who don't share those beliefs?

NYcarbineer I am having trouble wording this.
a. if I try to get so specific that I don't use "shortcut" words like "liberal or atheist"
then the questions get so drawn out in detail, people won't read them and can't follow them
b. If I shorten them so people can get what I mean, then
the deconstructionists like you Pogo or others get "stuck" on
a strawman argument and can't get past that to get to the POINT of what I'm asking underneath.

How would YOU and/or Pogo word these questions
where it's not a strawman, does not include unnecessary or distracting/unfair labels
as a shortcut, but doesn't drag out into too much legalistic or verbalistic
details trying to be specific that the point gets lost that way either.

Can I ask you and Pogo honestly why it's okay
to remove Christian beliefs and references from public institutions,
but not okay when people ask to remove beliefs about homosexuality?

Is that fair enough?

Why is it fair to threaten financial penalties against people for beliefs
on ONE SIDE of the bathroom policies but not against people of the other side.

Aren't both sides equally at fault for pushing policies that the other side
argues violates their beliefs. so shouldn't both sides be warned to be
equally considerate of people of the other viewpoints?

Shouldn't govt protect all people of all beliefs equally from infringement,
and not take a side, endorsing one set of beliefs while PENALIZING the other?

Whether you use labels like "liberal" or atheist is irrelevant here. The issue is you're setting up strawmen, and continue to set up strawmen even after it's been pointed out. As a result you have not constructed a question at all.

You don't seem to understand what "strawman" means. It has nothing whatsoever to do with labels, whether those labels are accurate or not. They're irrelevant.

Yet another demonstration ----- quoting you from above:

"Why is it fair to threaten financial penalties against people for beliefs on ONE SIDE of the bathroom policies but not against people of the other side?"
​

WHO declared that was even the case?
YOU did. Alone.
Your premise thus has no foundation -- it's an assumption you made up unilaterally. Your argument to this point is only with yourself.

That's why you have no starting point here. You're assuming a starting point that nobody has agreed IS one.