[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But the Establishment Clause stuff is definitely over the head of most Trump supporters, who for the most part don’t know what the Establishment Clause is or does (and surely don’t give a damn).
Much more specifically ludicrous is the practical idiocy of Trump’s proposal.
How exactly are we going to identify these Muslims? Do you flip them over and check their tag, as with a teddy bear? Do you demand to see their Global, Standard-Issue Religious Affiliation ID Cards? Do you just look for people who are brown and have muzzlum-sounding names, and don’t let them into Murica? A brown lady named Ayaan Hirsi Ali, e.g., would definitely be blocked, yeah?
Again, it’s stoopid. Predictably so, given whom it comes from and which subset of voters is OK with it.[/quote]
For my own part…
I’m not a Trump supporter. He’s the worst possible choice. He’s not even the best of the worst. Just simply the worst. Nor, do I actually support his ideas/tone on immigration (including for Muslims). The evidence of my position on Trump (an extremely negative one) can be found in earlier threads.
From a moral position, and a sincere reading (not creative interpretations for the political cause I favor) of the Constitution, I oppose this idea of his.
Edit: Won’t continue any further. Though I saw what to me was an opportunity to tie two things together, for the sake of keeping this thread on topic (Next President), I’ll let it go.
I know you aren’t a Trump supporter. I would know this, given what I know about your positions, even if you’d never said it.
RE: “We can then read it as Congress making no law ‘respecting an establishment of SOME religion…The free exercise of SOME Religion.’” We might be able to were it not for the phrase “no law.” Unfortunately, any law respecting any establishment of any religion is a law respecting an establishment of religion, and the text explicitly directs that no such law shall stand. This is a mechanical function of the text itself. It arises from the grammar/syntax and structure of the First Amendment, and it’s logically necessary. It differs qualitatively from what is prescribed by the grammar/syntax and structure of the Second Amendment and is thus not comparable on those grounds. In any case, as I’ve said, we already know the deal: any of the state’s policies that explicitly prescribes a religious test would be adjudged by way of the application of strict scrutiny. There is little doubt about the outcome.
“Citizens aren’t actually affected by it.” Again, this has nothing to do with the fact that the Establishment Clause is not contingent on any individual rights-holder but is a limitation on a characteristic intrinsic to law and policy itself. A law or program that uses a religious test is intrinsically the concern of the Establishment Clause (unlike the Free Exercise clause, which involves an exerciser).
I know you aren’t a Trump supporter. I would know this, given what I know about your positions, even if you’d never said it.
[/quote]
Thanks, I figured you were making a general statement meant for actual Trump supporters. However, for my benefit I figured I would use the opportunity to clear this up for any new folks who might misunderstand where I actually stand. So, to be clear I ABSOLUTELY do not support Trump or this idea to exclude Muslims simply for being Muslims.
As for the the rest, I edited into a previous post that I was going to let it go now. You see, I feel a bit guilty for bringing one thread into another (despite whatever opportunities I personally may or may not see, it still feels like a derail).
I know you aren’t a Trump supporter. I would know this, given what I know about your positions, even if you’d never said it.
[/quote]
Thanks, I figured you were making a general statement meant for actual Trump supporters. However, for my benefit I figured I would use the opportunity to clear this up for any new folks who might misunderstand where I actually stand. So, to be clear I ABSOLUTELY do not support Trump or this idea to exclude Muslims simply for being Muslims.
As for the the rest, I edited into a previous post that I was going to let it go now. You see, I feel a bit guilty for bringing one thread into another (despite whatever opportunities I personally may or may not see, it still feels like a derail). [/quote]
Yes indeed, a general statement for Trump supporters, but I suspect that they are pretty much beyond help when it comes to politics, at least for this election cycle. My bigger concern is with what TB aptly called “enablers”: people who won’t say they support Trump but won’t look at him with clear eyes either, pretending to sympathize with Trumpism for reasons of politics and bias. Refusing to criticize what objectively ought to be criticize. Expressing an outright or oblique taste for this bizarre and dimwitted conspiracy theorist who is setting one of our two parties on fire (and it’s their damn party!). They are the ones who need to know better, and they are the ones who will be most responsible for catastrophe if catastrophe comes. Anyway, this isn’t you either. Far from it.
[quote]magick wrote:
…(hence the hostility to Christianity that seems all but normal to politicized liberals)…[/quote]
When motherfuckers quit trying to supplant law and reason with the Bible, I’ll get a little less uppity.
[/quote]
For example?[/quote]
“This is a Christian nation!”[/quote]
And? This isn’t supplanting any law, nor is it without reason. It’s an opinion, and one that has some basis. Whether or not you or I agree with the opinion irrelevant.
For example?
[quote]Please don’t make me cite this, you know I can from way too many sources.
[/quote]
Then one has to wonder why you didn’t when I asked the first time for you to do so.
Y’all act like this is the first you’ve ever heard of such things.
Take, for example, the debacle over the ten commandments monument in OK City that spawned the Satanic temple statue. Now Arkansas follows suit. These are examples implicit government sponsorship of one religion over the other - a big no-no, and in blatant violation of that pesky first amendment. When challenged, out come the Christian Nation! folks.
Shall I bring up proposals to teach creation in public schools in the US? Or can we just agree that these things are happening. Because they are. Welcome to government subsidized Christianity!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Poll: Majority Of Americans View Islam Negatively, Including Democrats
Folks can keep on running around trumpeting their disdain for anti-muslim sentiments but they are going to miss the political train by doing so.[/quote]
This brings up a lot of interesting points. It also explains why Trump is winning despite every reason he should not be. He’s resonating with people’s emotions. That emotion is anger, HUGE anger at a government that has unrepresented a huge amount of the Americian landscape.
Do I have an unfavorable opinion of Islam? No. I don’t know the religion therefore I cannot pretend to have an opinion about it.
Do I have an unfavorable opinion of people who hold on to certain ideas in Islam that I disagree with? Yeah, I slant that way. But I won’t give in to hate. I won’t let them win.
People who believe you should die because you write a book I disagree with.
People who believe you should die because because you draw a cartoon of ‘Da Profet’ I disagree with.
People who believe women are second class I disagree with.
People who believe a person should die because they leave a religion, I disagree with.
People who arrest raped women for being raped, I disagree with.
Now how many muslims truly believe this shit? Way to many. Polls have been done and conservative estimates put those who believe in the above, and are not considered terrorists in the neighborhood of 20%. 20% of 1.6 billion is a hell of a lot of people.
Here’s what needs to change. We’re told all the time we need to reach out to moderates and mend fences and work together. I don’t totally disagree with that. HOWEVER, these moderates need to reach out to us, in great numbers. We shouldn’t have to dig them up from under a rock. They need to stand up and reach out to us and they need to work with us, not the other way around.
If they reach, I got a hand that will grab it. But I am not going to kill myself trying to find moderates amongst the mental. Let them do some work. It’s not our fault they have the largest nutjob subset in history. Only muslims can challenge muslims on ideas. All we can do is bomb the ones who have bad ideas and try to carry them out. And the innocent pay with the rest.
Some do, but way to few. We need to hear more from these moderates lest we think they all be crazy.
[quote]mutantcolors wrote:
Y’all act like this is the first you’ve ever heard of such things.
Take, for example, the debacle over the ten commandments monument in OK City that spawned the Satanic temple statue. Now Arkansas follows suit. These are examples implicit government sponsorship of one religion over the other - a big no-no, and in blatant violation of that pesky first amendment. When challenged, out come the Christian Nation! folks.
Shall I bring up proposals to teach creation in public schools in the US? Or can we just agree that these things are happening. Because they are. Welcome to government subsidized Christianity!
I do like how Breitbart articles fly with the greatest of ease in this thread, but one facts-based thinkprogress link (grabbed for convenience) is slaughtered on sight.
I’m sorry but can I have a source that isn’t thinkprogress or slate?
How about the Journal, Times? Shit I’ll take the NY Daily news over clickbait confirmation bias sites.
[/quote]
Absolute comedy gold, as you seriously debate over Breitbart links. No bias in here whatsoever.
Anyway, since not one of you can likely be bothered to click ANY link I provide, here’s a snippet from the Times article:
"The monument she refers to is a six-foot marble slab engraved with the Ten Commandments, controversially situated on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol. In 2012, state representative Mike Ritze fronted $10,000 out of his own pocket to have the marker installed in the shadow of the capitolâ??s dome, prompting the ire of those who believed it flagrantly violated the separation of church and state. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the state of Oklahoma; the Satanic Temple fought fire with fire. If the Christians could chisel their credo onto public property, the argument went, why couldnâ??t they?
The state didnâ??t agree, and rejected the Satanic Templeâ??s petition to place Baphometâ??s statute on legislative property. The point is now moot, though: a month ago, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments monument violated the state constitution, a judgment that will probably stick in spite of an obstinate governor."
[quote]mutantcolors wrote:
Y’all act like this is the first you’ve ever heard of such things.
Take, for example, the debacle over the ten commandments monument in OK City that spawned the Satanic temple statue. Now Arkansas follows suit. These are examples implicit government sponsorship of one religion over the other - a big no-no, and in blatant violation of that pesky first amendment. When challenged, out come the Christian Nation! folks.
Shall I bring up proposals to teach creation in public schools in the US? Or can we just agree that these things are happening. Because they are. Welcome to government subsidized Christianity!
A privately funded monument that was placed on public property is the example you’re gonna use to show Christian’s are “attempting to pass any number of laws prioritizing Christianity over, well, everything,”?
They didn’t pass a law, they authorized it’s location and it has subsequently been moved to private property.
Meanwhile the Little Sisters of the Poor might be forced to provide birth control to their employees, which is explicitly violates their 1st amendment rights, due to the ACA.
Some schools teach creationism, so what? I bet the majority of them also teach evolution and the vast majority of schools nationwide teach evolution only.
I do like how Breitbart articles fly with the greatest of ease in this thread, but one facts-based thinkprogress link (grabbed for convenience) is slaughtered on sight.[/quote]
I’m sorry but can I have a source that isn’t thinkprogress or slate?
How about the Journal, Times? Shit I’ll take the NY Daily news over clickbait confirmation bias sites.
[/quote]
Absolute comedy gold, as you seriously debate over Breitbart links. No bias in here whatsoever.
Anyway, since not one of you can likely be bothered to click ANY link I provide, here’s a snippet from the Times article:
"The monument she refers to is a six-foot marble slab engraved with the Ten Commandments, controversially situated on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol. In 2012, state representative Mike Ritze fronted $10,000 out of his own pocket to have the marker installed in the shadow of the capitolâ??s dome, prompting the ire of those who believed it flagrantly violated the separation of church and state. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the state of Oklahoma; the Satanic Temple fought fire with fire. If the Christians could chisel their credo onto public property, the argument went, why couldnâ??t they?
The state didnâ??t agree, and rejected the Satanic Templeâ??s petition to place Baphometâ??s statute on legislative property. The point is now moot, though: a month ago, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments monument violated the state constitution, a judgment that will probably stick in spite of an obstinate governor."[/quote]