Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

I say this because it's a pet peeve of mine. "Brainwashing" doesn't exist, it's a pseudoscience. It's called "Socialization" and it's only bad if the socialized culture/belief is something you (general) disagree with. In other words, often socialization is called "Indoctrination" or "brainwashing" when the thing being "taught" is something that the speaker is at the very least ambivalent with. In any case, we do "it" all the time in every other way. To say that children shouldn't be taught religions is rather odd. It's a fundamental aspect of the human condition, a massive component of culture today and especially in history. You can't understand history without understanding the role religion plays in it and you can't understand that without understanding the religions in context.

I think Chaka's main "beef" here is that religion (all of them) is not often taught through the lens of society and history, but used to make the individual "think like the group" instead.
It's the politics of faith, rather than the politics of secularism. Both can be considered "indoctrination" however.

Anyway, the california law seems okay, it depends on its implementation. When it says the things about religious leaders, is that outreach? Will it be inviting them to participate in projects and activities much in the way non-religious non-profits and other organizations will voluntarily participate? If so, then that's not an issue at all. But if it is to regulate or impose what different groups do then there can be a very real problem.

I don't think non-profits, no matter their leaning should be treated any different. If you are non profit, you have no say in government. A say in government IS a profit.

The thing about secularism is that it does not mean hiding religion or pretending it doesn't exist. It means being neutral on such matters. So if this law is about reaching out to stakeholders in the community then yes, religious leaders would most logically be included. If it's about compelling said stakeholders...then that presents more than just religious freedom issues.

I think people don't understand the 1st Amendment.
Giving you the right to believe what you want, and say what you want, does not infer the right for you to ACT on that. It's a PERSONAL right, not a society right.

[Gatefan1976]

Examples?

The second amendment.
Guns are for the militia, not the general populace.

Now I will have to wait for the handwaving of someone who does not understand English, again.

[SoulReaver]

Examples?

(conservative) state laws that violate citizens' 1st amendment rights

https://www.rcfp.org/strict-eavesdro...illinois-case/

[jelgate]

The second amendment.
Guns are for the militia, not the general populace.

Now I will have to wait for the handwaving of someone who does not understand English, again.

He doesn't like the 8th Amendment either

[Gatefan1976]

He doesn't like the 8th Amendment either

That's more a consideration of what is "cruel and unusual"

[Chaka-Z0]

The thing about secularism is that it does not mean hiding religion or pretending it doesn't exist. It means being neutral on such matters. So if this law is about reaching out to stakeholders in the community then yes, religious leaders would most logically be included. If it's about compelling said stakeholders...then that presents more than just religious freedom issues.

Sorry I missed your post but just to go back to this one, if we come back to what the case is about, conversion therapies, I don't think anyone here think these scams are legit?

Speak up now if you believe homo-exorcists clerics can cast transmutation spells on people and change them to hetero's.

[Chaka-Z0]

Thought I'd start a compilation.
Intro

I find this argument from you hilarious.
You allow the states the right to ignore the constitution when it serves your.... feelings, but are now claiming that the constitution should be baseline law for the federal government AND the states therein.
Make up your mind.

Examples?

1

The second amendment.
Guns are for the militia, not the general populace.

Now I will have to wait for the handwaving of someone who does not understand English, again.

2

(conservative) state laws that violate citizens' 1st amendment rights

https://www.rcfp.org/strict-eavesdro...illinois-case/

3

He doesn't like the 8th Amendment either

And mine (4)
The 10th Amendment, Trump trying to yank away state sovereignty rights of Cali. The gas emission restriction law. All of that because Trump is mad that Cali went behind his back on secret negotiations with automakers.

[SoulReaver]

8th amendment rights are the best example actually GOP states tend to walk all over those

[Gatefan1976]

Sorry I missed your post but just to go back to this one, if we come back to what the case is about, conversion therapies, I don't think anyone here think these scams are legit?

Speak up now if you believe homo-exorcists clerics can cast transmutation spells on people and change them to hetero's.

No, they fail their DC 40 check as lvl 1 idiots daily.
They do however pass their DC 5 ignorance checks as lvl 20 every day.

[Annoyed]

(conservative) state laws that violate citizens' 1st amendment rights

https://www.rcfp.org/strict-eavesdro...illinois-case/

And did the SCOTUS not put a stop to it, and dismiss that evidence in that case?

[Chaka-Z0]

And did the SCOTUS not put a stop to it, and dismiss that evidence in that case?

Put a stop to THIS case, why didn't they change the law? It's still on.

https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter...20-5-14-2.html

So basically the cops need to give consent to being recorded. Which means, none of them will, why would they incriminate themselves while doing their jobs using their jobs?

[SoulReaver]

And did the SCOTUS not put a stop to it, and dismiss that evidence in that case?

2014 the SCOTUS/SDS was more neutral back then

[Annoyed]

The second amendment.
Guns are for the militia, not the general populace.

Now I will have to wait for the handwaving of someone who does not understand English, again.

That isn't what the 2nd amendment says.

Now that we have a more reasonable SCOTUS, you might find what is legal changing.

[Annoyed]

I don't think we will see Trump's returns, no matter how many laws & whatever the Democrats pass. The constitution prohibits ex-post-facto legislation; they can't change the rules retroactively. There was no law in place at the time Trump ran for office, so they can't require it now.

We'll see how it turns up in courts but he will be compelled to if he wants to run Cali for the 2020's. (saw the law passed?)

Federal judge blocks California law to force disclosure of Trump’s tax returns

[SoulReaver]

Federal judge blocks California law to force disclosure of Trump’s tax returns

in other words Dirty Don's a tax dodger hope voters remember this in 2020

That isn't what the 2nd amendment says.

meanwhile all the states' violations of 1st & 8th amendment rights...