The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

I've been waiting to use this cartoon

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...omo-transcript

[Gatefan1976]

Considering the fact that one of our recent topics has been about NFL players taking a knee being "disrespectful" to the flag and 'murrican patriotism, why is it that no one has mentioned Niger yet?
Been following that story and the subsequent fallout of that for over a week now, but no peep from anyone here?
I would at least thought Garhkal as an ex-military man himself would have had plenty to say about how that has played out.

[garhkal]

Since a lot of facts on that attack are still slowly coming out, i am holding judgement on commenting till i know more.

[Gatefan1976]

Since a lot of facts on that attack are still slowly coming out, i am holding judgement on commenting till i know more.

I am talking about how your C-in-C deals with gold star families, and weather people have the right to challenge generals.

[Falcon Horus]

But based on your quote above, he's describing his church.

Which he belongs to -- you really are not that naive, are you?

I would expect a conservative baptist church to discriminate based on orientation, AFAIK, the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

Indeed, except that we are all individuals and do not have to think the same as the "church" we belong to. He's hiding behind his church, just like people hide behind their religion to discriminate. That's not freedom of religion, that's extremist behavior the likes of ISIS.

WHich baker are we on about here??

The one currently awaiting SCOTUS hearings -- the one apparently Annoyed mentions.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...omo-transcript

This is not even remotely funny... nothing Dip**** Orange says is remotely funny.
The man's an incompetent moron with an IQ far below 70. He hasn't the first clue about anything.

Considering the fact that one of our recent topics has been about NFL players taking a knee being "disrespectful" to the flag and 'murrican patriotism, why is it that no one has mentioned Niger yet?
Been following that story and the subsequent fallout of that for over a week now, but no peep from anyone here?
I would at least thought Garhkal as an ex-military man himself would have had plenty to say about how that has played out.

I meant to touch on the subject but I haven't been around too much lately to really get into it. I have been following the news though. Hard not to.

Since a lot of facts on that attack are still slowly coming out, i am holding judgement on commenting till i know more.

If it said Benghazi instead of Niger, Clinton instead of Trump, you'd be all over it.

[jelgate]

But the emails FH.


The funny thing is how that applies to both sides

[Who Knows]

We have an advert on TV here in Australia that gets up my nose big time.
It is people telling us they are trying to stop smoking and pleading with us to not smoke near them if we care about them.
I gave up smoking over 20 years ago now, but I have no problem with having smokers around be, live and let live. My answer to these people trying to stop smoking is 'If you do not want me smoking around you, stay the hell away from me! Do not go anywhere near smokers, who are now confined to designated smoking areas'
If governments were serious about stopping people smoking they would make it illegal. But all these price increases to try and stop smokers is just a way to replace the tobacco tax they are loosing from those who have stopped smoking.

[aretood2]

Which he belongs to -- you really are not that naive, are you?



Indeed, except that we are all individuals and do not have to think the same as the "church" we belong to. He's hiding behind his church, just like people hide behind their religion to discriminate. That's not freedom of religion, that's extremist behavior the likes of ISIS.

how exactly isn't it freedom of religion?

And what's with your obsession with comparing anything "christian" with ISIS?
I don't even see how the two here are anywhere near the same level. And how is a Church being ISIS by not wanting to do things like marry a gay couple? And people wonder why everyone thinks that the LGBT crowd wants to force churches into performing gay marriages and the like...

If it said Benghazi instead of Niger, Clinton instead of Trump, you'd be all over it.

The hypocrisy here, I hope, has been very well documented to the point where it is down right two faced and dishonest.

[Annoyed]

Indeed, except that we are all individuals and do not have to think the same as the "church" we belong to.

Huh?
As I understand it, members of a religion or church ARE supposed to live according to the teachings of that particular church, with some religions being more or less willing to accept and forgive those who stray from their teachings.

[Falcon Horus]

We have an advert on TV here in Australia that gets up my nose big time.
It is people telling us they are trying to stop smoking and pleading with us to not smoke near them if we care about them.
I gave up smoking over 20 years ago now, but I have no problem with having smokers around be, live and let live. My answer to these people trying to stop smoking is 'If you do not want me smoking around you, stay the hell away from me! Do not go anywhere near smokers, who are now confined to designated smoking areas'

You're not a very considerate person, are you... I have a feeling, you're leaving out where these people are standing when smokers are around. If it's in an area where there's little space, I can fully understand that people do not wish to get smoke blown into their direction (try not standing down wind when there's wind though).

Plenty of my friends are smokers, some heavy, others not so much. I don't care they do so, but I do care about it when it gets blown into my face when they can avoid that, or come stand right next to me with burning cigarette in hand (I have been burned by one standing too close once, not cool).

But they take care to keep the cigarette out of my way, and the smoke out of my direction. This goes both ways.
Also, they probably want to avoid me coughing my lungs out when I do get smoke in the face.

how exactly isn't it freedom of religion?

What isn't freedom of religion?
He has the freedom to practice the religion he wants without interference.

Is anyone saying he can't be a Baptist? Nope, no one's saying that, not even me.

From your own Constitution:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States.

But he takes his believes to his work, and that's where the problem begins. If someone's guided by their religion to judge other people in say a court of law -- he's definitely breaking the above clause, and infusing his religious views with the views of the law which demands a certain level of objectivity.

I'm probably explaining it wrong, but I do not trust someone who says that his church openly discriminates so he's entirely in his right to follow their example to do the same, because his "religion" says it's okay to do so. He puts religion over law.

[COLOR="#000080"]And what's with your obsession with comparing anything "christian" with ISIS?

Let me think about that one -- a Baptist church which dignifies discrimination because an old book dictates being homosexual is wrong. Cases which literally discuss a license to discriminate because of religious views. Opposing marriage equality (and no, when I mention that I'm not talking getting married before whatever god in a church because that's what most are always on about -- religion does not have a monopoly on marriage, but equal access to the benefits which automatically go into effect when a couple weds before the law), the ridiculous notion that women have to be controlled and have no say over their own bodies (the leaked memo is another brilliant bit of ignorance at work).

The methods may be different, but the result is the same: oppression of one group or another by using religious views to justify the oppression and discrimination.

The hypocrisy here, I hope, has been very well documented to the point where it is down right two faced and dishonest.

Wait, I'm a hypocrit?

[Falcon Horus]

Huh?
As I understand it, members of a religion or church ARE supposed to live according to the teachings of that particular church, with some religions being more or less willing to accept and forgive those who stray from their teachings.

Yes, but humans aren't drones and can have an opinion of their own -- form an opinion without anyone telling them, forcing them or demanding it to be the same as the "church" they belong to, or religion they follow.

Nothing good ever came or comes from blindly following the teachings of a religion -- especially not when it's the pick-and-choose kind.

[Annoyed]

Yes, but humans aren't drones and can have an opinion of their own -- form an opinion without anyone telling them, forcing them or demanding it to be the same as the "church" they belong to, or religion they follow.

Nothing good ever came or comes from blindly following the teachings of a religion -- especially not when it's the pick-and-choose kind.

But that is "Freedom of Religion"; if they wish to, a person can rigidly adhere to the dictates of their church, or disregard them entirely, or choose not to follow any religion. By definition, that's what freedom of religion is.

[Gatefan1976]

You're not a very considerate person, are you... I have a feeling, you're leaving out where these people are standing when smokers are around. If it's in an area where there's little space, I can fully understand that people do not wish to get smoke blown into their direction (try not standing down wind when there's wind though).

Plenty of my friends are smokers, some heavy, others not so much. I don't care they do so, but I do care about it when it gets blown into my face when they can avoid that, or come stand right next to me with burning cigarette in hand (I have been burned by one standing too close once, not cool).

But they take care to keep the cigarette out of my way, and the smoke out of my direction. This goes both ways.
Also, they probably want to avoid me coughing my lungs out when I do get smoke in the face.

Who knows is referring to the narrowly defined area's smokers are allowed to engage in their taxed out the arse habit, cause if a NS comes into the smoking area and complains, they would cop a mouthful from me.
We pay all the tax, but we have to follow the rules imposed by those paying nothing, and to a degree, I am not that fussed, second hand smoke and such is a problem, and smokers should be considerate and aware of that.
Where I draw a bright line is when a NS comes into the designated area and has a whinge.

What isn't freedom of religion?
He has the freedom to practice the religion he wants without interference.

Is anyone saying he can't be a Baptist? Nope, no one's saying that, not even me.

From your own Constitution:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States.

But he takes his believes to his work, and that's where the problem begins. If someone's guided by their religion to judge other people in say a court of law -- he's definitely breaking the above clause, and infusing his religious views with the views of the law which demands a certain level of objectivity.

I'm probably explaining it wrong, but I do not trust someone who says that his church openly discriminates so he's entirely in his right to follow their example to do the same, because his "religion" says it's okay to do so. He puts religion over law.



Let me think about that one -- a Baptist church which dignifies discrimination because an old book dictates being homosexual is wrong. Cases which literally discuss a license to discriminate because of religious views. Opposing marriage equality (and no, when I mention that I'm not talking getting married before whatever god in a church because that's what most are always on about -- religion does not have a monopoly on marriage, but equal access to the benefits which automatically go into effect when a couple weds before the law), the ridiculous notion that women have to be controlled and have no say over their own bodies (the leaked memo is another brilliant bit of ignorance at work).

The methods may be different, but the result is the same: oppression of one group or another by using religious views to justify the oppression and discrimination.

You explained it right.

Wait, I'm a hypocrit?

I'm not sure which way Tood meant that. It could be republicans defending trump when they were willing to hold endless hearings over Bhenghazi, or it could be Democrats engaging in the same behaviour that they previously found stupid.

[Annoyed]

From your own Constitution:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States.

But he takes his believes to his work, and that's where the problem begins. If someone's guided by their religion to judge other people in say a court of law -- he's definitely breaking the above clause, and infusing his religious views with the views of the law which demands a certain level of objectivity.

I'm probably explaining it wrong, but I do not trust someone who says that his church openly discriminates so he's entirely in his right to follow their example to do the same, because his "religion" says it's okay to do so. He puts religion over law.

The difference you're apparently not seeing is the difference between someone carrying out public business vs someone carrying out their own business.
A county clerk, for example, cannot refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple because their personal religion tells them it's verboten. In their job, they are representing the govt. which is forbidden to base judgements on religion.

In the private sector, however, that same freedom of religion clause says that the owner of the (private, not govt. owned) business can operate his business according to the dictates of his religion if he wishes to. It's his property. That same freedom of religion forbids the govt. from telling him that he can't.

[Gatefan1976]

The difference you're apparently not seeing is the difference between someone carrying out public business vs someone carrying out their own business.
A county clerk, for example, cannot refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple because their personal religion tells them it's verboten. In their job, they are representing the govt. which is forbidden to base judgements on religion.

In the private sector, however, that same freedom of religion clause says that the owner of the (private, not govt. owned) business can operate his business according to the dictates of his religion if he wishes to. It's his property. That same freedom of religion forbids the govt. from telling him that he can't.

Err, you DO realise that she is talking about a JUDGE, right?
A public servant, a highly important public servant being ruled not by law, but by personal religion.
As for personal property, still waiting for you to deal with lease holders and your idea's becoming law.
I won't hold my breath however.