«12. . .2,2782,2792,2802,2812,2822,2832,284. . .2,5112,512»
Roast those incompetent issue-dodgers and clause scapegoaters Alito!
"This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops. The City has been adamant about pressuring CSS to give in, and if the City wants to get around today’s decision, it can simply eliminate the never-used exemption power.21 If it does that, then, voilà, today’s decision will vanish—and the parties will be back where they started. The City will claim that it is protected by Smith; CSS will argue that Smith should be overruled; the lower courts, bound by Smith, will reject that argument; and CSS will file a new petition in this Court challenging Smith. What is the point of going around in this circle? Not only is the Court’s decision unlikely to resolve the present dispute, it provides no guidance regarding similar controversies in other jurisdictions.....After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of post-argument cogitation, the Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed—as am I. "
I expected from the start to be disappointed by Kavanaugh, I did not expect to be so disappointed by Barrett.
We have discussed this before, but I'm legitimately worried that this '6-3' court is going to go through its entire lifespan without a single actually meaningful and significant conservative decision, that we'll lose Thomas or maybe Alito and that there may then never be a conservative court again. 6-3 the other way would fundamentally rework the country, right now it's just suffering through the painfully long legal process to hope they'll even grant cert for a case that might make a significant difference, and then the morbid exercise of hoping none of the justices keel over before the decision can come down.
They might take up Jack Phillip's case again (the man is very clearly being targeted), or perhaps Stutzman, who has been waiting for half a decade, but there's no guarantee that even if they attempt to that a majority will still be around by the time the gears oh-so-slowly turn.
For a new poll question, I would be curious what the region's thoughts on incrementalism vs. absolutism are on abortion. There are a bunch of different ways one could come at it, with hypotheticals or just asking for self-identification, so I don't know what the question would be, but just people's takes on if they think one or the other is better morally, better in terms of political effectiveness, maybe one is more effective but the other is more moral or preferred, etc. Perhaps best worded as a question of focus, something like "Would you prefer for legislators to primarily focus on passing step-by-step smaller abortion restrictions, or on major ones/fetal personhood." It might vary depending on whether one is talking about the state or federal level as well.
I tend to fall on the absolutist side of things. I think that there is certainly good done by chipping away at abortion in small ways, partial-birth bans, down syndrome bans, sex-selective bans, etc., but I think that especially if it turns to incrementalism in timing, 24 weeks v. 20 weeks v. 15 weeks etc., that one runs the risk of dampening support for a full (possibly with life/rape exceptions depending on your position) ban. Some of this depends on how much one trusts survey data that does not necessarily play out in referendums, but there's a substantial portion of people who identify as pro-life who mostly just support post-first-trimester bans. In a hypothetical where the limit was lowered down to 12 weeks, I think the concern would be that one still has the majority of abortions being performed early, and political momentum may stall out with more people willing to accept the status quo. Of course that itself raises the question of whether it would still be worth damaging the chances of a full ban if a minority of lives, but still a huge number, are saved with partial bans.
I think both sides have solid arguments, and a lot of it depends on how one views the political landscape, or how one thinks attitudes on abortion will or will not change in the future.
Side note: when I was reading up in response to this point, I learned the awful Colorado Civil Rights Commission has the gall to present itself as bipartisan and even claims to "represent both political parties" even though every member has been appointed by a Democratic governor and Senate and 3 members are Democrats and 4 members are 'unaffiliated' (read: we can only appoint 3 Democrats, so we made sure they officially weren't).
I also love this statement: "At least four members who are members of groups of people who have been or who might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, marital status, region, or age."
So, in other words, those 4 members could be anyone...
https://ccrd.colorado.gov/colorado-civil-rights-commission
Happy first federally-recognized Juneteenth to my fellow Americans!
Horatius Cocles, Phydios, The Rouge Christmas State, Michigain, and 2 othersDiwala, and New Kiwis
Happy Juneteenth! It’s been a Texas state holiday for some time now :)
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/texas-republicans-take-aim-history-juneteenth-it-could-backfire-ncna1271352
New Dolgaria, Phydios, and New Kiwis
I love how they manage to cover every single base you could think of for discrimination, including 'region' of all things (There is system bias against people who live in northwestern Arkansas in this country!), but not "religion" for some strange reason that I am sure is just a random oversight....
There isn't an oversight, it includes the word "creed." Per "STATE OF COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION RULES AND REGULATIONS"
“Creed” means all aspects of religious beliefs, observances or practices, as well as sincerely-held moral and ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, and/or addresses ultimate ideas or questions regarding the meaning of existence, as well as the beliefs or teachings of a particular religion, church, denomination or sect. A creed does not include political beliefs, association with political beliefs or political interests, or membership in a political party
https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/3%20CCR%20708-1.pdf?ruleVersionId=6008&fileName=3%20CCR%20708-1
I'm not keen on their definition, it being both extremely broad and yet using awkward statutory categories.
Fair enough, error on my part. I feel like in the lists of protected categories I usually see 'religion' and 'creed' separated, so I jumped to a conclusion there.
In that case, Phillips is certainly qualified to serve on the CCRC on the basis of the actions against him by said CCRC.
Well, this is a despicable: https://delauro.house.gov/sites/delauro.house.gov/files/documents/Statement%20of%20Principles%206.18.21.pdf
(signed by 60/77 of the Catholic Democrats in the House)
To add some context, especially for the non-Catholics: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/congressman-challenges-gomez-with?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy&fbclid=IwAR3krNoP0H6Sq1V0V-MzT1h19HWZSPc6eVO9JkVJ9vUY7RaIgYbKLZ0K7D8
It warps the actual late actions/decisions of the bishops, church teachings and documents, and even claims the authors know that the Holy Spirit would be displeased with the bishops.
I just don’t see why the meaning behind the cake was expressed to Phillips to begin with. They admit they would have made the cake before they knew about the meaning behind it. The whole explanation of the cake caused tons of unnecessary headache that needn’t have occurred.
I think the headache is the point. They not looking for a sweet confection, they could get that anywhere without years of litigation, what they're looking for is a government mandate for Phillips and others to be forced behave according to their (the lawyer's) own perception of morality. It's not "people like Jack Phillips prevent me from getting the cake I want", it's "People with beliefs like Jack Phillips should not exist, at least not in the public square"
And the private sphere as well, soon enough. Everyone denying that this is an attempt to legally sanction non-government-approved beliefs and is just about cakes are the same people who said that same-sex marriage was just going to be marriage licenses and would never infringe on a Christian person or organization. If you want to see the desired end-point for this lawyer going at Phillips and others like him, just look to Scotland's recent attempts to pass a 'hate speech' law that would, explicitly, by its proponents, criminalize hate speech within one's own home (and presumably, for added irony, within one's one bedroom.)
As for what was being said only a few years ago:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered
That's the majority opinion of Obergefell v. Hodges, not the dissent. Outside of the legal aspect of things, I can recall plenty of pro-same-sex-marriage people I knew on Facebook sharing memes talking about how there were going to be no side effects and no slippery slope: I remember pie charts like this being shared often: https://dk-legacy.s3.amazonaws.com/i/user/3/gaymarriage_piechart.jpg. Those same people now would disavow that from less than a decade ago as regressive, and in another decade, when we're talking about Scottish-style hate speech laws, today's rhetoric would be regressive.
The long and short of it is that it's bad form in politics to leap to the conclusion that people who disagree with you are bad people rather than just having bad ideas, it's easy and seductive, something to be resisted, but occasionally simply true. If someone makes a call for gun control, they may legitimately want what they perceive as safety, if someone makes a call for abortion, they may legitimately want what they perceive as freedom of choice, but if someone, on the day of the court decision, deliberately seeks out Phillips specifically and lays out the transgender cake he wants with the plainly deliberate intention of entrapment, then that's not someone who legitimately just wants a cake-that's someone who wants the governmental removal of dissenting views from the public square.
"To pursue a blanket denial of the Holy Eucharist to certain elected officials would indeed grieve the Holy Spirit and deny the evolution of that individual, a Christian person who is never perfect, but living in the struggle to get there."
I cannot believe the arrogance of this. They're not 'living in the struggle to get there', they're writing a letter explicitly admitting that they are knowingly contradicting the Church with no intention to 'evolve' their views.
"we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world."
'The church should be a moral force that creates a more just America, but also should be separated entirely from government and judging the morality of someone killing a child is out of bounds.' This is just ridiculous.
That second article only reinforces my previous belief that Ted Lieu is one of the absolute worst people in the United States government. The 'we're evolving to be more perfect' line was already plainly nonsense before he signed on to the letter and then went on to directly brag to a Bishop about how he spurns Church doctrine in all these areas and should be denied Communion.
I'm obviously not Catholic, I don't support the concept of the Church as a single organization/institution with its set doctrines, bureaucracy, etc., but this still just digs at me from the hypocrisy of it all. Just take off the mask and call yourself Protestants at this point-paying lip service to the idea of the Church while both semi-subtly undermining and then explicitly spurning it and it's authority is miserably two-faced and deserves no respect.
I WOULD ALSO ALERT YOU OF ANOTHER NATION I FOUNDED, THE NATION OF PREyDONA WHICH IS ALSO ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE. I HAVE DECIDED TO GO WITH A FRESH NEW START AND START THE NATION OF PREDONA.
ROGER THAT! o7
ALL CAPS ARE FUN.
The Rouge Christmas State and Diwala
I think maybe, development-wise, the future will be Christian anarchism (as a school of thought, for those who want to withstand government intervention):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Essays_in_Anarchism_and_Religion_Volume_01.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_in_Brief
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolstoyan_movement
I could see things going a number of ways, most of them not particularly good, and I really do not have a good enough crystal ball to say which.
I think Christian anarchism is certainly one of the more likely options, especially as government seems likely to continue to grow in both religious and nonreligious matters and technology increasingly takes over more and more of our lives. Tempermentally, though, I don't know how much that fits with the mindset of many religious Christians in America, I think that would be one of the longer-term possibilities with slow cultural change. Another possibility is the Benedict Option (https://thebenedictoption.com/what-is-the-benedict-option/), more or less sorting ourselves into Christian communities to counter the 'progressive' culture. I think there's validity to this, balkanization, for good and ill, is happening in America today, but I think that both now and in the future people continue to move and arrange themselves for economic reasons, not cultural ones, which is why one does not have liberal Texans moving to California, but liberal Californians moving to Texas-most people just put the job and home market first, and that disrupts a cleaner break (which I think is better) between communities.
The more directly cynical option is that the path forward is one of simple decline, like the Church in England, where it simply gradually fades with a whimper rather than a bang, and Christianity becomes scattered and Christians quiet. Depending on the level to which government cracks down on the church, one could optimistically hope that America follows the way of eastern Europe, and that Christianity survives under persecution and becomes stronger once (if) the political tides change, though the more cynical (and realistic) side of things expects such a crackdown to be widely acceded to and the number of religious Christians to shrink and go underground. I've heard some argue that the number of people identifying as Christian will not actually drop significantly, but that the perception of it will simply change, that the rainbow-flag-waving Bible-kinda-just-guidelines-maybe spiritual-not-religious denominations will become the most common, and religious Christians will sort of look like ultra-Orthodox Jews, though probably more negatively viewed.
Of course for the devoted optimist there's the idea that there'll be another Great Awakening and we'll right the ship before it capsizes, but I would call that unlikely, to say the least. Everything is changing so quickly, culturally and politically, that it's hard to tell. A few years ago, I would have said that there was going to be a cultural backlash for pushing things too far, and I thought it would be on transgender issues, but it did not materialize and I think now it is not likely to occur at all, the question is more about whether we cool off and settle into a new normal, or if the pace only continues or even accelerates, and 2020 culture is seen as regressive in 2032 as 2008 is today.
Im a christian dictator
Do you have a Christian typist?
What is That
*The RCS begins to supply weapons and financial resources*
Congrats on your independence!
P.S. Try and refrain from all caps next time.
I am really excited for this to finally come out, soon the Newmanites will be able to out Catholic any Roman and kick low church ass with our very own Office book, all with Papal approval:
https://www.ctsbooks.org/product/daily-office/
«12. . .2,2782,2792,2802,2812,2822,2832,284. . .2,5112,512»
Advertisement
