Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?

[Revoltingest]

I don't really see the OP as ascribing evil motives to them.

Just ignorance.

In my opinion.

OK.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So why do they have a history of opposing gay marriage, cannabis legalization, flag burning, gambling, sex work, and adult entertainment?

Because they don't want to be "free" to do those things, they think nobody else should be, either. Freedom, on the right, is a weird beasty.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And this is just an afterthought, but I think it's important to remember that it was pro-lifers murdering doctors in the 1980s. "I'm pro-life, so I gotta bomb you, your clinic, and everybody in it."

"Yeah," said Katnip to Buzzy the Crow, "that sounds logical."

 

[Nakosis]

I disagree. There's the (upcoming) argument about "court packing," which some think the Democrats might try -- but it was the absolute mendacity of Mitch McConnell who was "court packing" at the end of Obama's 2nd term (10 months left, not enough time to get Merrick Garland on the court), and at the end of Trump's first term (40 days was a perfectly adequate amount of time to get Amy Coney Barrett in there).

Everybody can pretend all they like that this was not blatant hypocrisy, but it is, and it is nothing but.

Hell is emptier because McConnell is still in the Senate.

Which to me is why it shouldn't be in the hands of the court system.
SCOTUS ought to make decision based on the constitution. Let the law be determine by elected representatives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which to me is why it shouldn't be in the hands of the court system.
SCOTUS ought to make decision based on the constitution. Let the law be determine by elected representatives.

The Supreme Court's job, as set out in the Constitution, is to ultimately decide if a law is Constitutional or not. They do not get to decide willy nilly which laws they will review. They have to work their way up the courts and still be unresolved when they hit the Supremes. There have been illegal and immoral laws in the past and the court has gotten rid of them. There have also been controversial laws that they confirmed. And sometimes the Supreme Court even really screws the pooch. Dred Scott anyone?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Which to me is why it shouldn't be in the hands of the court system.
SCOTUS ought to make decision based on the constitution. Let the law be determine by elected representatives.

Then it will always be 100% political, and majorities will suppress minorities forever more. I find that to be pretty much the worst of all possible ends.

 

[Nakosis]

Then it will always be 100% political, and majorities will suppress minorities forever more. I find that to be pretty much the worst of all possible ends.

I understand but to me it is always 100% political.
I don't believe in a universal morality to based laws on so politics is the necessity.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I understand but to me it is always 100% political.
I don't believe in a universal morality to based laws on so politics is the necessity.

But you must admit that having some protections for minority rights has got to be better than none at all. I remember being a kid in school, and the phrase "majority rules!" was the worst kind of oppression a kid who was different could face.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand but to me it is always 100% political.
I don't believe in a universal morality to based laws on so politics is the necessity.

Decisions in the Supreme Court are not based on morality, usually, they are based upon an interpretation of the US Constitution. That is how they came to a 7-2 decision that Scott was still a slave. Morality alone would have freed him in the lower courts. They went by what the US Constitution said at that time.

 

[Nakosis]

The Supreme Court's job, as set out in the Constitution, is to ultimately decide if a law is Constitutional or not. They do not get to decide willy nilly which laws they will review. They have to work their way up the courts and still be unresolved when they hit the Supremes. There have been illegal and immoral laws in the past and the court has gotten rid of them. There have also been controversial laws that they confirmed. And sometimes the Supreme Court even really screws the pooch. Dred Scott anyone?

Ok, I don't really know if you are arguing or agreeing. At least I don't see an argument here.

 

[Nakosis]

Decisions in the Supreme Court are not based on morality, usually, they are based upon an interpretation of the US Constitution. That is how they came to a 7-2 decision that Scott was still a slave. Morality alone would have freed him in the lower courts. They went by what the US Constitution said at that time.

I'm happy to agree.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Decisions in the Supreme Court are not based on morality, usually, they are based upon an interpretation of the US Constitution. That is how they came to a 7-2 decision that Scott was still a slave. Morality alone would have freed him in the lower courts. They went by what the US Constitution said at that time.

But what the US Constitution, what Magna Carta, what the Code of Hammurabi all said was said in words -- and words a human construct to convey human ideas, and can be used in so many ways.

And interpretation is something that is done in the moment. That's why I despise all those who want to do literalist interpretations of the Bible, or originalist interpretations of the Constitution. There are things we have to interpret for ourselves based on the whole body of human knowledge as we have it NOW -- not THEN.

 

[Nakosis]

But you must admit that having some protections for minority rights has got to be better than none at all. I remember being a kid in school, and the phrase "majority rules!" was the worst kind of oppression a kid who was different could face.

From my understanding, that is the basis of the Constitution. To specify the scope and limit of federal powers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, I don't really know if you are arguing or agreeing. At least I don't see an argument here.

Just correcting. The Supreme Court does not make moral rulings. Deciding the abortion issue would not be a moral decision for them. One can argue for it based on morals but ultimately the Supreme Court looks at laws, the Constitution and its Amendments to get to its decisions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From my understanding, that is the basis of the Constitution. To specify the scope and limit of federal powers.

And the Supreme Court is the final arbiter when disagreements have arisen about laws and policies.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

From my understanding, that is the basis of the Constitution. To specify the scope and limit of federal powers.

To lay out the scope and limits of any and all powers that can be applied to the individual, yes. But my point was that language -- like all things human -- changes over time, and to therefore bind yourself to a constitutional (or scriptural) text limits the ability of a society to move on, and learn from its experiences over time.

 

[F1fan]

I disagree with them to.
But I don’t see them with the evil motives so often ascribed to them.

What do you think their motives are? to be nice and caring people, or control freaks who have problems being tolerant and respecting other's freedoms?

Set their goals in the same vein as police being able to do anything they want to you in a traffic stop, and can violate your rights because they think they are right and you're a suspect of doing something.

You post a lot of videos and topics about police abuse. So you are in essence the same as those advocating for reproductive freedom, the right to gay marriage, transgender and equality rights, etc. If the police were no longer held to account for violating citizens rights, do you think there would be an increase in violations, or stay the same?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Lol, that's a Crock. The right wants more freedom, not less.
BTW a baby being free to be born is a basic human right.

You know, an acorn isn't an oak tree. As well, if you believe that nature isn't 'mute,' you can see that it wants a balance instilled in the organisms which fill its body. In most cases, creature A slowly evolves a trait, which is offset by a slowly evolved counter-trait in creature B. Humans have the freedom to describe that as a house of cards, and knock it down. They can introduce invasive species, and cut down the amazon, or build houses on a hill above a watershed, so that waste runs off into it. Contemporary, modern western philosophy or religion typically does not grant 'personhood' to nature

 

[F1fan]

I understand but to me it is always 100% political.
I don't believe in a universal morality to based laws on so politics is the necessity.

These days right wing politics is not separated from Christian extremism. So politics on the right will tend to follow the whims of evangelicals and their laundry list of demands.

To my mind both the right wing of the courts and politics are violating the church and state divide. Kavenaugh, Gorsuch, and even Alito are all being accused of lying in their confirmation hearings and interviews. They are doing things in the court that they said they would not do. This is a huge breach of ethics and civic trust. The right seems to believe they are on a mission from God and they can lie to the infidels on their moral mission. Yet they violate all the ethics they have sworn to honor and uphold.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that in late June the decision of SCOTUS on abortion is delivered, and it is substantially the same as the leaked document penned by Justice Alito. (Presumably including the arguments based on 400 year old jurists who just happened to believe in witches empowering evil spirits in the world). What will they aim for next?

I believe that the religious right thinks itself "on a roll," and that if you are not a heterosexual, cis-gender God-fearer, they are coming for you. So far as I can tell, they have never been shy about making this intention perfectly clear, even though many weren't paying attention.

Thinks like same-sex marriage, the right to make love to the consenting individual of your choice, the right not to have to "join us in prayer," and many more, I believe, will all soon be under threat, because the Religious Right is now smelling blood, and it is hugely energizing for them.

There are slippery slopes everywhere. We first have to consider policies at their word.