The only problem is all the weirdos moving there.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Washington State Congressperson Introduces Bill to Prohibit Religious Registry
- Thread starter crossfire
- Start date
Nor for me since I am one of those weirdos
Uh oh.....I did another faux pas.
And I don't even speak French!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And it also would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
BTW, why is it that so many on the right mouth their support for the Constitution but then virtually ignore it when they don't like what it says? Also, remember the "Lock her up!" chant by Trump and his groupies, thus being judge, jury, and executioner.
In this post and the one before it (directed at me), you are saying what the battle is not, rather than what it is. Which is why I think my first comment in the thread makes sense, politically. It's easy to say "no to Obamacare" and to find support for that take. But asked to identify the (positive) alternative and then not doing that, makes for opposition having rather easy criticism for filtering proposed changes.
I see a registry as tame, as in why wouldn't we all want to be on the registry during time of war so we (Americans) can be as clear as possible on who is worthing of tracking and who is possibly aligning with terrorism and extremism? I realize, I think fairly well, reasons not to go down that road, but given my anti-war/pacifist type philosophies, it does get to points where I'm going to question openly the desire to fight. Why and how? Seems to me, often that the pacifist types like myself have to put up with ridicule for being, what some see, as inherently ineffective in the face of immediate and grave danger, yet when that same stance is turned back on the types that truly seem to think a great offense is a reasonable defense, then suddenly any sense of ridicule is to be taken off the table in name of 'patriotism' and 'duty.' So, I say all this to suggest that a registry ought to be a very small concern if battling via physical might is of any importance to anyone.
Because I think it matters to identify that which is seemingly worthy of us spending blood and treasure toward an outcome of continued liberty and pursuit of happiness. I also think I'm far from being alone in this desire to identify our perceived political and national enemies. Especially if they are engaged in acts of terrorism / war.
Yes Acim the vernacular they are choosing to change to as do sway the fact that religious discrimination isn't the real goal. Same line of reasoning that makes trump ignore the fact that stop and search was found to be unconstitutional bordering on racial profiling. We already do extreme vetting and the trump administration wants to make it even more controversial. If we are going to put Muslims on a database then let's do this for Christians too and make sure they aren't in any fringe groups.
The existence of such a registry would mean that it would eventually get leaked to those who would wish to target certain classifications of persons who might be on said registry, (terrorists might infiltrate the government,) making the terrorists' jobs much easier!
Agreed, let's do this for Christians and all people. During time of war, this would make sense to have people on a registry in all possible instances. If current leader(s) seek to use registry to violate civil rights, then let them make the case for that as transparently as possible, but also let's expect that in a free society, they might have resistance. To say let's not do this, is to me, akin to saying "let's not do Obamacare" and leave it at that. Obamacare has, at least, one mandate that goes against personal freedom, and is from my understanding #1 reason why there is opposition to it. Undo that mandate and does Obamacare have any chance of surviving? Asked rhetorically, because not really looking to change the topic (to Obamacare) as much as I'm saying when things are spun out of control (as is case with healthcare coverage for all, or pursuit of happiness for all), there might be measures needing to be taken that ought to seek getting everyone on the same page. I would think more so with matters of war, but realize that is part of the ongoing debate. We clearly may have people within our borders who are not us and/or are actively working against us, willingly fighting the battle that is currently being fought by U.S. military on foreign soil.
A religious registry has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare.
McBell
Unbound
Does this mean they will be removing religious preference from all government documents?
I actually think it does have relation, so you're asserting it doesn't, is something that doesn't dissuade me. Even a little bit.
I don't know.
Your asserting that it does have a relation does not convince me either. You are the one making the assertion that a correlation exists, so the onus is on you to make a case for your claim. The onus is not on me to disprove your unsubstantiated assertion.
All people are already accounted for once they get legal documentation. You can't do anything in the US without them. There is no basis or any feasible way to discriminate based on ideology. Every immigrant is also a potential Eisnstien fleeing persecution from horrible conditions, from countries that can likely to chop limbs off or worse. I doubt people want such laws to follow to a country they are fleeing to.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Actually it was legal for almost a century as the 1st amendment only applied at the federal level not the state. The 14th amendment extended such laws to the state level.
There were pro-Protestant (thus anti-Catholic) laws in the states since they were colonies. So the founding fathers had no such intention otherwise they would have removed blasphemy and pro-Protestant laws when the revolution was over.
True, it is up to me to make the correlation. Which I did in post #3, a little bit; along with post #25, a little bit; and post #29.
The problem is we have people on the planet that wish to hurt/destroy America and its allies. I'm thinking everyone in this thread can identify that enemy of America, but for various reasons there may be reluctance. Currently, for America, the battlefield is in the middle east. For the enemy, it is there and everywhere on the planet where Americans and their allies reside. I think military types on the American side (and its allies) realize the battlefield is more than the middle east, and so it is possibly helpful to identify within the population (regardless of the location of the battlefield) who is with us, and who is against us. Seeing that the enemy may not volunteer such info, then a MANDATE might be necessary to be put into place so that those engaged in actual fighting and security (of America) can distinguish between enemy combatants and civilians that are truly allied with American interests. Without this mandate, the policy you are against, would fall apart. The legislation you are favoring is seeking to ensure that mandate is made less possible or impossible.
And yet, the problem still exists. So, is like getting rid of Obamacare, by getting rid of the mandate that holds that together, and makes it financially feasible. And like politics around Obamacare, it is one thing to say "no to the mandate" and another thing to offer up a solution going forward that deals with the ongoing problem of caring for uninsured or underinsured individuals. Cause in political reality, before Obamacare, people were able to be treated for serious items, and everyone did pay for that. But Obamacare sought to help those people via ongoing care and preventative measures so we all didn't have to pay for the catastrophic coverage that results from someone needing emergency (room) healthcare. Without a mandate for registry, the enemy gets to blend into American society and we all get to pay (with blood or life) when the emergency situation arises.