The General US Politics Thread

Sort of. I think when Jefferson said that, he was being somewhat unserious; He was telling that to a leader who was facing revolutions just shortly after the revolution. Jefferson was basically saying "Screw you" to him. I think.

"Oklahoma's Supreme Court has ruled a Ten Commandments monument on the state Capitol grounds must be removed because it violates the state Constitution."

I've been waiting years for that one.

Man it's been a great week.

ISIS is getting rekt by the Kurds The Confederate flag is being removed everywhere Gays are allowed equal rights when it comes to marriage The ten commandments monument is removed from my state's capitol grouns

Good stuff.

In fact the 9th circuit of appeals recently declared unconstitutional a State law that had been approved via referendum, that forbid judges from releasing undocumented immigrants on bail.

One could argue that "undocumented immigrants" are a "protected class" as per the 1964 civil rights act. But broadly speaking the reasoning behind the 9th circuit of appeals was that due process was a universal right.

Gun advocates seem to want to follow this line of thinking with a shockingly liberal line of argumentation. That is that the federal government must take away state rights to regulate gun laws by providing "equality before the law" to all gun owners.

Which is pretty silly, unless SCOTUS expands the "fundamental" aspects of the right to bear arms.

edited 30th Jun '15 7:52:50 PM by BAFFU

Problem is that the Textualists like Scalia and Thomas have no trouble disregarding precedent when they believe their interpretation of the constitution is what the framers wanted.

Which is why I dislike textualists. Who cares about what the framers wanted? I mean sure... they were great and all, but what about the centuries of legal tradition in the common law system, international law, Stare decisis, common sense; hell, even logical argumentation!??...

If the second amendment is ever expanded upon, it will be due to a textualist interpretation of the second amendment. Which might be right... from a textualist point of view... but I digress.

Religion isn't a voluntary choice, though.

Or, to be more specific, religious practices are a choice, but religious beliefs are not. You don't get to choose whether or not you believe in something; if you could, I'd choose to believe that lettuce and carrots are delicious and that doing situps feels great. But the human mind doesn't work that way.

We change our beliefs all the time; it's just a matter of having the intellectual integrity to examine them, or having a shock occur that disrupts them seriously. Never mind that, though; there is a difference between what one owns/does and what one is. The only reason gun ownership is even remotely considered special in terms of legal protection is the Second Amendment. Otherwise it would confer on you no more deference than owning a car, or a fork... except that I don't look at someone with a fork and think, "Oh, damn, I'd better not piss him off or he might kill me."

edited 30th Jun '15 8:18:22 PM by Fighteer

It's entirely possible to change your beliefs if you have sufficient reason to believe your current ones are wrong. I used to be a hardcore Christian but then I examined my beliefs and various scientific facts and decided they were incorrect. Not everyone does this obviously but changing one's religious beliefs is entirely possible. Political views are the same way. You don't even have to change them to something that's correct. A lot of times people will just follow whoever makes the most persuasive argument.

edited 30th Jun '15 8:21:43 PM by Kostya

The US is basically the only place in the world where the idea of gun ownership has such reverence. Canadians (who do have a different culture, but there is quite a bit of overlap) tend to view that as kind of creepy, in part because the image of the "gun fanatic" doesn't tend to be very positive.

And anyway, the vast majority of people don't define themselves by their favored weapon. That's not exactly healthy.

edited 30th Jun '15 8:23:08 PM by Zendervai

The thing about religion is that if religions are not given any protection, very bad things happen. In fact, failing to protect people of religion is the human rights abuse associated with theocratic regimes.

Or, for a significantly less severe example: In French schools, you are not allowed to bring religious items into school. This has caused Muslim girls to drop out of school, as it's against their religion to do so. I don't want us to end up in a society like that.

Also, if we're going to not protect people's religious views, why respect their right to disagree with the state at all?

edited 30th Jun '15 8:27:34 PM by Protagonist506

Considering the large and colorful history of religion based violence... it seems like a good idea to limit religion while allowing it to exist without disruption.

In other words, we don't mess with the church, the church doesn't mess with us.

Of course, the idea itself might be simple enough but the implementation is full of headaches.

I'm fine with religion being protected provided it doesn't try to enforce its views on others. If you don't eat pork or if you want to wear a Hijab because of your religion then go for it. Where I draw the line is stuff like opposing gay marriage, sex ed, or teaching evolution because that involves forcing your beliefs on others.

edit: Or doing things that are blatantly unsafe because of your religion but that's not as much of a concern.

edited 30th Jun '15 8:33:13 PM by Kostya

When one's religion defines one's core identity, and one may be persecuted or killed on that basis, then obviously protecting it is important. However, in this day and age in the Western world, it is no longer necessary to everyday life, and can and should be relegated to a curious aspect of one's personality, much as one might profess a like of orange socks or Doritos and salsa.

Nobody in this nation is attacking Christians. What they are saying is that Christians do not get preferential treatment on the basis of their beliefs. You have freedom of religion, to be sure — that is, the freedom to have and practice a faith, but that does not also confer the right to have your faith enshrined in our laws or in our everyday customs. I shouldn't be able to fire you for being a Christian; neither should you fire me for being an atheist. If you want to preach against homosexuality in your church, you're a dick, but I can't make you stop. But you cannot use your faith as a shield to justify your bigotry outside of that church, and I would sure as hell kick you out of my church.

The First Amendment affords negative freedoms; it does not afford the right to have one's religion, one's speech, or one's assembly compel or restrict the actions of others.

edited 30th Jun '15 9:45:02 PM by Fighteer

Wasn't Jefferson a Wealthy Lawyer?

Has anyone else brought up that Obama used executive action to extend overtime pay for employees today?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102654214

Edit: Look, guys, putting religion as a protected class was a fairly sensible thing, as was separation of church and state, as the founders were probably taking a good long look at the problems in England that mixing the two had created on several occasions. And that was just different denominations of the same thing. If I'm remembering correctly there's even a prohibition on the state starting its own religion in there somewhere. But Fighteer, everyone here is going to agree with you so you don't have to get so... up in arms is what it feels like.

I'm not even sure how this got from guns to religion.

edited 30th Jun '15 10:14:29 PM by AceofSpades

Jefferson's Practice over Preaching ratio was pretty darn high, going into outright hypocrisy sometimes, but he did seem to genuinely want to bring the ideas he had into action.

Guns and religion be very intertwined here. God's right to bear arms and all that whatever.

As a conservative Christian, I would say that the right to bear arms is God-given. Having said that, I would say that of any human right I believe in, so I find it chuckle-worthy to call it a religious issue per say.

New experiences or intellectual examination can change your beliefs, certainly, but you can't control what they change your beliefs into.

Well, the next step in the Trump saga is him sueing Univision for 500 million. The cheeky bastard is actually claiming that not only is Univision in breach of contract, but are suppressing his free speech. Given his comments about mexicans are what caused the Spanish language network to drop the pageants he co-owns in the first place....yeah, good luck with that.

But he's a white man with money, so nothing can possibly be his fault.

And he clearly doesn't understand what the "free speech" in the 1st Amendment actually refers to. But that isn't very surprising.

He had the right for free speech. We also had the right to judge him(not criminally or by commiting crimes) over what he says.

If this isn't a crime, he can't say anything about free speech. Specially since I bet Univision wants everyone to know what he said now.

edited 1st Jul '15 7:39:42 AM by MeetTheNewBoss

There seems to be an almost nigh-universal (deliberate?) misunderstanding of What Free Speech Means. What freedom of speech actually means is simply that the government can't make self-expression illegal except for in specific extenuating circumstances (such as terrorism or false advertising).

What people seem to constantly assume it means is either 'All speaking platforms are obligated to let me say whatever I want,' or 'No one should be able to disassociate themselves from me professionally because of my personal opinion.' Of course, examining either of these assumptions for even five seconds shows that they're completely ridiculous. But people have a deep-seated need to justify their self-expression, and sometimes the only way you have left to justify something to yourself is irrational.

Put succinctly, you can speak, but nobody has to listen to you or provide you a venue.

edited 1st Jul '15 7:57:29 AM by Fighteer

RELATED.