It's out again - "under God" and the 9th circuit

[Mr. Harley]

LOTM - To start off, to reiterate I very carefully stated "...the EU standards on human rights." That is a standard. We are violating it in all the areas I've mentioned - plus I forgot the laws preventing persons travel to have abortions (Ireland). You may disagree with them, as you do further in the post. And then you make a curious statement.

"...but I think making that a criterion of Human rights is an imposition of particular values." LOTM, any charter on Human rights is going to be exactly that. I will also argue ethically against it, as in self-consistantly versus an appeal to a Holy Book, that the DP is unethical so long as the process cannot be made error free, due to the consequences of error. But that's for another thread - and it has been, many many many threads.

Plus, you have ignored through two posts now my statements about Native Americans. Care to look up the case against the two Native Americans that were lost their jobs due to their participation in the Native American Church. Dirty Pagans. SCOTUS supported that in it was roughly 1992. (and the United Council of Chrurches, with both Jews and main-stream Christian faiths filed a brief supporting the Native Americans). Do I need to go further?

Now, to gays. Lets look at this record you so glibly say is going well. Now lets change the wording from Gay to Jew.

Jews (Gays) are forbidden to serve in the military unless they are willing to hide there status.

11 ballot initiatives in 2004 passed, and our President and his party, which holds majorities in the national legislature, support putting such a ban into the constitution. This ban would not recognize the Marraige or Union of Jews (Gays) and make them unconstitutional.

It was just in 1996 that we finally, with a 6-3 decision, found laws, that were quite widespread FYI, that specifically denied Jews (gays) due process. Even worse, two of those judges dissenting are still on the court, and it is highly probable that the next two justices will also consider this an issue of state's rights.

I could go on, and probably grate on your nerves even more. With the religious right taking ownership of this, and ceremonial deism, then there is nothing wrong with reacting to the symbolism unless people like yourself can take control of it back from them. Sadly, LOTM, if you look at the polls, conservative people of the Old Book, Christians, Jews, and Moslems all tend to support these measures that would limit gay rights.

I do not think you would be quite so blaise about it if POTM were potentially affected by these. The US is on a counter-trend, against inclusiveness and becoming more conservative, and there are mulitple organizations spending billions every year on exactly that. The only good indicator are the poll numbers on people under 30 and Gay Rghts (from my admittedly biased viewpoint).

And reference the fact the US is a Federal Republic - I've posted on that, with generally negative commentary. Yes I know, and with reference to that need I remind you who was lynched so that finally Southern lychings were brought to the forefront of the public's knowledge. It was a Jew (and I won't even go into the names they were called, and this was under a century ago). And we still didn't get anti-lynching legislation for another half a century. So no, you don't need to remind me that we are a Republic. Do I need to remind you all the terrible things we have done under the aegis of State's Rights (which brings me right back to Native Americans - full circle).

BTW, did you go and read Bower vs Hardwick? I can polst that next, and then extend my irritating transpostion of Gay and Jew even further.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by shawnmmcc

LOTM - To start off, to reiterate I very carefully stated "...the EU standards on human rights." That is a standard. We are violating it in all the areas I've mentioned - plus I forgot the laws preventing persons travel to have abortions (Ireland). You may disagree with them, as you do further in the post. And then you make a curious statement.

"...but I think making that a criterion of Human rights is an imposition of particular values." LOTM, any charter on Human rights is going to be exactly that.

No, i think there are some things that are close to universally recognized. And rightly so. See the UN decl on human rights, the French statement of the rights of man, etc. The EU standards are very specific EU takes on things on which reasonable people disagree.

Plus, you have ignored through two posts now my statements about Native Americans. Care to look up the case against the two Native Americans that were lost their jobs due to their participation in the Native American Church. Dirty Pagans. SCOTUS supported that in it was roughly 1992. (and the United Council of Chrurches, with both Jews and main-stream Christian faiths filed a brief supporting the Native Americans). Do I need to go further?

I dont have time to go into every legal issue you raise. This is a big country, with lots of issues.

Now, to gays. Lets look at this record you so glibly say is going well. Now lets change the wording from Gay to Jew.

Jews (Gays) are forbidden to serve in the military unless they are willing to hide there status.

11 ballot initiatives in 2004 passed, and our President and his party, which holds majorities in the national legislature, support putting such a ban into the constitution. This ban would not recognize the Marraige or Union of Jews (Gays) and make them unconstitutional.

It was just in 1996 that we finally, with a 6-3 decision, found laws, that were quite widespread FYI, that specifically denied Jews (gays) due process. Even worse, two of those judges dissenting are still on the court, and it is highly probable that the next two justices will also consider this an issue of state's rights.

as i said, it needs to be put into historical context. in 1800 Jews were not allowed to vote or hold office in several states. Yet at the same time that Jews pushed for change, they recognized how much the US represented progress for them. All of the limitations you mention for gays were all in place 20 years ago. If there was no movement for a constitutional amendment, its cause the situation was taken for granted. Gradual progress may be frustrating, but its progress.

I could go on, and probably grate on your nerves even more. With the religious right taking ownership of this, and ceremonial deism, then there is nothing wrong with reacting to the symbolism unless people like yourself can take control of it back from them. Sadly, LOTM, if you look at the polls, conservative people of the Old Book, Christians, Jews, and Moslems all tend to support these measures that would limit gay rights.

1. The religious right does NOT own ceremonial deism.
2. Liberal people of the old book, including Reform and Conservative Jews, liberal protestants, etc oppose those measures.

What grating on me is the lack of logic. How would taking the words "under God' out of the pledge make it easier for say Gays to get married?? It makes no more sense than to think that putting the words into the pledge would stop communism. The way to stop communism is to lobby and fight against communism. the way to get gay rights is to vote, lobby, fight for gay rights.

The pledge is side issue, a diversion. Im not even insistent on keeping the words under god. what i challenged was the overheated rhetoric.

{q]I do not think you would be quite so blaise about it if POTM were potentially affected by these.[/q]

I would suggest not making personal suppositions about me.

The US is on a counter-trend, against inclusiveness and becoming more conservative,

ive lived in the US for over 40 years, and i can tell you with absolute confidence that the US is far more inclusive now than when i was growing up, in about a hundred ways. the opposition to gay marriage and gays in the military was opposition to NEW advances, NOT a move backward from something that had been accepted.

and there are mulitple organizations spending billions every year on exactly that.

there are organizations spending money in both directions on that issue.

And reference the fact the US is a Federal Republic - I've posted on that, with generally negative commentary. Yes I know, and with reference to that need I remind you who was lynched so that finally Southern lychings were brought to the forefront of the public's knowledge. It was a Jew (and I won't even go into the names they were called, and this was under a century ago). And we still didn't get anti-lynching legislation for another half a century. So no, you don't need to remind me that we are a Republic. Do I need to remind you all the terrible things we have done under the aegis of State's Rights (which brings me right back to Native Americans - full circle).

Again, its up to SCOTUS to interpet the law. If we dont like it we can pass an amendement. I dont like people treating SCOTUS like its a third unelected branch of the liegislature.

BTW, did you go and read Bower vs Hardwick? I can polst that next, and then extend my irritating transpostion of Gay and Jew even further.

Youre missing the point of what I said. Im not justififyin particular disrmination - im discussing time frame and rate of change.

[Mr. Harley]

LOTM - my point about POTM was to point out that if it was personal, you (or anyone) would be much more likely to be involved in opposition. Look at your reaction to that, and note - I said nothing even remotely hinting of anything negative about your family, or Judaism. The comment was about you, and your strong reaction shows you didn't paticularly like the technique.

None of us do. I would suspect, from our exchanges in the past, that you do vote for inclusiveness, and generally support gay rights not as a primary issue but as an important one. My point is that if it was personal to you, it would suddenly become a primary one. Since you mention QOTM, and POTM, I am assuming you are not gay personally - though I guess you could be bi.

The spending by conservative and reactionary groups organized to support the conservative and religious right agendas in this country is substantially larger than that spent by the opposition. If you want I can grab a little bit on that but it's been pretty well documented over the last decade or so (I can grab a couple of links if you really want me to?). That is why I am opposed to anything that ends up supporting, not just that agenda, but the environment that is giving them success.

Look at all the initiatives and other attempts to roll back both these and women's right not only to choose, but even to hormonal birth control (reference my arguments with BK over it being an "abortificant". You don't respond to my reference on Dr. Hager, and you have to realize - he was appointed, and RE-APPOINTED, by the President of the US!. Who makes extensive use of Deist-type languange.

You argue that this ceremonial deism is unimportant, and a side-show. I am argueing that it is part of the entire gestalt that is producing this effect, and that there is nothing that is unimportant in areas like this. Thomas Jefferson understood this all too well, as indicated by some of the earlier posters. It is all of this little things, unimportant things, that when added up become a tapestry of intolerance, that is accepted or minimized by a country as a whole. And if it is so unimportant - than it would be unimportant to return the pledge to it's original form. Other posters earlier in this thread very nicely deconstructed the logical inconsistancies and fallacies on that. You argument to that is to simply state they are wrong, or you ignore it.

Note, you quote things like the general experience, and reduction of intolerance, over the years for the Jewish community, and you are absolutely correct. I post current occurances, like SCOTUS decisions destroying the livlihood of two Native Americans because they are not conveniently monotheists and instead are practicing memebers of the Native American Church. The appointment of Dr. David Hager and the use of a conservative/reactionary agenda to interfere with women's reproductive rights. The various initiatives just this last year to not just institutionalize, but to make it part of our constitutional law to marginalize certain rights of Gays. You say I'm worried over nothing? Only the passage of time will show which of us is correct. Believe it or not, I hope you are. The problem is that I am afraid I am. (FYI, we are evidently about the same age, I am also in my forties).