The Moral Arc

[Jon Miller]

Well, I try to not get into fights with you about Christianity since my hope is that God is transforming you.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Well, I try to not get into fights with you about Christianity since my hope is that God is transforming you.

JM

You just started one. Now finish it.

[Kidlicious]

So you are just going to slander a Christian and walk away?

[Jon Miller]

I didn't slander you. I pointed out a log in your eye.

The proper behavior would be for I and Elok or I and Imran to PM you or something like that.

JM

[Kidlicious]

I didn't slander you. I pointed out a log in your eye.

The proper behavior would be for I and Elok or I and Imran to PM you or something like that.

JM

Bull****. Back it up if you have any honor.

[Aeson]

You mean those who are overt racist and those who are just ok with racism.

Given that there are a multitude of issues involved, and no one is likely to have a candidate that agrees with them perfectly on every issue, it speaks more to relative weighting of issues than to actual positions on issues.

For instance, I don't think everyone who voted for Hillary supports war in Libya and Syria and Iraq (and likely Iran and a continual list of other places down the road). There were other reasons to vote for Hillary than her positions on geopolitics and war.

[Berzerker]

Christian fight!

[Aeson]

I would say much much less than 1 in 100 (it is going to take more than 1 justice who wants to ban sodomy, and once sodomy is banned it is going to take the executive branch/law enforcement having a desire to actively prosecute... and then there is duration to consider). While for African Americans it is near 1 in 1 (there is active support from law enforcement, some support from the courts and strong support from the new executive) and for Muslims/Hispanics it is probably 1 in 10 or so (here also there is active support from law enforcement, although I think the courts are less supportive).

JM

Trump has a pretty good chance to nominate 2 or even 3 justices. So far he's shown support for Scalia and Pryor, who both argued for allowing states to have anti-sodomy laws. Expecting him to put justices on the court which are significantly different on social issues than those he's promised to put on the court is naive and dangerous.

The executive (federal) is not involved in the formation or prosecution of state laws. SCOTUS doesn't have to say, "We think the federal government should be able to ..." They only have to say, "we think the states should be able to decide for themselves about X ..." (Which technically is Scalia and Pryor's position, but in effect they are saying they think it's ok to jail homosexuals for sodomy in their own homes with consenting adults. They just don't have to put that in the ruling.) Then red states can start jailing homosexuals again. (As they were doing as recently as 2003.)

The only impact the federal executive has is who is nominated for the courts, or to issue a blanket pardon for those convicted of such "crimes". Something even Obama hasn't done. (The UK has done so, posthumously in many cases.) Expecting Trump to issue a blanket pardon for people red states want imprisoned and piss off his base is a pipe dream.

[Kidlicious]

22 Democrats not attending inauguration. I'm assuming most of them are those who sat down with the Senate protestors and sang protest songs, and then some.

[Elok]

Basically what you're saying is that 'it hasn't happened before so it can't happen now'. Perhaps you're right, Trump has said many contradictory and sometimes downright dishonest things simply in order to win votes. It's worth remembering however that this is one of the most hard right GOP congress/senates in a very long time, with a highly conservative and religious VP who many expect to be instrumental in formulating policy and a supreme court that they are likely to be able to shape in a direction they want.

The hard right have more power right now than they've had for a very long time. I think its very dangerous to assume they won't try their damnest to use that power to achieve goals they've wanted for a very long time.

(I miss multi-quote)

I wouldn't say "can't," just "really not likely." Assuming we're talking about an appeal of Lawrence making it okay to jail for sodomy again. Gay marriage repeal is also deeply iffy, though I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Anyway, who is "the right"? The GOP contains many factions. The religious one, provided Trump stays alive, is significantly weaker under Trump than under GWB, who actually believed it. Probably you'll get one or two reactionary justices who will weaken parts of Roe and Obergefell. The Big Gay Rights Revolution will stop in its tracks, with generous exemptions carved out for dissenters. If he tries to actually roll it backwards, he'll run into mass refusal to implement across half the country. Likely you'd see gay people emigrating to Blue America even more than they already do.

Aeson, if things actually got bad enough that a literal, direct ban on religious practice was achievable, SCOTUS would be largely irrelevant, because that would mean the first amendment was being ignored entirely and most everything would be up for grabs. With that aside, much of gay marriage could be achieved by a good lawyer; they just wouldn't be able to file taxes jointly. I don't remember mass anti-gay pogroms in the year 2000, before Lawrence.

[Aeson]

Aeson, if things actually got bad enough that a literal, direct ban on religious practice was achievable, SCOTUS would be largely irrelevant, because that would mean the first amendment was being ignored entirely and most everything would be up for grabs. With that aside, much of gay marriage could be achieved by a good lawyer; they just wouldn't be able to file taxes jointly. I don't remember mass anti-gay pogroms in the year 2000, before Lawrence.

That's your interpretation of the Constitution. Other people (including a majority of SCOTUS in recent decisions) view various homosexual rights as Constitutional. It was until quite recently not upheld as Constitutional by SCOTUS.

Hypothetically at some point Christians could find themselves in a situation where SCOTUS changes it's view on the 1st amendment, like they have on several other amendments at several other times (inc the 1st at times) in the past. The question was to help you understand what it would be like to be in that situation, so you can perhaps develop empathy for those who have recently been, and may soon be again, in that type of situation.

There's no need for "mass anti-gay pogroms" to be unacceptable. I don't think it's ok for even one person to be jailed for having sex with a consenting adult in the privacy of their own home.

[Aeson]

Would you feel it's ok if in the hypothetical situation only an occasional Christian here or there would be jailed for practising their religion?

[Elok]

Okay? No. Cause for panic? Not except insofar as it was precedent for further erosion of liberties. Like I said, gay people do not exist as an organic community, so the analogy falls apart; the violence would be hard to push any farther.

As events post-Obergefell indicated a zero-sum game--their rights must necessarily come at the expense of ours in the current, addled political climate--I am admittedly somewhat biased, but I would prefer that both sides calm down and find an acceptable compromise.

[Jon Miller]

As events post-Obergefell indicated a zero-sum game--their rights must necessarily come at the expense of ours in the current, addled political climate--I am admittedly somewhat biased, but I would prefer that both sides calm down and find an acceptable compromise.

And the apparent zero-sum nature is why protected classes should not multiply.

African Americans and Native Americans did (and still do) have it much worse then other possible groupings in an open an sustained way (And now in a hidden and sustained way). This is why race should be a protected class and people get their rights curtailed in respect to race.

JM

[Aeson]

Okay? No. Cause for panic? Not except insofar as it was precedent for further erosion of liberties. Like I said, gay people do not exist as an organic community, so the analogy falls apart; the violence would be hard to push any farther.

As events post-Obergefell indicated a zero-sum game--their rights must necessarily come at the expense of ours in the current, addled political climate--I am admittedly somewhat biased, but I would prefer that both sides calm down and find an acceptable compromise.

Rights are always "zero-sum", in that to protect one's action you must limit another's potential action.

Yes, by not allowing states to put homosexuals in prison for consensual sex in their own homes you are curtailing the rights of states so that they can't put homosexuals in prison for consensual sex in their own homes. On the other hand, by allowing states to put homosexuals in prison for consensual sex in their own homes you are curtailing the rights of homosexuals.

There is an obvious answer as to who's rights should be respected in that regard. Trump, via his nominees and praise of Scalia, is at best oblivious to it ...

Putting people on SCOTUS who would allow states to imprison homosexuals for consensual sex in their own homes is not anything close to "an acceptable compromise".