Featured Post

Lost in Translation, Right Might Not Mean Right

I have written before about how the left sees words as important and tries to redefine them in ways that benefit the left, Words evolve. ...

Thursday, February 22, 2018

One Sure Fire Way to End Gun Violence

Listening to the debate in the wake of the horrid Florida school shooting, I have come around to believe that there is but one way to end that sort and many other forms of violence.

It is where our progressive overlords are leading us step-by-step, so let's leap there in one giant bound, and enjoy peace evermore.

You know what I am proposing, don't you? Yep. Let's get rid of the source of all of our troubles as a nation. I propose a simple amendment 28 to our Constitution. That amendment in one fell swoop would kill amendments 1-10. Yes, indeed, let's erase the Bill of Rights from our antiquated Constitution and come up with something modern and progressive!

Come on, Progs, you know you like the idea.

Not only would we get rid of pesky things such as gun ownership, but we would end hate speech, Fox News, and rallies by "Nazis" and other vile sorts; we would put an end to all that primitive religion stuff; we could forego all those bothersome search warrants (FISC is for everybody!); we would let the government house military personnel wherever it wants; we would do away with income inequality-producing private property; we would sweep away all those irritating defendants' rights so that progressive judges could lock up bothersome right-wingers tout de suite; and we would, once and forever, end that crap about states' rights so that all power resides where it belongs, i.e., in progressive DC.

If it will save even one life, we should scrap the Bill of Rights! I mean there were no mass shooting in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, or Franco's Spain . . . well, except for those by the government . . .  but those kind are different, those are for our protection, and done by the experts who know better, right?

Twenty-eight or Bust!

69 comments:

  1. Diplomad for Dictator, er, I mean President. Hahahaha. Sad thing is, there are no doubt PLENTY of progs who would endorse this!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Bill of Rights has always been an obstacle to "progressives". Healthy intact families, healthy houses of faith, the Boy scouts, open and free inquiry on campus, free enterprise, masculinity and a few more nettlesome things too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whitewall,

      I'm a progressive with a healthy, intact family (as are most of the progressives I know), and as masculine as anyone I have met. Why would youthink I opposed those things?

      Delete
    2. Eh Whitewall?

      You ever found it useful in posting a comment to a comment to type the words, "and as masculine as anyone I have met"?

      Only reason I ask is my Grandma had this saying saying something like, "If you feel a need to point that out ..."

      JK

      Delete
    3. One Brow, ok, the entire Post Modern Movement with the notable exception of you.

      Delete
    4. JK,

      I only point that out in response to claims that I don't believe in masculinity. Otherwise, I allow my obvious maleness to do all the talking in that regard. :)

      Delete
    5. Well OBie Wan,

      "I only point that out in response to claims that I don't believe in" so I would point out that below comment of your's asserting The Puritans, for example, wanted to set up a theocracy in the US, may have wanted to as you say, "set up a theocracy" but you do realize they'd had to wait just a couple years short of a century in order for there to be a United States?

      JK

      Delete
    6. JK,

      You are certainly, completely correct there.

      Delete
  3. The Bill of Rights was ALWAYS intended to be an obstacle to Government. Thank God for that. Government will always attempt to restrict individual rights. It's what they do. And it really doesn't matter if that Government is progressive or other, the very existence of Government restricts individual rights, sometimes for the betterment of society as a whole, sometimes not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While in Australia I was surprised to find that their Constitution, adopted in 1901, was modelled closely upon ours, even though they have a parliamentary system of government. Like ours, their government is only granted certain powers; also like ours, the Australian High Court has "interpreted" those powers so that there isn't much the government can't do, especially if it's for "peace, order and good government," the catchall phrase that means "the sky's the limit."

    It was no surprise to me to discover that when Australia passed the Constitution Act and adopted the new Constitution, that they had neglected to add anything like the Bill of Rights.

    Accordingly, Australia has no freedom of speech; it does have "hate speech" laws. Of course there is no right to keep and bear arms either, or many other of the rights that we here take for granted.

    There is a vast gulf between citizens and subjects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..and more is the pity. Our Constitution was framed by our then political elite and needed approval from Westminster. They were not about to repeat the mistake they made with the USA and cede all those powers to their subjects.
      Jim

      Delete
    2. You seem to misunderstand what "subject" meant at the time.

      Delete
    3. @dearieme- On the contrary; you seem to misunderstand what it means today.

      Delete
  5. There are two Americas and they are irreconcilable. How is this going to end?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I normally enjoy your missives. This one was NOT funny!

      Delete
    2. Msher, how? Hopefully or I should say, ideally, in some kind of divorce with a separation at first.

      Or, it can end very badly. With ever declining commonality among the population. Diversity plus proximity plus time equals war.

      Delete
    3. Whitewall

      If a divorce, who gets stuck with custody of illegals, including cost of their care?

      Delete
    4. Msher,
      Good question. Either those states or cities that so desperately want to be sanctuary, or, the illegals can be returned to their country of origin. Messy messy!

      Delete
  6. If I went over the provisions one at a time, it's clear there are some provisions that annoy liberals more, some that annoy conservatives more, some that annoy both, and some both are very glad of (with the usual caveat that none of this is universal).

    An example of each:
    Very many conservatives hate not being able to establish Christianity as the official religion of the US. Liberals are frustrated on gun control. Everyone is glad we can't be forced to put up soldiers in our house. Everyone gets annoyed by the double jeopardy provisions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I, for one, have never met a conservative who wanted to declare Christianity the official religion. That's different from saying the nation is basically a Christian one. That's true.

      Delete
    2. Jeebers OBie Wan,

      "Very many conservatives hate not being able to establish Christianity as the official religion of the US. Liberals are frustrated on gun control."

      May I be allowed to parse that? Have a go with the First Amendment merely employing a single facet of same by means of a single example of word substitution?

      First Amendment:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of religion, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble in order perform what the Congress, as limited By the People according to what was already alluded to in the Preamble admitting "there was no mention or words to the effect in any way of Control."

      Second Amendment:

      A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed admitting that this ratification of 1791, doesn't supersede that ratified 15 years before in Vermont’s Bill of Rights, which held that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state” nor the 15 years before North Carolina’s Bill of Rights, which proclaimed that “the people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of the State”; and by all appearances what Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights, looks like its gonna ensure “the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned” given that eleven years before neighboring Massachusetts' duly elected Representatives confirmed that “the people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense.”

      Now of course One Brow I expect you're about to launch a tirade resembling, "But but but JK it does say Militia!" to which I'd respond One Brow - you familiar with US Code?

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

      JK

      Delete
    3. Incidentally OBie Wan, and sorry sorry it took me awhile to remember from my (relatively) long ago formal education just why - according to my then-Professor - it was opined why it was crucial to understand the Framers weren't actually concerned that [the] Free State they had in mind then actually didn't have a damned thing to do with what "we enlightened folks of the 20th Century" considered the Framers actually had in mind.

      You're aware OBie Wan I'm supposing that in more modern times there's a Virginia and a West Virginia - but OBie have you ever heard of the "Coasting Act"?

      Know that Maine and Massachusetts were once a single state? And folks back then took some rather severe exceptions to the fact? So much so that: "The struggle to set the District of Maine free from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts began in 1784 shortly after the American Revolution. A series of meetings and conventions in the first phase of the effort lacked sufficient strength to succeed. However, the population of the District grew shortly after Revolution, and the stage was set for a new try. The separationists rallied under the new Democratic-Republican Party, whose stronghold was in the Kennebec Valley Region. The opposition was focused in the Federalist party whose members came primarily from the settled communities along the coast."

      I'll allow as you OBie Wan'll probably wanna do your own research into whether what happened thereafter had anything to do with whether "The Father of the Constitution" James Madison might've had those events in mind when he penned Federalist 46.

      JK

      Delete
    4. It's fundamentally antithetical to Christianity to in any way require someone to worship or believe.
      But... I think you might be illuminating this problem of perception.
      It is my impression that the 1st amendment was *intended* to protect religious institutions from the government (a response to religious oppression in England).
      However, what I am seeing today that bothers me, is the 1st amendment being used to protect the government from Christianity (and Christianity specifically, with some vague face-saving motions towards other religions, imo).

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    5. #1482 are your directing to JK?

      Delete
    6. DiploMad,

      When only Christian prayers are allowed at government events, or when the Bible is taught as an infallible document in schools, then that is establishing Christianity as an official religion. You might not be aware of it, but it does on regularly here in the US.

      Delete
    7. JK,

      Nothing in the Second Amendment should prevent individual states from granting even more guns rights to their individual citizens, so I'm not sure what the point of the first post was.

      As for the second, I was aware that Maine used to be part of Massachusetts, and while I have not studied the details of their separation, I would not expect that it would follow anything Madison said in a paper in the 1700s.

      Delete
    8. reader #1482,

      The protection was not just for religions from the government, but also for individual people from religions. While you may believe forcing other people to adopt Christianity is against its nature, historically other Christians have come to the opposite conclusion.

      Delete
    9. The first amendment does not protect people from religions. It protects religions from the government and it protects people's freedom to exercise their religion *from* the government.
      I have no right not to be proselytized to by mormons or muslims when in the public space and the government shouldn't be protecting me from that, even if I find it to be harassing.

      Old pope benny had a few words for the development of forcible conversions... his words were wise and informed, even if unpopular.

      But in general, yes, the worst and least effective advocates of Christianity are typically its loudest proponents, which is why it's such a subversive religion... all the growth has always happened under the radar. Many lament the demise of Christianity in old europe and america... but the church is strong and vibrant in the most challenging of places.... where it needs to be...

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    10. Not really my words there... more along the lines of Tim Keller's analysis that Christianity has mostly grown like a fungus, not like an empire. That is in contrast to other major religions. While there have been notable forced conversions... cultural or military conquest has not been a driving force behind the adoption of Christianity.
      I don't know of forcible conversions within the US... certainly there will be statistical outliers... but conversion coerced by the federal government (and since the 14'th, any government) would be disallowed by the 1st amendment.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    11. reader #1482,

      I agree we don't have a right to not be proselytized to, but our protection from religion means we don't have to obey their rules. The Puritans, for example, wanted to set up a theocracy in the US; the free exercise clause is part the reason that can't happen.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_martyrs

      Delete
    12. Since many bring up the establishment clause, consider Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Abington Township v. Schempp. He noted that the Founders did not intend to establish "secular humanism" (an unfortunate choice of words in my opinion) either. We are seeing people being forced to support the LGBTQXXX cult, or to refrain from criticism of Islam (ike good little Dhimmi).

      Delete
    13. I disagree. Our protection is from congress, not from other people's religion. What is protected? Our right to worship as we choose is protected, but *only* from government meddling.
      In fact, outlawing atheism wouldn't contravene that. :)
      It might offend people's senses and break with jurisprudence, but not the constitution itself.

      I'd say the vast majority of christians in the US don't want a theocracy, they just want the government to not coerce them into taking actions against their religious exercise (classic 1st amendment). It will only be a few years before most christian churches lose their tax exempt status. The case is quite clear. Tax exemptions are not a right, and removing them from particular religious institutions is not considered a violation of the 1st amendment (scientology, iirc). Yet there are christian churches which perform wedding ceremonies and yet refuse to marry homosexual couples. They 'hide' behind the veil of membership and pay the jizya of not advertising any services or participating in the economy in a meaningful way in order to avoid being subject to discrimination laws (state, typically).
      *but*... they still have tax exempt status, and the government will (soon) toss that for all churches who refuse to perform homosexual weddings. It absolutely doesn't make sense for an organization which tramples on people's constitutional rights to keep a tax exempt status (note that the kennedy ruling established that homosexual marriage is and has always been a constitutional right). This is an easy *win* for progressives. If there was standing (which gets easier every day under the O'Conner rules) Roberts would get rid of it personally.

      And *then*, the church has to choose whether to lose funding, or lose faith. But here's the good part... being oppressed in this way is probably the best thing that can happen for the church in America. It's going to suck and it'll be wrong in all these ways, but this is where Christianity thrives... not in gated communities, not in the gradual melting of faith and resolve, but in slums of guts and oppression. More than likely, the church that comes out of it will be far more influential than the progressives suppressing it expect.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    14. Kepha,

      What do you think "secular humanism" is?

      Delete
    15. Our right to worship as we choose is protected, but *only* from government meddling.

      What type of (non-speech-only) meddling would not be protected?

      Yet there are christian churches which perform wedding ceremonies and yet refuse to marry homosexual couples.

      They are protected in this by the free exercise clause, unless they are making something available to the general public, in which case it must be available to all the public.

      ... they still have tax exempt status, and the government will (soon) toss that for all churches who refuse to perform homosexual weddings.

      Nope, never. That's just more paranoia brought to you by those who want your political support (again, unless the church says it will marry people with no connection to the church).

      Individuals and private groups have every right to discriminate, even when they are as large as the Boy Scouts (who have not lost their tax-exempt status). It's well-established law.

      Delete
    16. OBie Wan?

      "Individuals and private groups have every right to discriminate, even when they are as large as the Boy Scouts (who have not lost their tax-exempt status). It's well-established law."

      Except for perhaps, when an individual owns a cake baking enterprise?

      JK

      Delete
    17. JK,

      If the cake-baking enterprise is an individual effort or a private club, they can discriminate. If they are a public business, they can not.

      Delete
    18. Sorry, I continue to disagree with you One Brow.
      My point is that our history of allowing discrimination in private tax-exempt organizations is about to change, because the constitution has been retroactively rewritten to protect gender preference as a fundamental right (the law didn't change, the constitution didn't change, the kennedy decision simply identified gender preference as a right that has already exists.. I'm still not sure why homosexual couples aren't suing the government for recompense at having their rights previously trampled upon!).
      All bets are off.

      This article cites Bob Jones vs US. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/opinion/white-supremacists-tax-exemptions.html

      It's just the hatchet waiting to fall, dropping this status is, afaik, perfectly legal and not a violation of the 1st amendment.
      And as I said before... it'll appear to be a win for progressivists, but will benefit the church in the long run. Too much wishy-washy, dying, partially-dedicated denominations running around these days.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    19. We can also expect the SPLC to soon define non-conformant Christian organizations as hate groups. This will exempt those (conformant) denominations which deny the divinity of jesus and/or the authenticity of the gospel, which seems to be an ever-increasing number of denominations, even if it's an ever-decreasing number of lay parishioners.
      I suspect they will hold off on the catholic church for a bit, as our elites seem to expect that pope fancypants will decree an acceptance of homosexual marriage, but I think their wait will be in vain. His refusal to accept his church being defined by the issues of cultural conflict has been valiant, and more successful than I thought it would be, but that's leading a lot of elites among hollywood and DC to have unlikely expectations.
      Tax exempt status is not long for this world. Why should our government fund racism? And if the government is not going to fund racism, how can it fund discrimination against homosexual marriage? We're a nation of laws. There's nothing 'scary' or 'paranoid' about this. It's just reality and it's going to be glorious after the meat has been separated from the chafe. :)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    20. Sorry, I continue to disagree with you One Brow.
      My point is that our history of allowing discrimination in private tax-exempt organizations is about to change, because the constitution has been retroactively rewritten to protect gender preference as a fundamental right (the law didn't change, the constitution didn't change, the kennedy decision simply identified gender preference as a right that has already exists.. ... Tax exempt status is not long for this world. Why should our government fund racism? And if the government is not going to fund racism, how can it fund discrimination against homosexual marriage? We're a nation of laws. There's nothing 'scary' or 'paranoid' about this. It's just reality and it's going to be glorious after the meat has been separated from the chafe. :)


      Let me put it this way: the right to marry someone of a different race was identified as a previously existing right back in 1969; and it's now so engrained in our culture that even Republicans don't question it. However, there are still churches that refuse to perform inter-racial marriages, and no one can successfully sue them for it or threaten their tax-exempt status. If that has not happened in the past 49 years, why would you think people could suddenly start suing over a different type of marriage. We have been 'funding racism" (as you put it) in that form for almost 50 years, it's not going to change, and it won't change for refusing to perform homosexual marriages, either.

      I don't care if you disagree with me here. However, you seem to see yourself as a person who tries to be fair, do research, and come to a reasoned conclusion. So do that here. Look into the different legal protections for churches/private clubs/individuals and businesses/governments, and why discrimination is allowed in the former and not the latter, for your own peace of mind if for no other reason.

      Delete
    21. I don't claim it is currently the case, but I see an alarming lack of tolerance for conflicting ideologies. I call this alarming because it does seem quite qualitatively different than 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. I'm seeing people lose their lifetime careers over mistakes and misstatements that would normally be smoothed over with an apology. Now, we have activists pushing the barriers and sweeping out objectionable behaviors. After this bakery case resolves (jurisprudence highly suggests the court will side with the government against the bakery), the boundary will have moved and tax-exempt status will be within sight.

      I only state it here because "It's what I would do." If I felt, as so many progressives (maybe not you) seem to, that ideas antithetical to my own should be completely purged from our society, I would go after that tax-exempt status. Use the Internet Hate Machine, and various progressive sites to 'educate' people about these government subsidies for churches which discriminate against very possibly my own children.

      Also, the problem is really about the religion itself. The foundation preached from the Bible against miscegenation is predicated upon people of "the other race" being considered 'creatures which move along the ground' (at least, the only theological argument I've ever seen in this regard, laughable though it might be), whereas even the new testament preaches directly to the practice of homosexuality. When pressed, Christian churches can give up the racism, but it's a much more invasive request for them to adopt the practice of homosexuality as an intended lifestyle.

      That NYT article wasn't new, but it's an effort that has gained a lot of pace recently. While I can certainly appreciate the intent of reducing the racism in our society, it ignores the danger of forcing ideas out of the public space.

      This is *not* a first amendment issue. No organization has a *right* to tax exempt status. Scientology has had a long history of this, so it's clear that simply calling one's organization a 'church' doesn't immediately confer tax exempt status. Yes, there's a lot of history in and before the founding of the US regarding tax exemption of church... and yes, even back as far as the roman empire. But we're in a completely new era. We're no longer in a time where civil minded people will ride to the defense of the first amendment rights of racists, but instead will organize a physical attack because... well.. isn't it time that that horrible crap ended? (I have a hard time disagreeing with this, even though I do, because racism of the kind practiced by some of these groups affects me and mine directly...)
      A kid kills 17 students in a school and we go directly to politics. But a dentist kills a lion outside US borders, and the entirety of the hate machine is put to work. There is *new* power in this tool, and we've yet to see the fullness of its ugliness.

      I'm making a prediction on that tax exempt status. It's constitutional, and it will be overwhelmingly popular.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    22. and just to be clear.. I don't really see myself to be anybody who does anything particular.. I have had tremendous challenges in my life, but I am quite certain many/most others have too, even if that challenge is simply 'not having been personally challenged enough'.... which may actually be the worst challenge of all.

      You are correct to point out that this path is not a fait accompli, and that there is *some* precedent suggesting a similar line of logic has not gone through in the past (anti-miscegenation), but I see qualitative differences between the two efforts and between the two relevant time periods. The only thing I seem to be able to learn from history, is that nobody can really learn from history, the details just dominate, and no person can know all the details.

      I much appreciate your disagreement here.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    23. I don't claim it is currently the case, but I see an alarming lack of tolerance for conflicting ideologies. I call this alarming because it does seem quite qualitatively different than 30, 20, or even 10 years ago.

      Are you familiar with the nostalgia effect? After all, it was only 20 years ago that, largely on party-line votes, Congress impeached and tried a President for the crime about lying about his adultery with an intern under oath. 40 years ago Carter was complaining about how he could not work with Congress. 65 years ago Wallace said he meant for segregation to last forever. We have always faced deep political divisions.

      I'm seeing people lose their lifetime careers over mistakes and misstatements that would normally be smoothed over with an apology.

      Again, I ask you to provide an example of a person who lost their career over a single mistake. I acknowledge that people have faced harsh criticism over a single mistake, and lost their careers when a pattern of behavior has been uncovered, but have not heard of a person losing their career over one mistake.

      Now, we have activists pushing the barriers and sweeping out objectionable behaviors. After this bakery case resolves (jurisprudence highly suggests the court will side with the government against the bakery), the boundary will have moved and tax-exempt status will be within sight.

      The boundary will not have moved, should the court side with the federal government. It will be the same as multiple court rulings found regarding the treatment of other minorities.

      I only state it here because "It's what I would do." If I felt, as so many progressives (maybe not you) seem to, that ideas antithetical to my own should be completely purged from our society, I would go after that tax-exempt status. Use the Internet Hate Machine, and various progressive sites to 'educate' people about these government subsidies for churches which discriminate against very possibly my own children.

      If churches lose their tax-exempt status, that so will the Red Cross, the ACLU, the SPLC, etc. I am sure there some progressives foolish enough to endorse that, but most of the ones I read do not.

      The foundation preached from the Bible against miscegenation is predicated upon people of "the other race" being considered 'creatures which move along the ground' (at least, the only theological argument I've ever seen in this regard, laughable though it might be), whereas even the new testament preaches directly to the practice of homosexuality.

      I don’t want to argue your religion, so I will only say that the most common Biblical reason I have heard for segregation is the curse of Ham, not moving on the ground.

      When pressed, Christian churches can give up the racism, but it's a much more invasive request for them to adopt the practice of homosexuality as an intended lifestyle.

      Churches did not give up racism due to government pressure, they gave it up due to their congregations becoming gradually less racist over time. There are still explicitly racist churches, but they are small, because few people want to attend such a church. Congregants moved to less racist churches, and the churches that did not adapt died off or shrunk.

      There won’t be any government pressure on churches to accept homosexuals. Over time, as fewer people want to exclude homosexuals, some churches will move to a more inclusive doctrine, or their congregants will move on to more inclusive parishes/services.

      Delete
    24. That NYT article wasn't new, but it's an effort that has gained a lot of pace recently. While I can certainly appreciate the intent of reducing the racism in our society, it ignores the danger of forcing ideas out of the public space.

      I agree completely, and so do most of the progressive writers I read. They loathe the white supremacists, but do not want the IRS or anyone else deciding which groups are legitimate. Herzig/Brunson are in the minority among progressives here, and rightfully so.

      This is *not* a first amendment issue. No organization has a *right* to tax exempt status.

      It would be discrimination by the government based on the content of speech. That’s clearly a First Amendment issue.

      Scientology has had a long history of this, so it's clear that simply calling one's organization a 'church' doesn't immediately confer tax exempt status.

      Actually, they were initially granted tax-exempt status before it was revoked, and then reinstated. They are tax-exempt today.

      We're no longer in a time where civil minded people will ride to the defense of the first amendment rights of racists, but instead will organize a physical attack because... well.. isn't it time that that horrible crap ended? (I have a hard time disagreeing with this, even though I do, because racism of the kind practiced by some of these groups affects me and mine directly...)

      You seem to be under the impression that the violence was initiated by the anti-fascists. The white supremacists came prepared to commit violence, including people trained for that very purpose. There was escalation on both sides.

      But a dentist kills a lion outside US borders, and the entirety of the hate machine is put to work. There is *new* power in this tool, and we've yet to see the fullness of its ugliness.

      Agreed.

      I'm making a prediction on that tax exempt status. It's constitutional, and it will be overwhelmingly popular.

      As I said above, the fallout would be just as bad for progressives.



      You are correct to point out that this path is not a fait accompli, and that there is *some* precedent suggesting a similar line of logic has not gone through in the past (anti-miscegenation), but I see qualitative differences between the two efforts and between the two relevant time periods.

      I don’t see as great a difference as you. Almost none, in terms of human nature.

      The only thing I seem to be able to learn from history, is that nobody can really learn from history, the details just dominate, and no person can know all the details.

      So very, very true.

      Delete
    25. iirc, the tax issue is not significantly different from the commerce issue (the reason discriminating against homosexual weddings is not allowable for those who make services available to the public, even churches who are religiously opposed to homosexuality). My vague recollection is that modern jurisprudence has a scrutiny level qualification, and preventing the engagement in commerce of a religiously motivated discrimination against a fundamental right is allowed because the government shows a compelling interest in excluding that from public commerce. Similarly, tax exempt status is not a fundamental right (like engaging in public advertisement/commerce also isn't). When a fundamental right is at question, then (I think) strict scrutiny is invoked (but won't be in this case), where the government has to show very compelling reason it cannot accomplish its goals in any other way and yadda yadda.
      I might be getting this not-quite-right... but being that the bakery shop case is before scotus now, kind of suggests there's a lot of efforts being made around this issue.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    26. Every time is different, so perhaps you don't think the historical comparison applies. Still, in the past (in the US), there have been providers of goods (such as bakers) who have been forced to provide goods (such as decorated cakes) to interracial couples. There has never been a minister nor a church that was required to perform an interracial wedding. I don't see that changing for homosexual weddings, but I appreciate you do.

      Delete
  7. The Bill of Rights did not grant us those rights. Those 10 amendments were recognition of pre-existing, G-d given rights. Repealing those amendments will not eliminate those rights, just the government's recognition of them. The next steps could get ugly.

    Butch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Bill of Rights did not grant us those rights. Those 10 amendments were recognition of pre-existing, G-d given rights. Repealing those amendments will not eliminate those rights, just the government's recognition of them"
      Absolutely correct.

      Delete
    2. Or absolute balls. Balls, I think.

      Delete
    3. Those 10 amendments were recognition of pre-existing, G-d given rights.

      Some of the rights listed go directly against Biblical commandments, so I wonder where you think these rights were listed by G-d.

      Delete
    4. Oh jeebers again OBie Wan, ... you notice mine up ahead at 9:49 PM asking your permission and then you go with "so I wonder where you think these rights were listed by G-d." (Though I'd expect expert as you so obviously are OBie Wan, you'd employed the interrogatory punctuation (?).

      Anyway OBie Wan, you being the expert I'd expect you'd recognize that was a Constitution those guys were trying their best to do and not The Ten Commandments.

      Anyway OBie Wan you happen to notice everybody else referring to some wording generally tending to common knowledge they're meaning The Bill of Rights?

      And again my referring you to mine of 9:49 PM wherein I specifically refer to "The Preamble"?


      So if you have to ask Oh Mighty OBie Wan Keyknowitall hows come you had to type, "so I wonder where you think these rights were listed by G-d."[?]

      I'd humbly suggest your answer might be contained in some following words of that very same Preamble specifically, "In order to perfect a more perfect Union."

      You outta high school yet One Brow?

      JK

      Delete
    5. JK,

      Are you asking me to defend Butch's claim, or saying its so silly I shouldn't bother questioning it? I can't tell.

      Delete
    6. I don't think any of those rights go against the 10 commandments.
      One might make the case that exercising those rights in certain fashions may go against some of the 10 commandments, but preventing the government from trampling on people's free will to choose whether to exercise some right does not conflict with the 10 commandments itself.
      In fact, I'd say it's quite theologically sound, as it reserves judgment for the breach of religious edicts to a higher power, rather than having congress usurp that role. Ok.. that was the intent, but it's not as-practiced nowadays, where the government is all about suppressing religions other than progressive nationalism.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    7. Free exercise of religion definitely goes against being required to acknowledge that Yahoweh is your god.

      Delete
    8. There is no commandment requiring that a government under which one lives must require the observance of the 1st commandment. Jews can, and almost always have, lived elsewhere among non-believers.
      Now if the government were to declare itself to be Israel, perhaps it would theologically be so required?

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    9. Being that the bill of rights *only* restricts what laws congress can pass... I just really don't see your point here, but it's very possible I could be missing something.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    10. reader #1482,

      I was discussing whether a government that took the 10 commandments as laws would be compatible with the Bill of Rights.

      Delete
    11. I guess in a way, our government does... "thou shalt take none other before me" <-- 14th amendment!

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  8. The fact of the matter is that every other western nation has disarmed in the face of the tactics displayed by CNN. We are up against a hell of a lot of soccer moms, who understandably are moved by the slaughter of innocents. We are also up against some very very smart demagogues..
    In the USA we have ~50K traffic deaths vs 20k non-suicide gun deaths- shall we ban automobiles or lower the speed limit to 20 mph? These, or comparable arguments about freedom will not even dent the mental exoskeleton of the majority of our increasingly low IQ, feminized, and easily manipulated population. Finally, since i'm ranting maniacally anyways! There are solutions. Does anyone doubt that the coach that died shielding students would have had a good chance to stop the massacre in Florida had he been armed. Deputize, train, vet and arm 4-5 men in each school. Mandatory implantable birth control for everybody in public assistance. Revocation of women's suffrage. OK that last one may go too far, but you get where i'm going. Need to turn this ship around!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Off-Topic but ... I nevertheless think y'all will get a kick outta this. Recall Mr. Amselem's February 2nd post, "The Release of MemWow" and my comment of February 2, 2018 at 7:06 PM within which I outlined Senator McCain's role in delivering the Steele Dossier to Director Comey?

    Well guess what's doing now?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/375205-mccain-associate-invokes-fifth-amendment-on-trump-dossier

    I'm reckoning now Mr. Amselem, there's some portion of at least the Congress who ain't gonna be so hot on your idea about revoking The Bill of Rights just, at this particular time.

    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On November 18, 2016, McCain discussed the dossier with Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow, while they both attended the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia. At about the same time the details ..... REDACTED ..... Clapper to .... REDACTED ... in a joint intelligence CIA director John Brennan and ... REDACTED ... .
      After discussing the contents of the dossier with Wood in Halifax, McCain dispatched his assistant, David J. Kramer, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor under George W. Bush, to a European airport in order to collect the dossier. Out of a scene from a 1960s spy flick, Kramer was told to look for a man holding The Financial Times newspaper. Upon making contact with the “newspaper man,” Kramer was driven by the retired British MI-6 agent to his home where they discussed the contents of the dossier before the former agent gave Kramer a copy to take back to Washington. The trip lasted 24 hours.
      Kramer is a known ... REDACTED ... . Kramer is also associated with the Kiev regime and has argued that sanctions on Russia be continued indefinitely.
      On December 9, 2016, McCain met with FBI director James Comey without aides being present to hand Comey a copy of the dossier McCain’s envoy Kramer picked up from an unknown former MI-6 agent, presumably in England. However, Comey, unbeknownst to McCain, was already in possession of the dossier. It had been handed by Steele to an FBI official in Rome in August 2016.
      The involvement of the British ... REDACTED ... . Also present with McCain and Wood in Halifax were ... REDACTED ..., Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, and British military chief Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach. The government of Prime Minister Theresa May also attempted to slap a DA Notice (Defense Advisory Notice) to prevent the publication of Christopher Steele’s name in media reports on the dirty dossier. The government opted not to impose the notice after Steele’s name was published by foreign media outlets.

      Delete
    2. McCain and Graham are part of the problem in my mind.

      Delete
    3. agreed, but it wasn't always the case... .I think it was the diplomad himself who pointed out that 'odd kind of respect' that some conservatives accept from the media just before being chewed up and spit out like McCain 2008. Next thing you know, tough to distinguish from Democrats.

      Delete
  10. Andrew McCarthy again:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-russia-investigation-harms-democrats-more-than-helps-them/

    (Not gonna bother with looking back where I'd commented something like - "Whenever the Dems do manage to get their version released my bet is they'll be, locked in").

    ReplyDelete
  11. Uni-Brow, et al:

    Government's do NOT "grant rights", they confer (or deny) PRIVILEGE.

    "Rights" are what people used to have before the politicians and their enablers in the media and academia got their sticky paws on them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct Bruce.

      Federalist 51

      JK

      Delete
    2. Bruce,

      So, rights only existed back before humans and chimpanzees/bonobos diverged into separate populations? Because we have had politicians and their enablers for as long as there have been humans, and before.

      Delete
    3. Well One Brow even you'd perhaps admit problems in the "evolutionary line" where as an example of the Historically inept (as there're other examples available I took care to make a Word doc of "One Brow Wisdom") amongst firsts your "The Puritans, for example, wanted to set up a theocracy in the US" which in that example all it took to carpet bomb the contention was whatever the Puritans of 1693 could not possibly have foreseen (given that, as just a single example The Mather Boys were "depending on their being English" in their requests for the King's assistance - Salem Witch Trials you so thoughtfully exampled for me on that One Brow comment) ... why I questioned whether One Brow you'd graduated high-school.

      (I admit my initial over-estimation of yourself One Brow when I provided the example of "The Coastal Act" [and the resulting Maine/Massachusetts rift] when I'd overlooked there'd been others post-US Constitution well after the time "The Puritans" as you'd tried to use for an example since the "Coastal Act" I had in mind had occurred when "we" were still operating under the Articles of Confederation.

      I'll do my utmost not to repeat that oversight I promise.

      "So, rights only existed back before humans and chimps/bonobos diverged" One Brow?

      That's supposed to be "clever" young man?

      Good luck with that.

      JK

      Delete
    4. Well One Brow even you'd perhaps admit problems in the "evolutionary line" where as an example of the Historically inept (as there're other examples available I took care to make a Word doc of "One Brow Wisdom") amongst firsts your "The Puritans, for example, wanted to set up a theocracy in the US" which in that example all it took to carpet bomb the contention was whatever the Puritans of 1693 could not possibly have foreseen

      Gosh, you've gone to using my actual handle in a couple of comments now, JK. Why is that?

      I must have been raised differently than you, because when a person uses a phrase like "Germany in the 1700s", I don't just assume that they are unaware that German unification occurred in the 1800s; I'm silly enough to assume they are using a shortcut for "the land areas we generally recognize today as being German territory, but at the time of the 1700s, before there was was Germany". Perhaps I'm just not as clever as you regarding these turns of phrases. As a youth of 55, I have so much to learn.

      Delete