Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill

[GardoneVT]

How did this thread develop into a discussion trans people joining the military?


You know how good we have it in this country? People are SERIOUSLY discussing trans people joining the military.


Whether your support the trans movement, have pity on them, or you are against it, at least have the self awareness to know that we have so few worries we are now able discuss this.

Your post trivializes a very legitimate concern. We aren’t a nation by and large of civil rights. We’ve become a gang who cite the Constitution so long as it aligns with our personal viewpoints and biases.
Conservatives (again, by and large) are OK with civil liberties- so long as it includes the gun safe and tax office. They’d see nothing wrong with turning America into a Christian Iran, complete with legal enforcement of Biblical principles by the authorities. If your lifestyle doesn’t match the King James Bible, you’re opting out of the American Dream in this view.

The flip side is the left- espousing concern for the environment, personal expression and community support. Broad support for lifestyle and social justice freedoms.But fuck off with that individualistic nonsense. Like guns , commerce & free enterprise ?Error 404- American Dream not found holmes.

The second totem is rightly called out as hypocrisy. It is similarly so to want firearms freedoms but to marginalize LGBT individuals. Either believe in civil rights or not- you don’t get to stand for freedom and then opt for tyranny when your personal values disagree.

Insofar as military integration goes, that’s a topic best discussed as it’s own thread.

[TheNewbie]

Your post trivializes a very legitimate concern. We aren’t a nation by and large of civil rights. We’ve become a gang who cite the Constitution so long as it aligns with our personal viewpoints and biases.
Conservatives (again, by and large) are OK with civil liberties- so long as it includes the gun safe and tax office. They’d see nothing wrong with turning America into a Christian Iran, complete with legal enforcement of Biblical principles by the authorities. If your lifestyle doesn’t match the King James Bible, you’re opting out of the American Dream in this view.

The flip side is the left- espousing concern for the environment, personal expression and community support. Broad support for lifestyle and social justice freedoms.But fuck off with that individualistic nonsense. Like guns , commerce & free enterprise ?Error 404- American Dream not found holmes.

The second totem is rightly called out as hypocrisy. It is similarly so to want firearms freedoms but to marginalize LGBT individuals. Either believe in civil rights or not- you don’t get to stand for freedom and then opt for tyranny when your personal values disagree.

Insofar as military integration goes, that’s a topic best discussed as it’s own thread.

You know different conservatives than I do. Different Christians as well?


Iran? Dude that is simply a foolish and vile statement.


Secularism (which the Left makes worse) USA style, my God look at the wisdom we have here (in general not your post). It's infected everything from the universities to religion to otherwise sensible people.


Oh and we all want to legislate our personal values on others. ALL of us. All.....

[Jeep]

Yeah. And as a lawyer and a woman, I’ve read price Waterhouse and similar cases and believe they rightly interpret what sex discrimination really is.

Your statement about costs is just absurdly and demonstrably false. Estrogen and t are cheap. Surgery is not hundreds of thousands of dollars, closer to 20. But the current prohibition exists even if someone undertook that expense on their own and healed on their own. In combination, these points demonstrate the falsity of the expense argument. As for disruption, civil rights are always disruptive to certain people. You tell me who those people usually are.

I know of a documented case in which a trans woman died for lack of treatment in an emergency situation because she was trans, because responding emts ridiculed her instead of treating her.

I’m gonna guess that you’ve never had services denied because of your religion. I’m gonna guess you’ve never faced job discrimination for being straight or religious. I’m gonna guess you’ve never been denied treatment because of your religion or orientation. I’ve experienced all of these, and seen it happen to others. It’s not about forcing someone to perform surgeries, which I don’t agree with either. It’s about equal protection and dignity under law.

If I can fire religious people, or pass them over for promotion, deny them medical care because my conscience says they are dangerously deluded, then we have parity. I don’t actually think the answer is to protect no one, but I sure as hell don’t accept the answer is, you’re protected and others aren’t.

The taxation is theft claptrap is just that, and this isn’t the time or place for engagement on that.

If EMT's ridicule someone instead of saving him or her they are going to have a very hard time justifying that under freedom of religion--and I very much doubt that was their defense. My guess is that they would say they were too late to do any good or something like that.

Your guess about services being denied because of my religion is wrong. They have been. I thought it was weird and I moved on. Job discrimination for being religious? You bet. It is more common than you think. A partner who disliked my religion required me to routinely work on Sunday morning precisely because he knew that was the one time I wanted off. I left that job a short while later. (And, of course, I could have sued because religion is expressly covered in the 1964 act but what real good would that do and I have told others to do the same. Why work for people who are jerks?) At the same time I have never seen anyone who faced job discrimination for being gay. I know it happens and I don't doubt it happened to you, and of course being fired for being straight also happens. Still good workers are hard to get and intelligent bosses don't fire people for non-job-related reasons. Stupid bosses do, but who wants to work for a stupid boss? Life is too short.

Again, on the religion issue keep in mind that you are protected. Being a non-believer is protected under the 1964 Act. Again, I would be willing to see the religion part of the 64 Act go--indeed I'd be willing to see everything but race go and return to normal Anglo American legal principles. (The reason race is different is because of the legacy of government-required segregation; without that I do not believe that provision of the 64 Act would have been justified). Like you I do not agree with an approach in which I am protected and others aren't. As for being "dangerously deluded" you are indeed entitled to your own opinion on that, an opinion I value because you understand why the Beretta 92 is a far better pistol than most think. But personally I think my biggest delusion does not have to do with religion but with continuing to kid myself into believing that the profession of law is socially useful. And I also tend to think that the belief that the supernatural cannot exist is little better than a delusion because even a bit of metaphysical thought will show that the natural cannot explain creation. That doesn't, of course, mean God exists, but it does caution in favor of a certain modesty when reaching conclusions.

I am glad that you are not in favor of using government power to force people to violate their consciences. It is something that puts all of us at risk.

As for taxes, I haven't argued, and would not seriously argue that all taxation is theft. Obviously, in many parts of the world, the completely arbitrary taxes levied by agents of the local kleptocracy are no different than theft. We are not there yet in the US for the most part, though countless poor homeowners have lost their houses in the US to rapacious governments and equally rapacious purchasers, often operating as part of a crooked scheme. Property tax bills and the follow up notices fail to get delivered, the house is sold for back taxes (in a rigged auction where it is sold for precisely the amount of those back taxes) and a home owner magically becomes a renter. It is a wide enough scheme in the US that you might have seen it in your own practice.

But that does not mean that normal taxes do not present moral issues. For example I was recently (and angrily) confronted by a public school teacher who wanted a big raise that was not forthcoming because the taxpayers voted down an equally big tax hike. I pointed out that the people voting it down were primarily retired homeowners who could not afford thousands more in property taxes and she told me that they had a moral duty to move out of the houses they had owned for perhaps 50 years since "if they can't afford the taxes that are needed they have not right to live in those homes." It was, to my mind, and odd view of morality and property.

So, too I think is the idea that is prevalent in some quarters that people should be required to pay total taxes well in excess of half their incomes. I live in a high-tax state. Anyone making $100,000 or more will pay over 40% (and often over 50%) of their income in federal, state, social security, medicare and local taxes on their incomes as well as property and sales taxes. In other words, the various institutions of government take around half of their income. It isn't theft per se because we still have representative institutions, but it is a far greater burden than what was required at the time of the Constitution, and I find it extremely difficult to justify--especially because despite this huge haul of money, every year my state falls further in the red and the unfunded state pensions continue to grow. The cry "tax the rich more" (they are taxed more; many are paying over 60%) is both innumerate (there is not enough money there to take care of the problem and besides all the real rich have moved or are moving to Florida) and I think fundamentally immoral (the assumption that all of them received their money illegally or immorally lacks any evidentiary foundation and is a simply appeal to envy and greed).

Taxes might be the price we pay for civilization but they also can be a device that destroys the economy while allowing the elites in control of the government to amass great fortunes. As you know, both have happened repeatedly in history and I submit that both are looking increasingly likely now.

[Jeep]

Your post trivializes a very legitimate concern. We aren’t a nation by and large of civil rights. We’ve become a gang who cite the Constitution so long as it aligns with our personal viewpoints and biases.
Conservatives (again, by and large) are OK with civil liberties- so long as it includes the gun safe and tax office. They’d see nothing wrong with turning America into a Christian Iran, complete with legal enforcement of Biblical principles by the authorities. If your lifestyle doesn’t match the King James Bible, you’re opting out of the American Dream in this view.

Gardone: I know a lot of Christians. I'm a Christian. I don't know any--or know of any significant church--that wants to turn us into Iran or wants to turn the bible into a statute book. (In fairness, many of our laws do reflect our religious heritage, but those are generally laws that are widely supported by everyone. For example, the bible says "thou shall not steal" and pretty much everyone is in agreement with that, including those who think the idea of God is something that is no more likely than a giant flying spaghetti monster).

Now I have heard of a very small group of Christians who want to turn the Bible into the country's rule book, but I have never met any of them and as far as I can tell they are only a handful. It's a big country and there are lot of nutty groups with nutty--and often totalitarian or authoritarian ideas). And, of course, that would generate an intra-Christian argument because the majority Christian opinion going back to the Council of Jerusalem (see the Book of Acts for more on that) in around 50 AD is that Christians are not bound by the laws set forth in the old testament, which I think that handful talks about applying.

I also know a lot of conservatives and I have never met one who wants to enact the Bible. What many do want is to return to the Constitution, including not only the Bill of Rights but to the idea that Congress has only enumerated, not plenary, powers. That is my own view as well. Like all the conservatives who are Christian that I know, I believe we are a multi-religious country that includes people of no religion at all and I do not want the government to force the religious views of any on the others. Live and let live. If I can convert you, that's fine. If you can convert me, that's fine too. But there is no place for the government in all that except to be neutral and keep the peace.

My guess is that every other conservative on this board would agree with that.

[Medusa]

Jeep. We agree in many ways. Specifically, about beretta 92s.

Let me just add a few things I hope we can agree on.

One, it’s easier to say, why work for jerks when you are worth a certain amount, can afford to stop working there, and, crucially, when there are viable alternatives within the context of one’s means. That is often not the case, and it’s especially often not the case for people in groups who are discriminated against. The whole, if you don’t like it, move position and its variants are therefore, in my experience, sophistry at best.

Two, agnosticism is in my view an appropriate response to the vastness of the universe. But one can and must decide for herself, which belief systems seem worthy of consideration; and then she must inquire and examine them. She may, in the course of that examination, rule some out without ruling any of them in. That’s what I did full time before law school. I share your valuation of epistemic humility, and believe as well that we have epistemic duties in the formation and maintenance of our beliefs.

Cheers.

[GardoneVT]

Gardone: I know a lot of Christians. I'm a Christian. I don't know any--or know of any significant church--that wants to turn us into Iran or wants to turn the bible into a statute book. (In fairness, many of our laws do reflect our religious heritage, but those are generally laws that are widely supported by everyone. For example, the bible says "thou shall not steal" and pretty much everyone is in agreement with that, including those who think the idea of God is something that is no more likely than a giant flying spaghetti monster).

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes.”-
Former US Attorney General Sessions.

“"... a country that is given rights under the god, under god, not any god, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that God that gave us rights also gave us a responsibility, and laws, by which our civil laws have to comport with. A higher law. God's law."

-Rick Santorum


“…I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view…”
-Michael Huckabee

I’ve cited these quotes for a reason. These men are politicians: ergo, their statements are intended to appeal to the masses of a given group. In this case, it’s conservative voters. If the majority of conservatives truly cared more about individual liberty over their chosen beliefs these quotes wouldn’t exist- because they’d be horrified, not encouraged.

It is disingenuous to pretend that most conservatives would somehow object to living in a Christian theocracy, so long as said government kept their hands off the guns and businesses. I’m not staying every single conservative feels so- but just like gun control is totemic to the liberal cause, enacting a Christian-based American state is so for the conservatives. Iran is structured to be a religious republic after the Koran- there are a non-zero count of conservatives who’d be just fine with a similar moral enforcement structure on the US, so long as the book was the Bible instead. It is nonsense to pretend this notion doesn’t exist.

[TheNewbie]

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes.”-
Former US Attorney General Sessions.

“"... a country that is given rights under the god, under god, not any god, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that God that gave us rights also gave us a responsibility, and laws, by which our civil laws have to comport with. A higher law. God's law."

-Rick Santorum


“…I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view…”
-Michael Huckabee

I’ve cited these quotes for a reason. These men are politicians: ergo, their statements are intended to appeal to the masses of a given group. In this case, it’s conservative voters. If the majority of conservatives truly cared more about individual liberty over their chosen beliefs these quotes wouldn’t exist- because they’d be horrified, not encouraged.

It is disingenuous to pretend that most conservatives would somehow object to living in a Christian theocracy, so long as said government kept their hands off the guns and businesses. I’m not staying every single conservative feels so- but just like gun control is totemic to the liberal cause, enacting a Christian-based American state is so for the conservatives. Iran is structured to be a religious republic after the Koran- there are a non-zero count of conservatives who’d be just fine with a similar moral enforcement structure on the US, so long as the book was the Bible instead. It is nonsense to pretend this notion doesn’t exist.

No what you are saying is disingenuous.

First we were largely founded on Judeo-Christian values, secondly adhering to certain biblical values does not make a nation a theocracy. You know like "thou shalt not murder".

Very few Christians I know would be ok with what Iran does to those "outside of God's law". Again, maybe you know some different ones. I just think you are out of touch with the reality of Christianity in America. You really should be concerned by leftism's influence of Christianity and Judaism. Not the traditional religion's influence on America. It wasn't secular wise men who made the greatest contributions to forming the freest country in history.

[Jay Cunningham]

It is disingenuous to pretend that most conservatives would somehow object to living in a Christian theocracy, so long as said government kept their hands off the guns and businesses. I’m not staying every single conservative feels so- but just like gun control is totemic to the liberal cause, enacting a Christian-based American state is so for the conservatives. Iran is structured to be a religious republic after the Koran- there are a non-zero count of conservatives who’d be just fine with a similar moral enforcement structure on the US, so long as the book was the Bible instead. It is nonsense to pretend this notion doesn’t exist.

I would LOVE to live in a Catholic Monarchy.

Alas... the European royals have all either been murdered and/or marginalized by revolutionaries.

*sigh*

But the reality is that I live in a nominal republic founded by Freemasons, humanists, and Enlightenment darlings. Oh sure, throw a handful of Protestants into the mix. Of course, 243 years later it looks a little different.

Oh, for the record, I’m neither “conservative” nor “libertarian”.

[Jay Cunningham]

First we were largely founded on ̶ ̶J̶u̶d̶e̶o̶-̶C̶h̶r̶i̶s̶t̶i̶a̶n̶ Catholic values, secondly adhering to certain biblical values does not make a nation a theocracy.

Fixed it for you.

Since 1189, English law has been a common law, not a civil law system; in other words, no comprehensive codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive.

In 1215 nobles, clergymen, and commoners rose up against King John and forced him to accept and seal what has come to be known as the Magna Carta.

In 1276, the concept of "time immemorial" often applied in common law was defined as being any time before 6 July 1189 (i.e. before Richard I's accession to the English throne).

American law is based off of English common law. The Catholic Church permeated the culture and was the arbiter of morals. Protestants didn’t show up until 1517. Hence, America is de facto Catholic.

Boom; mike drop.

[TheNewbie]

Fixed it for you.

Since 1189, English law has been a common law, not a civil law system; in other words, no comprehensive codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive.

In 1215 nobles, clergymen, and commoners rose up against King John and forced him to accept and seal what has come to be known as the Magna Carta.

In 1276, the concept of "time immemorial" often applied in common law was defined as being any time before 6 July 1189 (i.e. before Richard I's accession to the English throne).

American law is based off of English common law. The Catholic Church permeated the culture and was the arbiter of morals. Protestants didn’t show up until 1517. Hence, America is de facto Catholic.

Boom; mike drop.

I am a serious Catholic, but the founders were largely rooted in the Hebrew bible. American's owe the Jews and the English a big thank you at the very least. While the Catholic's spread Christianity to Europe, and advanced the Western tradition in many ways, it was Protestant Christians who founded the US.


I think it took the Jews, Catholics, and Protestants (with "secular" government thrown in) to make this country what it is. They just had different roles in doing it.