Leadership and Belief

[washparkhorn 9935]

 

2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

They will throw the baby (right to be left alone/privacythe United States of America) out with the bathwater (abortion) in order to achieve their religious beliefs.

Amen.

[formermav43 4599]

5 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Only if they're going to an church services in an extremist sect.  I don't care whether or not a nominee is religious, how devout they are, or the basic tenets of their religion.  If they choose to affiliate with an extremist group, religious or otherwise, I care about that.

I'm not going to just keep beating a dead horse, so I won't comment further. But the problem we keep coming back to, again and again, is differentiating the religious from the extremist. 

[Upgrayedd 5805]

Who's god?  Hers?

[burntorangebongos 10681]

29 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

 

Extremist: "A person who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics." 

 

So I don't care if a Catholic judge goes to church, was divorced, etc.  And I'm sure that Catholic teachings have impact on her worldview.  I do care if someone chooses to be a member of an organization that was the basis for the Handmaid's Tale.

To be clear, I was wrong about that. It was another similar religious charamatic catholic sect. But the part about calling their advisors handmaid is correct though they changed that recently. Spooky.

[CooterBrown 17907]

How many times has the alleged science changed on Cv-19? 

That’s exactly how good science works. As you get more data and evidence, you adjust your understanding and conclusions.

You don’t draw a fucking line in the sand and die on whatever side you’re standing on out of spite.

[wildcat09 29242]

2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I'm not going to just keep beating a dead horse, so I won't comment further. But the problem we keep coming back to, again and again, is differentiating the religious from the extremist. 

Just because something isn't easy to do doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

The fact is that it really is hard to differentiate what we consider extremists from non-extremists, but anyone who says they don't personally do that is lying. Everyone knows some group of believers of anything that they think is kooky as hell and takes some belief too far. Sometimes it's just us being judgmental assholes, but sometimes it's a group that's legitimately dangerous. I don't want the legitimately dangerous types in government.

[wildcat09 29242]

34 minutes ago, slorch said:

which scientists?

 

LOlz.  Follow the money    grants and funding.

 

How many times has the alleged science changed on Cv-19?  California already has energy crisis in place, now they want to tie their transportation into that same limited ability.   But it's scientific...

 

but non-theological dogma is exempt.

The science-understander has logged on.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The science-understander has logged on.

their dogma is wronger than ours... because God.

 

am I doing this right?

[Biff Tannen 45494]

7 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 

That’s exactly how good science works. As you get more data and evidence, you adjust your understanding and conclusions.

You don’t draw a fucking line in the sand and die on whatever side you’re standing on out of spite.

 

You're wasting your time.

[DDD Dad 14251]

41 minutes ago, slorch said:

which scientists?

 

LOlz.  Follow the money    grants and funding.

 

How many times has the alleged science changed on Cv-19?  California already has energy crisis in place, now they want to tie their transportation into that same limited ability.   But it's scientific...

 

but non-theological dogma is exempt.

OK I'll bite.  With science, conclusions change as more is learned.  With religion, not so much.

Edited September 23, 2020 by DDD Dad

[DDD Dad 14251]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The science-understander has logged on.

Slorch'd!

[burntorangebongos 10681]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

their dogma is wronger than ours... because God.

 

am I doing this right?

Don't put yourself down, you've always been an excellent troll. 

And you know it is called the novel Corona virus because it is new, right?

That means that scientists understanding will of course alter. It is frustrating but true.

[workswithseed 2036]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

OK I'll bite.  With science, conclusions change as more is learned.  With religion, not so much.

I've always been told to not put my house in shifting sand. Unless it's right from the beginning, it'll hurt a lot of people if you put bad science into law.

[DDD Dad 14251]

19 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I've always been told to not put my house in shifting sand. Unless it's right from the beginning, it'll hurt a lot of people if you put bad science into law.

So if you put bad religion into law what happens? (Hint:  pre-Loving v. Virginia)

Edited September 23, 2020 by DDD Dad

[BrickHorn 18191]

39 minutes ago, slorch said:

their dogma is wronger than ours... because God.

 

am I doing this right?

No, you are not. Because you have no fucking clue what “dogma” means and thus don’t understand that scientists revising their operative theories to best explain newly-available evidence is the exact fucking opposite of dogma. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

No, you are not. Because you have no fucking clue what “dogma” means and thus don’t understand that scientists revising their operative theories to best explain newly-available evidence is the exact fucking opposite of dogma. 

Selective dogma is OK.

 

It's at our discretion.

Edited September 23, 2020 by slorch

[Mole 4320]

55 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

To be clear, I was wrong about that. It was another similar religious charamatic catholic sect. But the part about calling their advisors handmaid is correct though they changed that recently. Spooky.

To be fair, the term didn’t widely carry the same cultural connotation until recently. People don’t name their kids Isis all that much anymore either.

57 minutes ago, Upgrayedd said:

Who's god?  Hers?

There’s a lot of missing context here that I can’t piece together. I think the implication by some is that she desires to build some sort of theocracy. Following the links, you end up at an essay by someone else that quotes her. You just get the phrase and no context at all.

If the essay accurately represents the context, then I would her interpret her “Kingdom of God” line much more charitably. The law and politics has the ability to reward a kind of cynical situational ethics (see Mitch and the post hoc justification for the SC). The essay (again, not written by her, but quotes her as supporting their argument) seems to reject that viewpoint. I suspect that most of us are at least conceptually against this kind of shifting ethics.

And just to be clear, I think that given all that has gone down the past 5ish years, the healthy thing for the country would be to wait for the results of the election before any nomination. But here we are finding new and improved ways to rip ourselves apart.

 

[BrickHorn 18191]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

Selective dogma is OK.

 

It's at our discretion.

[tantric superman 4667]

The plural of dogma is dogmata.

Slorchian dogma is slorchmata -- a broad category of beliefs centered around pulling on one's bootstraps -- everyone's got em - fetuses get them in the middle of the first trimester.

 

[tantric superman 4667]

ACB (Always Christ, Brah) is a shoe in.

Way to go Dianne Feinstein for making her a right wing hero with the dogma remark and for completely mishandling the allegations against Kavanaugh.

 

[David Dennison 18656]

4 hours ago, slorch said:

good.

 

the Green New Deal is dead.

No, it isn't. It's never going to be dead. That genie is never going back in the bottle.

[DDD Dad 14251]

[lemonlime 5503]

1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

I'm not going to just keep beating a dead horse, so I won't comment further. But the problem we keep coming back to, again and again, is differentiating the religious from the extremist. 

I don't want to keep going back and forth on this, and I'm not sure of an exact definition I can put into words.  But I do want to know more about extreme views.  By way of example, and I'll take Judaism only because I'm Jewish and don't want to comment on others' religions.  But Judaism teaches to welcome the stranger.  I would hope if there was ever a Justice Lemonlime I wouldn't base holdings on Jewish teachings, but I would come into immigration cases with those beliefs.  As would that my atheist parents taught me that we have an obligation to look  out for the weakest among us.   Or that I have family members who were refugees after WWII.  

I don't care whether a Jewish nominee  goes to synagogue, how often they go to synagogue, their opinions of various Jewish beliefs, etc.  But if there were somehow a nominee who was an ultra-Orthodox Haredi Jew, a sect in which men and women aren't even supposed to walk on the same side of the street, and which does not believe in reading books other than religious texts or using the internet or in newspapers, it would be fair game to discuss whether they believe women should be given equal access to education or whether they think government censorship of books that address homosexuality is okay or whether they would be able to rule fairly on cases involving First Amendment freedom of the press.

I'm not sure how to define where the specific line is, but there is a point where membership in a certain group, religious or otherwise, could have negative implications on someone's ability to serve as a judge, and when that happens, questioning them on extreme views is appropriate.

[ndawg 1242]

I'm agnostic, and certainly don't mind when any politician holds religious beliefs, so long as they demonstrate the capability of reasoning from within our shared secular framework. That means, among other things, being able to consider a point of view that you disagree with.

I would not mind if an atheist nominee were asked to provide a rebuttal of Roe v. Wade, and I would not mind if a religious nominee were asked to provide a defense of it.

[workswithseed 2036]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

So if you put bad religion into law what happens? (Hint:  pre-Loving v. Virginia)

I was thinking of Buck v Bell for bad science.

[Michael Knight 12897]

Never forget the pilgrims were basically al-qaeda circa 1620 and the only religious freedom they sought was their own.

[DDD Dad 14251]

46 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I was thinking of Buck v Bell for bad science.

You're really out of your element here.

[workswithseed 2036]

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

You're really out of your element here.

1920s and eugenics seem to go hand in hand, unless it didn't. I'd like more reading material if that's the case.

Case Summary of Buck v. Bell:

• A Virginia statute allowed for the forced sterilization of “feeble minded” people to protect the “health of the state.”
• Carrie Buck, who was mentally disabled, as was her mother and daughter, was ordered to be sterilized pursuant to the statute.
• Buck challenged the law on constitutional grounds, arguing that it violated due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• The lower courts upheld the law and the order for sterilization.
• The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority, stated that the Virginia statute was constitutional, and noted that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Edited September 23, 2020 by workswithseed

[DDD Dad 14251]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

1920s and eugenics seem to go hand and hand. Unless it didn't, I'd like more reading material.

Case Summary of Buck v. Bell:

• A Virginia statute allowed for the forced sterilization of “feeble minded” people to protect the “health of the state.”
• Carrie Buck, who was mentally disabled, as was her mother and daughter, was ordered to be sterilized pursuant to the statute.
• Buck challenged the law on constitutional grounds, arguing that it violated due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• The lower courts upheld the law and the order for sterilization.
• The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority, stated that the Virginia statute was constitutional, and noted that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

I'm familiar with the case.  I happen to practice constitutional law.  My point stands.  It's commendable that you are willing to spar with the "cabal" here in the CR but you might want to sit this one out.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Whole thing is a tough call.  I am, in general, a supporter of the practice of religion, or any spiritual framework you choose.  But I have disdain for "extremism," and those that would foist their beliefs on others, to the extent those beliefs aren't generally held, e.g. "thou shalt not kill."

I think it's relatively easy for a person of intelligence and "goodwill" (for lack of a better term) to separate their personal, deeply held beliefs from "professional" or legal decisions, most especially when there is a framework for the decision that doesn't rely on personal beliefs, as in the case of judicial decisions at most levels.  Occasionally, even that fairly rigid framework allows personal beliefs to creep in, but if they do to an untoward degree, it is "fixable," if not quite easily so.

The problem is, at the Supreme Court level, there often is no decision framework, or so little of it, that personal beliefs can't help but intrude on decisions.  And a wrongful decision is not easily fixable at all.

I'm not sure a person can even accurately answer a question about how their personal beliefs will affect them until confronted with the situation.  They can be "truthful" in their answer, as far as they know, but they don't really know, know until it is upon them.

It is a fair subject of inquiry with a Supreme Court nominee, but has to be handled with "nuance," to avoid invidious discrimination, to borrow a term.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Guest]

4 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Nice try.   and yes it absolutely means what I think it means.  a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

Don't put yourself down, you've always been an excellent troll. 

 

This whole fucking thread is a massive troll.

Leftsist hate religion.  They think it is the only way people impose their unfounded beliefs.  Everyone elese is free to make hay.

[BrickHorn 18191]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

Nice try.   and yes it absolutely means what I think it means.  a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

You do understand that “incontrovertibly true” and “subject to revision when shown to be inconsistent with data” are two completely fucking different things, right?

Who am I kidding? Of course you don’t.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

You do understand that “incontrovertibly true” and “subject to revision when shown to be inconsistent with data” are two completely fucking different things, right?

Who am I kidding? Of course you don’t.

I  understand the convenience of science and how it has been leveraged.

It's funny how defensive you motherfuckers get on the subject.

Edited September 24, 2020 by slorch

[DDD Dad 14251]

I  understand the convenience of science and how it has been leveraged.
It's funny how defensive you motherfuckers get on the subject.

You seem to be projecting a bit.

[tantric superman 4667]

3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I was thinking of Buck v Bell for bad science.

I'm thinking Chet v. Wyatt for weird science.

[Continental Op 3934]

Hurr durr I don't care what no fag in a white lab coat says.  You think yer better'n me??

[WhatTheBuck 28711]

My sister and brother-in-law used to have signs in their home that said "Pray" and "Believe." 

I'd put up signs that say "Think" and "Question."

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Ones religion should not be attacked. What should be questioned is how their rulings/decisions do or don't meet constitutionality.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Ones religion should not be attacked. What should be questioned is how their rulings/decisions do or don't meet constitutionality.

Does this meet "constitutionality"?

"Jesus showed me that the word abortion does not appear in the Constitution so therefore to the extent any case finds a constitutional right to obtain an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, or imposes a limit to a state's ability to regulate the body of a pregnant female as it sees fit, it is hereby overruled."

Edited September 24, 2020 by tantric superman

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

Leftsist hate religion.

Not a troll. 

Not is a thread about a judge's ability to separate dogmatic religious beliefs from her rulings in a country with a constitution that expressly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Not a troll. 

Not is a thread about a judge's ability to separate dogmatic religious beliefs from her rulings in a country with a constitution that expressly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

 

 

Judges don't make laws...so we're safe there.  Thank God.

 

and the point is that one doesn't require a deity to have internal conflicts/ opinions that might not fit society's interests.  We damned sure know the ones you dislike though.  Ignore those.  Christianity is the only threat to justice.

Edited September 24, 2020 by slorch

[Bookman 4610]

14 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

 

That’s exactly how good science works. As you get more data and evidence, you adjust your understanding and conclusions.

You don’t draw a fucking line in the sand and die on whatever side you’re standing on out of spite.

 

 

"[Scientists are] always at the drawing board. If you’re not at the drawing board, you’re not making discoveries. You’re not a scientist; you’re something else. The public, on the other hand, seems to demand conclusive explanations as they leap without hesitation from statements of abject ignorance to statements of absolute certainty.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Bookman 4610]

14 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I've always been told to not put my house in shifting sand. Unless it's right from the beginning, it'll hurt a lot of people if you put bad science into law.

I really can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Bookman said:

 

"[Scientists are] always at the drawing board. If you’re not at the drawing board, you’re not making discoveries. You’re not a scientist; you’re something else. The public, on the other hand, seems to demand conclusive explanations as they leap without hesitation from statements of abject ignorance to statements of absolute certainty.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson

Indeed.  By public, he means legislators, right?

[Bookman 4610]

No, "public" and "legislators" are not synonyms. But legislators are included in the word "public."

[Guest]

LOLz.  play along, with relevance to the thread.

It's interesting to me that people( not necessarily you) rush to defend the science, when it is convenient, that is.  The issue lies in making laws/ rulings around something that is NOT absolute.

Then we want to freak out over a candidate for judge because of their faith, because that is the worst possible thing a person could do... but only if we ignore other imperfect beliefs.

 

Evaluate their rulings.  Not what you think they MIGHT do.  Where's the discussion of anyone's body of work?

Edited September 24, 2020 by slorch

[Dark Horse 2263]

Uh, Sotomayor is catholic, who gives a fuck. There are some people that are able to uphold the constitution and separate church and state regardless of their personal faith. 
 

I don’t care which fairy tale you believe, just like most Americans would be perfectly ok with an atheist Supreme Court justice, right?

[TwiceHorn 31272]

18 hours ago, Mole said:

If we read the same article about this, this isn’t quite accurate. The headline suggested this, but the article itself painted a slightly different picture. As I remember the article, the Handmaiden’s Tale was partially inspired by an unnamed group that shared some similarities to People of Praise. The extent of those similarities and their relevance to anything at all is a different matter.
 

Based on the article and the timeline and locations given, it was pretty clear that People of Praise could not have been the direct inspiration for the book. If I remember right, people of praise was in the Midwest while the unnamed group was from New Jersey.

As to the question at hand, it’s absolutely appropriate to try to determine whether a nominee can fairly apply the law. Personal/spiritual/religious philosophies often intermingle with academic and professional philosophies. The line can get murky, but I think it’s clear enough. It’s fair to work out how murky a given nominee’s line is.

Religious tests and the bigoted language that gets slipped into these discussions shouldn’t have a place in decent society. There are appropriate places to debate and discuss religious matters, but government is definitely not that place.
 

This is mostly just a proxy for abortion anyway. It would be nice if we could deal with it directly rather than perpetually come up with new ways to talk around the issue.

Newsweek apparently rewrote that article to soften the assertion that PoP was the inspiration for Handmaid's Tale, to groups like PoP were the inspiration for Handmaid's Tale.

So it's actually possible that you both read the same article.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

10 hours ago, Continental Op said:

Hurr durr I don't care what no fag in a white lab coat says.  You think yer better'n me??

You just doxxed yourself bro, what part of New England?