User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 29

  1. #11
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Ever heard the term dry county.

    Blue laws don't apply to an entire state

    By that reasoning, Jim Crow laws were also a good idea.
    So because under our system different states and counties can have different laws to suit the populace, you're saying that that system supports institutionalized racial subjugation?

    Are you really trying to make that argument?

    Just because states, can enact laws reflective of their citizens desires, does not for one second mean that such a system is built to support discrimination of any kind.

    It actually results in a greater degree of democratic responsiveness to the desires of a local electorate.

    virtually anything related to marriage or divorce
    obscenity restrictions or prohibition - verbal, sexual, etc
    blue laws - alcohol sales and business hours on sundays
    tax exemption for churches
    restrictions on birth control
    Marriage and divorce laws are handled at the state level.

    Six states recognize same sex marriage.

    The other states fail to recognize same sex marriage.

    They don't have any law that actively discriminates. They just don't recognize same sex marriage couples, and therefore those couples don't qualify for the benefits granted to hetero married couples.

    The lack of recognition of same sex marriage is one aspect of marriage law in the other 44 states.

    Marriage legislation has nothing to do with religion at all and everything to do with creating incentives for stable couples. Take a look at marriage laws if you don't believe me. Most of them aim to protect the parties to the marriage, or grant economic benefits to those who frequently are having kids and could use a little help as the expense of childhood grows.

    Obscenity prohibition like what? Last time I checked everyone had access to internet porn, could curse in public, and is generally unhampered in their daily lives.

    If you mean the occasional rural area that has some sort of ban on sodomy or the like dating back to the 1800's, show me one instance where those laws are actually enforced.

    For all intents and purposes those laws have no effect, and merely exist as legislative curios of the past.

    Tax exemption applies to all non profits, it just applies to churches (of all faiths) because they are part of that class.

    There is no restriction to birth control.

    You're just hearing the talking heads on TV and assuming because of the noise that there must be some law already on the books that restricts access to birth control.

    What going on is that Republicans balked at a new rule on insurance coverage, which they have since backed away from.

  2. #12
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Just because states, can enact laws reflective of their citizens desires, does not for one second mean that such a system is built to support discrimination of any kind.
    Except that it has already happened before. This isn't a hypothetical.

    It happens anywhere where laws are made that merely express the interests of local concerns. When laws are made that express basic ideas about humanity or common knowledge (i.e. global concerns), then people don't come up with stupid shit like this or blue laws.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I dont like politicians seeking to exploit religion to win votes no.

  4. #14
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Except that it has already happened before. This isn't a hypothetical.
    Yes I understand that the past actually occurred. No need for clarification there.

    It happens anywhere where laws are made that merely express the interests of local concerns. When laws are made that express basic ideas about humanity or common knowledge (i.e. global concerns), then people don't come up with stupid shit like this or blue laws.
    So your argument against states rights is that, the greater democratic representation allowed by local law may lead to a situation where the prejudices of the population are reflected in the local legal code.

    And that laws are better when they only apply to vague truisms about human rights.

    Do you understand the sheer number of laws required to govern the populace?

    Do you also understand that our country is made up of 50 states many of which are equal to or greater than the size of European countries?

    To create one set of laws to govern every state, is a near impossibility, especially when our states are states are so different from each other.

    Why should the laws governing coastal construction regulations, be required in a land locked state?

    States rights are a good thing, and help our country to be the amazingly diverse place it is.

  5. #15
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Any way, the evangelicalization of the GOP has been freaking me out since the early 2000's.

    Luckily demographic shifts will force a shift in the GOP if they want to continue to be able to win anything but single congressional districts.

    I can't wait for election data to force changes within the party platform.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    To be honest I'd like to see discussion and debate of the so called religious-political issues without the religious tag, most of these issues are ethical and moral, at times I cant help but believe that the prejudice and out right hatred against religion leads to people being so blinkered that they cant see it as such and cant really think straight.

    So when you have someone question the whether the wholesale change in insitutitions which serve the majority (and which the majority generally have a single, shared, universal understanding and definition of) in order to, in theory, provide consolation and a sense of parity of esteem for a minority what suddenly is important is whether or not the individual doing the questioning is religious. Something seems very wrong about that.

    The villification of religion has been a long term thing, I see it as linked to a very deep development unleashed at the time of the reformation and just building up with successive upheavels there after, its a very bad thing because while there are and always will be pretty uncritically held opinions the pedigree of vulgar secualrism and anti-religious sentiments is unquestionable. You'd think that it would have been around long enough for someone to begin to think "hey, hold on a moment" but it doesnt seem so. This tendency hasnt ever had an Orwell like figure willing to engage in attacks as a "loyal opposition", although mind you there's still too many people who dont believe or cant accept Orwell was a socialist to begin with.

  7. #17
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Ever heard the term dry county.

    Blue laws don't apply to an entire state
    Yes, I have. I lived in one, and blue laws do apply to entire states in many cases.

    Take, for instance, the fact that you can't buy liquor in the state of Texas on a Sunday and no alcohol can be purchased before noon on Sunday.

    Marriage and divorce laws are handled at the state level.
    I never said anything about federal law vs. state law.

    They don't have any law that actively discriminates. They just don't recognize same sex marriage couples, and therefore those couples don't qualify for the benefits granted to hetero married couples.
    That is discrimination, even more so if the purpose is to provide benefits to stable couples and is not supposed to be based on religious beliefs.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  8. #18
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Why should the laws governing coastal construction regulations, be required in a land locked state?
    In those cases, it's the sensible thing to do. Geography isn't covered much in the Constitution. People, otoh, are a different idea. The Constitution is all about people. General laws are a better fit.

    Then again, a clever lawyer could probably overturn some blue laws on the grounds of geography too. North Dakota is a land susceptible to extreme cold and blizzard. What happens if people are suddenly hit by a storm, but it's Sunday, and they're completely fucked from finding an open hardware store or some place to get supplies? It might make some religious people feel smug, but there's a chance someone could die because of it. edit: btw, this actually happened

  9. #19
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Any way, the evangelicalization of the GOP has been freaking me out since the early 2000's.

    Luckily demographic shifts will force a shift in the GOP if they want to continue to be able to win anything but single congressional districts.

    I can't wait for election data to force changes within the party platform.
    To be honest evangelism in the GOP predates that by a long, long stretch, I think you've got to go right aways back to the Carter administration. That was the first wave of evangelical movements in the US, although I would say that the evangelists and later things like the Christian Coalition are just minor reflections of the confederate cultural ascendency in the US.

    Perhaps the whole "compassionate conservatism" reflected in some ways the Bush administration's recognition that demography could make the Christian constituency of the future RC rather than evangelical but I doubt RC constituencies function quite like they'd expect (there's nothing like the political consensus among RCs which is often assumed from the outside).

    I'm not a fan of US evangelism for a lot of different reasons, its very closely connected to what I consider to be the most atavistic elements of protestantism. Anyone who cares could alledge that this is just RC prejudice on my part, I'll admit that I share Hilare Belloc's views about the reformation, on the other hand I think there's plenty of decent secular sources which have analysed and criticised Luther and Calvin, Fromm couldnt stand the defense of privilege and capitalism or some species of authoritarianism which they exhibited. When you read Erasmus and Luther's discourse on free will its Erasmus who appears like the more reasonable and modern thinker despite the fact he's opposing what a lot of people imagine was the modernising religious tendency.

    To be honest I see the GOP eventually embracing the pop libertarianism of the tea party, its entrophy though, bad religion begets worse anti-religion. Thesis, antithesis, new (bogus) synthesis.

  10. #20
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Yes, I have. I lived in one, and blue laws do apply to entire states in many cases.
    You're right, some are statewide, and 23 states have blue laws, including interestingly enough California.

    However, this doesn't really weaken my argument for states rights.

Similar Threads

  1. How Political Correctness is Destroying the System that Created It
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-03-2016, 04:43 PM
  2. Is it wrong for other people to express opinions on the internet...
    By phobik in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-17-2011, 10:17 PM
  3. How old do you think the world is and are we the first evolved civilisation?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-22-2011, 09:04 AM
  4. The sky is falling and the earth is splitting open.
    By Resonance in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 05:13 PM
  5. [INFP] how an infp is perceived by the general public...
    By Rebe in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 02-28-2010, 03:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO