The Official Jan. 6th Public Hearings Thread

68,838 Views | 885 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by bearister
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Not surprised either by this exchange.

On the first point, I was criticizing how what is celebrated on Passover was a one-time event and not a continuing belief that first-born should be killed. As such, your extension of that in your example didn't make sense.




LOL, there are a lot of things about the story of passover that make it inapplicable to our society today, the least of which is because it was a one-time event. I very clearly said we shouldn't kill people because it happened in a religious story but you are quibbling about the nature of the religious story itself.

calbear93 said:



Just because a group of Christians believe something does not make the push for restrictions on abortion a theocracy. First of all, you never addressed my point that most of the Democrats claim to be Christian and yet are still pro-choice. Also, Sotomayor is Catholic and Jackson is a Protestant. Are they practicing theocracy or are you just saying anyone who is pro-life must a a "cleric". How do all those Catholics and Protestants who support pro-choice laws align with your view that this is solely a Christian issue? And you choosing to call in a derogatory manner justices as "radical clerics" is showing that all of this is coming from your view on their religious choice and not on their legal arguments. I am certain that most folks who voted for the conservative justices would have also done so for a non-Christian and non-Catholic who was pro-life. But not surprising that you do not answer this question on aligning so many Christian Democrats with your view on this being a theocracy since you want to make this an attack on Christianity and not about belief on when life starts.



Actually, the important fact is that the push for restrictions on abortion is religious in nature is what makes it a theocracy. The fact that other people are religious but don't attempt to enshrine their religious beliefts into law is something I've addressed and isn't relevant to the fact that 6 religious clerics just issued what is essentially a religious opinion in Dobbs. I'm surprised you would continue to pretend that Christianity has nothing to do with the Dobbs decision when it is the clear motivating factor. Judge Alito, who wrote the religious opinion, recently spoke about his decision in a panelon religious liberty in Rome sponsored by Notre Dame. I suppose if he did so while tap dancing on the popemobile you still might not see what's going on but I assure you, the rest of us do.

calbear93 said:


I also never stated that THIS COUNTRY was anti-Christian. How does me saying that the progressives here are anti-Christian translate in your brain to me saying the country is anti-Christian? I know you spend a lot of time here, but this is not the entire world or even this country. And there is a clear bias against Christianity here on this forum.


You didn't say the progressives here are anti-Christian. If that's what you mean, then I guess I still don't see it. Calling out our government for its theocracy is not anti-Christian, it's criticizing our government for failing us and the constitution.


calbear93 said:


And you think "worship" means only religion. People have beliefs and morals based on what they worship, whether religion, money, power, status, political purity, peer affirmation, comfort, other people, romantic relationships, etc. You know what you worship? You worship whatever takes up your time, energy, passion, and money. You worship what you fear losing the most. And what you worship defines your moral values. You worship money? Guess where your morals and values are going to go. You worship getting pat on the back for parroting party lines? Guess how you will spend your time here?


I don't know how you define "worship" but the dictionary (Oxford) says its "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." The fact that you think "worship" is the only reasonable starting point perfectly aligns with the theocracy. I don't agree that I "worship" anything.

calbear93 said:


And unsurprisingly, you never answered your basis for your beliefs. You think Christians only think along Christian lines. What drives your morals? Utilitarianism? You clearly do not believe in a creator that defines morals and good/evil. So, is it subjective moralism? Everyone is right and everyone is wrong depending on your personal views of good and bad? Nihilism? Superman theory of might defining right? If you are pushing for your values in how this society should be run, is it that you are pushing what you are worshiping on us? Doubt you will answer that.


Again, you seem to have missed the point. As often happens with the topic of religion, you have trouble disentangling arguments that get confused in your head. As I have stated multiple times, it's not that ALL Christians ONLY think along Christian lines. First - I will note that you don't even consider Catholics to be Christian because they don't meet your purity test, so you can pretend like this doesn't involve Christians. Second - I've clearly stated that my issue is with the theocracy, not Christians themselves. I could care less if people want to believe in or worship a creator, that's up to them. What I object to is people imposing those beliefs on other people, particularly with the force of law, as the 6 radical clerics on SCOTUS have done with Dobbs.


To be clear, because I think this keeps tripping you up, Joe Biden being Catholic is not a problem. Samuel Alito being Catholic is not a problem. Joe Biden being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Samuel Alito being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Joe Biden supporting people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies is not a problem. Samuel Alito deciding that states can force birth is a problem and that was clearly motivated by his religious faith. He barely made any attempt to hide it at his speech in Rome.


I gravitated toward John Rawls but I don't apply any specific overarching philosophical view, but I don't think that's relevant here. I support pregnant people making their own decisions. I happened to go to see my doctor today for a routine physical. I appreciated that it was a 1 to 1 conversation and I didn't have to wonder what Samuel Alito or other clerics would think about our conversation or about any of the decisions that I made under consultation. I think it's a terrible outcome of our theocracy that pregnant people aren't afford the same freedoms.


Here is an example of the forced birth you are talking about.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CdWUayqDNHA/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY=

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CdWUayqDNHA/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:



Actually, the important fact is that the push for restrictions on abortion is religious in nature is what makes it a theocracy. The fact that other people are religious but don't attempt to enshrine their religious beliefts into law is something I've addressed and isn't relevant to the fact that 6 religious clerics just issued what is essentially a religious opinion in Dobbs. I'm surprised you would continue to pretend that Christianity has nothing to do with the Dobbs decision when it is the clear motivating factor. Judge Alito, who wrote the religious opinion, recently spoke about his decision in a panelon religious liberty in Rome sponsored by Notre Dame. I suppose if he did so while tap dancing on the popemobile you still might not see what's going on but I assure you, the rest of us do.


You know I respect your intelligence but I am going to hold you accountable here.

So, let's break down what you are saying here.

(1) Christianity dictates that life starts at conception. Democrats like Pelosi, Jackson and Biden who are Christian, being Christians, accept that life starts at conception but are OK with killing life because they don't want to push their beliefs into law. As such, they will accept that life is being eliminated for political expediency. If political pressure dictated that kids up to 5 year old can be killed because they redefined life, Pelosi, Biden and Jackson will support it because they don't want to impose their religious belief.

(2) Abortion is about when life starts, and Christians can disagree. As such, arguments about abortion right is about disagreement about when life starts and not about whether Christians want to impose theocracy or whether Democrat Christians are OK with killing life for political expediency.

Only one of these can be true.

Unit2Sucks said:


You didn't say the progressives here are anti-Christian. If that's what you mean, then I guess I still don't see it. Calling out our government for its theocracy is not anti-Christian, it's criticizing our government for failing us and the constitution.


This is what I wrote about bias. Please tell me how you could in good faith misread this to mean I was referring to all of America.


"I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance."

"Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice."



Unit2Sucks said:

I don't know how you define "worship" but the dictionary (Oxford) says its "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." The fact that you think "worship" is the only reasonable starting point perfectly aligns with the theocracy. I don't agree that I "worship" anything.


I know you can read more than one sentence so why did you ignore this second definition in Oxford?

adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle.
"our society's worship of teenagers"

We all worship something where we believe that one thing will bring us happiness. Not sure where you think your happiness lies, but that is what you worship. The anxiety you feel about losing something - that is what you worship. Not an insult, but we all live for something.




Unit2Sucks said:

To be clear, because I think this keeps tripping you up, Joe Biden being Catholic is not a problem. Samuel Alito being Catholic is not a problem. Joe Biden being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Samuel Alito being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Joe Biden supporting people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies is not a problem. Samuel Alito deciding that states can force birth is a problem and that was clearly motivated by his religious faith. He barely made any attempt to hide it at his speech in Rome.

Again see my comment above. Also, how do you know Alito's views are based on religion and not a general belief on when life begins? Is you atheism the driving force on when life begins and are you pushing your atheism on others? Our beliefs come from may factors, just like your beliefs come from various factors. Just like it is unfair to say your beliefs on abortion is you trying to push your atheism, it is not fair to say someone who you have never spoken with is someone you know well enough to say where his beliefs are coming from. You don't even seem to have a clear idea where your morals and value originate.


Unit2Sucks said:

I gravitated toward John Rawls but I don't apply any specific overarching philosophical view, but I don't think that's relevant here. I support pregnant people making their own decisions. I happened to go to see my doctor today for a routine physical. I appreciated that it was a 1 to 1 conversation and I didn't have to wonder what Samuel Alito or other clerics would think about our conversation or about any of the decisions that I made under consultation. I think it's a terrible outcome of our theocracy that pregnant people aren't afford the same freedoms.


I am glad you are brining your interaction with your doctor to inform your moral values, but how does your general gravitation toward John Rawls and your personal comfort with your visit with your doctors override Alito's basis for what matters more? Why do you believe you are right and Alito is wrong?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
First - wanted to say I commend you for engaging in this conversation and apologize if anything has offended you. That has not been my attempt and I know religious-related conversations can be difficult whether in a public or private forum.

calbear93 said:



You know I respect your intelligence but I am going to hold you accountable here.

So, let's break down what you are saying here.

(1) Christianity dictates that life starts at conception. Democrats like Pelosi, Jackson and Biden who are Christian, being Christians, accept that life starts at conception but are OK with killing life because they don't want to push their beliefs into law. As such, they will accept that life is being eliminated for political expediency. If political pressure dictated that kids up to 5 year old can be killed because they redefined life, Pelosi, Biden and Jackson will support it because they don't want to impose their religious belief.

(2) Abortion is about when life starts, and Christians can disagree. As such, arguments about abortion right is about disagreement about when life starts and not about whether Christians want to impose theocracy or whether Democrat Christians are OK with killing life for political expediency.

Only one of these can be true.




I don't think I've ever made a claim about what Christianity dictates regarding life or that "abortion is about when life starts." That may be something you believe and it may be something that Christianity dictates, but it's not dispositive to me.

To be clear, what I've said is that there are Christians who may believe what you believe but choose not to impose their views on others. We will get back to this point later in the post, because I think it's the most important element of the theocracy.


I don't think that it's only political expediency that prevents some religious people from attempting to impose their beliefs on others - it's also enshrined in the constitution.


calbear93 said:



Unit2Sucks said:


You didn't say the progressives here are anti-Christian. If that's what you mean, then I guess I still don't see it. Calling out our government for its theocracy is not anti-Christian, it's criticizing our government for failing us and the constitution.


This is what I wrote about bias. Please tell me how you could in good faith misread this to mean I was referring to all of America.


"I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance."

"Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice."




I never referred to the language above. The quote below is where I saw you reference anti-Christian bias, and I misread that in the context of our conversation to refer to the US, since we were discussing the US not just BI. But I understand that you were just referring to BI in your statement.


calbear93 said:


Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice.



calbear93 said:



Unit2Sucks said:

I don't know how you define "worship" but the dictionary (Oxford) says its "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." The fact that you think "worship" is the only reasonable starting point perfectly aligns with the theocracy. I don't agree that I "worship" anything.


I know you can read more than one sentence so why did you ignore this second definition in Oxford?

adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle.
"our society's worship of teenagers"

We all worship something where we believe that one thing will bring us happiness. Not sure where you think your happiness lies, but that is what you worship. The anxiety you feel about losing something - that is what you worship. Not an insult, but we all live for something.


The second definition says "comparable to religious homage." You are making what I consider to be an unsupported claim that everyone worships something. We simply don't agree on this point.

calbear93 said:


Unit2Sucks said:

To be clear, because I think this keeps tripping you up, Joe Biden being Catholic is not a problem. Samuel Alito being Catholic is not a problem. Joe Biden being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Samuel Alito being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Joe Biden supporting people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies is not a problem. Samuel Alito deciding that states can force birth is a problem and that was clearly motivated by his religious faith. He barely made any attempt to hide it at his speech in Rome.

Again see my comment above. Also, how do you know Alito's views are based on religion and not a general belief on when life begins? Is you atheism the driving force on when life begins and are you pushing your atheism on others? Our beliefs come from may factors, just like your beliefs come from various factors. Just like it is unfair to say your beliefs on abortion is you trying to push your atheism, it is not fair to say someone who you have never spoken with is someone you know well enough to say where his beliefs are coming from. You don't even seem to have a clear idea where your morals and value originate.



I said above that I would re-visit the point about Christian beliefs and political expediency. I will address that before discussing "pushing [my] atheism on others." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the totality of what you are saying but it seems like you are both skeptical of Christians who don't believe that the law should force birth AND seeking to make a claim that Alito's faith didn't have anything to do with the Dobbs decision. For the record - do you really think Alito's faith was inconsequential in the Dobbs decision? I think it's pretty obvious that the decision was based in large part on his faith. I don't think the Federalist society who hand-picked these judges believes that the two things are independent. I don't think the powerful conservative evangelicals who celebrated the nomination and confirmation of these judges thinks that they are independent. I'm not sure what you are claiming here.

As for my views, I am not seeking to impose anything on anyone. I'm not forcing a 10-year old rape victim to have an abortion. I'm not forcing a religious adult with an ectopic or life-threatening pregnancy to have an abortion. If a pregnant person chooses not to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy, that's her decision and I support her right to do so, whether based on her faith or other reasons (assuming there is no foul play - eg she hasn't been defrauded by a doctor or someone else). I am saying that pregnant people should not be forced to give birth due to the fact that our supreme court is composed of religious clerics and she happens to have the misfortune to live in a state where theocrats have decided that abortion should be illegal because they believe Christianity demands it. There is a big difference between my belief that pregnant people should be able to make their own decisions in this context and the theocratic belief that the government needs to prevent these decisions from happening because they believe those decisions could be inconsistent with Christianity. I'm honestly surprised you are disagreeing with me here because it seems that you genuinely believe that abortion is inconsistent with Christianity and you don't seem to be troubled by the notion that our laws would enforce that view.



calbear93 said:


Unit2Sucks said:

I gravitated toward John Rawls but I don't apply any specific overarching philosophical view, but I don't think that's relevant here. I support pregnant people making their own decisions. I happened to go to see my doctor today for a routine physical. I appreciated that it was a 1 to 1 conversation and I didn't have to wonder what Samuel Alito or other clerics would think about our conversation or about any of the decisions that I made under consultation. I think it's a terrible outcome of our theocracy that pregnant people aren't afford the same freedoms.


I am glad you are brining your interaction with your doctor to inform your moral values, but how does your general gravitation toward John Rawls and your personal comfort with your visit with your doctors override Alito's basis for what matters more? Why do you believe you are right and Alito is wrong?


This is an easy one. My doctor and I didn't decide what other people should do, just for me. I didn't decide that Alito should get a medical procedure. I didn't decide what medication Alito should be on. That would be ridiculous and if I had claimed a right to do that, I think you would be well within your right to question my basis. And if my basis were religious, you would be well within your right to tell me to keep my religious views to myself. That's what we are talking about here. It's not whether I have a reasonable basis for making my own personal health decisions, it's whether I can impose on others.

If you want to talk about a better example, we can talk about Jehovah's witnesses. Every once in a while some dispute comes up because someone of that faith denies their child life-saving care. I have no problem with an adult choosing to die rather than seek medical treatment because their faith prohibits it. I don't know how Alito would feel about someone denying their child life-saving treatment due to religious faith. I do know that if Alito tried to tell you that you should deny your child life-saving care because of Alito's faith, you would probably not react very kindly. That's far closer to what we are talking about here. It's no different from Muslim Sharia law or Jewish law imposed in Israel. The difference is that we in America aren't supposed to live in a theocracy. That's not what our founders signed us up for but it's what you seem to be advocating. And that's where I have a problem.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

First - wanted to say I commend you for engaging in this conversation and apologize if anything has offended you. That has not been my attempt and I know religious-related conversations can be difficult whether in a public or private forum.

calbear93 said:



You know I respect your intelligence but I am going to hold you accountable here.

So, let's break down what you are saying here.

(1) Christianity dictates that life starts at conception. Democrats like Pelosi, Jackson and Biden who are Christian, being Christians, accept that life starts at conception but are OK with killing life because they don't want to push their beliefs into law. As such, they will accept that life is being eliminated for political expediency. If political pressure dictated that kids up to 5 year old can be killed because they redefined life, Pelosi, Biden and Jackson will support it because they don't want to impose their religious belief.

(2) Abortion is about when life starts, and Christians can disagree. As such, arguments about abortion right is about disagreement about when life starts and not about whether Christians want to impose theocracy or whether Democrat Christians are OK with killing life for political expediency.

Only one of these can be true.




I don't think I've ever made a claim about what Christianity dictates regarding life or that "abortion is about when life starts." That may be something you believe and it may be something that Christianity dictates, but it's not dispositive to me.

To be clear, what I've said is that there are Christians who may believe what you believe but choose not to impose their views on others. We will get back to this point later in the post, because I think it's the most important element of the theocracy.


I don't think that it's only political expediency that prevents some religious people from attempting to impose their beliefs on others - it's also enshrined in the constitution.


calbear93 said:



Unit2Sucks said:


You didn't say the progressives here are anti-Christian. If that's what you mean, then I guess I still don't see it. Calling out our government for its theocracy is not anti-Christian, it's criticizing our government for failing us and the constitution.


This is what I wrote about bias. Please tell me how you could in good faith misread this to mean I was referring to all of America.


"I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance."

"Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice."




I never referred to the language above. The quote below is where I saw you reference anti-Christian bias, and I misread that in the context of our conversation to refer to the US, since we were discussing the US not just BI. But I understand that you were just referring to BI in your statement.


calbear93 said:


Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice.



calbear93 said:



Unit2Sucks said:

I don't know how you define "worship" but the dictionary (Oxford) says its "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." The fact that you think "worship" is the only reasonable starting point perfectly aligns with the theocracy. I don't agree that I "worship" anything.


I know you can read more than one sentence so why did you ignore this second definition in Oxford?

adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle.
"our society's worship of teenagers"

We all worship something where we believe that one thing will bring us happiness. Not sure where you think your happiness lies, but that is what you worship. The anxiety you feel about losing something - that is what you worship. Not an insult, but we all live for something.


The second definition says "comparable to religious homage." You are making what I consider to be an unsupported claim that everyone worships something. We simply don't agree on this point.

calbear93 said:


Unit2Sucks said:

To be clear, because I think this keeps tripping you up, Joe Biden being Catholic is not a problem. Samuel Alito being Catholic is not a problem. Joe Biden being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Samuel Alito being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Joe Biden supporting people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies is not a problem. Samuel Alito deciding that states can force birth is a problem and that was clearly motivated by his religious faith. He barely made any attempt to hide it at his speech in Rome.

Again see my comment above. Also, how do you know Alito's views are based on religion and not a general belief on when life begins? Is you atheism the driving force on when life begins and are you pushing your atheism on others? Our beliefs come from may factors, just like your beliefs come from various factors. Just like it is unfair to say your beliefs on abortion is you trying to push your atheism, it is not fair to say someone who you have never spoken with is someone you know well enough to say where his beliefs are coming from. You don't even seem to have a clear idea where your morals and value originate.



I said above that I would re-visit the point about Christian beliefs and political expediency. I will address that before discussing "pushing [my] atheism on others." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the totality of what you are saying but it seems like you are both skeptical of Christians who don't believe that the law should force birth AND seeking to make a claim that Alito's faith didn't have anything to do with the Dobbs decision. For the record - do you really think Alito's faith was inconsequential in the Dobbs decision? I think it's pretty obvious that the decision was based in large part on his faith. I don't think the Federalist society who hand-picked these judges believes that the two things are independent. I don't think the powerful conservative evangelicals who celebrated the nomination and confirmation of these judges thinks that they are independent. I'm not sure what you are claiming here.

As for my views, I am not seeking to impose anything on anyone. I'm not forcing a 10-year old rape victim to have an abortion. I'm not forcing a religious adult with an ectopic or life-threatening pregnancy to have an abortion. If a pregnant person chooses not to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy, that's her decision and I support her right to do so, whether based on her faith or other reasons (assuming there is no foul play - eg she hasn't been defrauded by a doctor or someone else). I am saying that pregnant people should not be forced to give birth due to the fact that our supreme court is composed of religious clerics and she happens to have the misfortune to live in a state where theocrats have decided that abortion should be illegal because they believe Christianity demands it. There is a big difference between my belief that pregnant people should be able to make their own decisions in this context and the theocratic belief that the government needs to prevent these decisions from happening because they believe those decisions could be inconsistent with Christianity. I'm honestly surprised you are disagreeing with me here because it seems that you genuinely believe that abortion is inconsistent with Christianity and you don't seem to be troubled by the notion that our laws would enforce that view.



calbear93 said:


Unit2Sucks said:

I gravitated toward John Rawls but I don't apply any specific overarching philosophical view, but I don't think that's relevant here. I support pregnant people making their own decisions. I happened to go to see my doctor today for a routine physical. I appreciated that it was a 1 to 1 conversation and I didn't have to wonder what Samuel Alito or other clerics would think about our conversation or about any of the decisions that I made under consultation. I think it's a terrible outcome of our theocracy that pregnant people aren't afford the same freedoms.


I am glad you are brining your interaction with your doctor to inform your moral values, but how does your general gravitation toward John Rawls and your personal comfort with your visit with your doctors override Alito's basis for what matters more? Why do you believe you are right and Alito is wrong?


This is an easy one. My doctor and I didn't decide what other people should do, just for me. I didn't decide that Alito should get a medical procedure. I didn't decide what medication Alito should be on. That would be ridiculous and if I had claimed a right to do that, I think you would be well within your right to question my basis. And if my basis were religious, you would be well within your right to tell me to keep my religious views to myself. That's what we are talking about here. It's not whether I have a reasonable basis for making my own personal health decisions, it's whether I can impose on others.

If you want to talk about a better example, we can talk about Jehovah's witnesses. Every once in a while some dispute comes up because someone of that faith denies their child life-saving care. I have no problem with an adult choosing to die rather than seek medical treatment because their faith prohibits it. I don't know how Alito would feel about someone denying their child life-saving treatment due to religious faith. I do know that if Alito tried to tell you that you should deny your child life-saving care because of Alito's faith, you would probably not react very kindly. That's far closer to what we are talking about here. It's no different from Muslim Sharia law or Jewish law imposed in Israel. The difference is that we in America aren't supposed to live in a theocracy. That's not what our founders signed us up for but it's what you seem to be advocating. And that's where I have a problem.


What are your thoughts on our theocracy's criminalization of prostitution. Is it just a relic of an earlier time when the founding clerics made laws?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

I do not "vociferously attack" any attempt to hold Trump accountable. That's just another lie. I've repeatedly said I want a hearing where all evidence is presented - not just the evidence from one side.


I wonder if you would accept the posit that there really is no defense, no explanation of all the events, that gets Trump et al off the hook.

You hear no supposed "other side" because the "other side" is far far far worse than you could imagine.

And it would not only take down trump but a huge percentage of republican leadership.

Would you accept that posit??

I think it's quite plausible. I think that's spot on.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:


What are your thoughts on our theocracy's criminalization of prostitution. Is it just a relic of an earlier time when the founding clerics made laws?


I don't have a well-developed view on the criminalization of prostitution but I've never believed it to be just based on theocracy. Maybe I'm wrong there, I am open to the discussion.

I don't support criminalization of sex work based purely on theocracy but I don't necessarily think it should be legal just because religion may forbid it. Sex trafficking and victimization of sex workers is a real problem that needs to be combated.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:


What are your thoughts on our theocracy's criminalization of prostitution. Is it just a relic of an earlier time when the founding clerics made laws?


I don't have a well-developed view on the criminalization of prostitution but I've never believed it to be just based on theocracy. Maybe I'm wrong there, I am open to the discussion.

I don't support criminalization of sex work based purely on theocracy but I don't necessarily think it should be legal just because religion may forbid it. Sex trafficking and victimization of sex workers is a real problem that needs to be combated.



Okay. Thank you.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cb93 - do you think the views in this tweet are based on religion?



Texas is funding this center (and many others) to the tune of $100M per year.

Quote:

Pinson told the Washington Post that the new Corpus Christi facility will possess the ambience of a "coastal spa" and is geared toward young college-age women. The center currently boasts a 50-person staff and $2 million annual operating budget budget, according to the report. The center also offers Bible Study classes, according to Pinson, and clients who attend them are rewarded with "points" that can be exchanged for baby clothes or diapers.
Do you really think it's unfair to talk about a theocracy or for me to assume religion is involved in this context?

calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

cb93 - do you think the views in this tweet are based on religion?



Texas is funding this center (and many others) to the tune of $100M per year.

Quote:

Pinson told the Washington Post that the new Corpus Christi facility will possess the ambience of a "coastal spa" and is geared toward young college-age women. The center currently boasts a 50-person staff and $2 million annual operating budget budget, according to the report. The center also offers Bible Study classes, according to Pinson, and clients who attend them are rewarded with "points" that can be exchanged for baby clothes or diapers.
Do you really think it's unfair to talk about a theocracy or for me to assume religion is involved in this context?




Do you think your views on abortion only come from atheism?

I don't speak for every other Christians.

The only thing Christians have in common is that we trust Jesus for our salvation and are reborn in spirit through Him, choosing Him over the world. We are brothers and sisters in Christ but we don't agree on all things.

You and other atheist have in common your rejection of a higher being instead believing that we are all just random, accidental creation without any design like a rock was a random collection of atoms.

You keep misusing theocracy as If this were not just some semi-clever, thing to persuade others to your argument. If this were a theocracy, you would be charged for blasphemy and people would be imprisoned for adultery. I think you are confusing certain Christian's believing that life begins at conception to a theocracy. Nothing of the sort. They just happen to disagree with you when life starts. Their view may come from their religion on when life starts or it may not. Your rejection on life starting at conception may come solely from your rejection of religion or it may not. It is no more a theocracy than pro-choice folks are trying to eliminate religion.

But again, Christians are not monolith in thinking on all things like atheist like you are not monoliths in all thinking. Every time an atheist does something, I promise I won't ask if you support it. I have already told you my views. Isn't that what matters? Why do you care my opinion on every other thing another Christian or alleged Christian does?

I feel like you and I are just going around in a circle where it becomes about scoring points and not about debating. That just gets boring. Not sure what more I can add to what I wrote considering I wrote a lot. If you still have questions on my thoughts, feel free to DM but let's not pollute this board with more of the same.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

cb93 - do you think the views in this tweet are based on religion?



Texas is funding this center (and many others) to the tune of $100M per year.

Quote:

Pinson told the Washington Post that the new Corpus Christi facility will possess the ambience of a "coastal spa" and is geared toward young college-age women. The center currently boasts a 50-person staff and $2 million annual operating budget budget, according to the report. The center also offers Bible Study classes, according to Pinson, and clients who attend them are rewarded with "points" that can be exchanged for baby clothes or diapers.
Do you really think it's unfair to talk about a theocracy or for me to assume religion is involved in this context?




Do you think your views on abortion only come from atheism?

I don't speak for every other Christians.

The only thing Christians have in common is that we trust Jesus for our salvation and are reborn in spirit through Him, choosing Him over the world. We are brothers and sisters in Christ but we don't agree on all things.

You and other atheist have in common your rejection of a higher being instead believing that we are all just random, accidental creation without any design like a rock was a random collection of atoms.

You keep misusing theocracy as If this were not just some semi-clever, thing to persuade others to your argument. If this were a theocracy, you would be charged for blasphemy and people would be imprisoned for adultery. I think you are confusing certain Christian's believing that life begins at conception to a theocracy. Nothing of the sort. They just happen to disagree with you when life starts. Their view may come from their religion on when life starts or it may not. Your rejection on life starting at conception may come solely from your rejection of religion or it may not. It is no more a theocracy than pro-choice folks are trying to eliminate religion.

But again, Christians are not monolith in thinking on all things like atheist like you are not monoliths in all thinking. Every time an atheist does something, I promise I won't ask if you support it. I have already told you my views. Isn't that what matters? Why do you care my opinion on every other thing another Christian or alleged Christian does?

I feel like you and I are just going around in a circle where it becomes about scoring points and not about debating. That just gets boring. Not sure what more I can add to what I wrote considering I wrote a lot. If you still have questions on my thoughts, feel free to DM but let's not pollute this board with more of the same.
No my views on abortion aren't based on atheism. I don't reject a higher being and don't think of myself as an atheist. My kids went to religious pre-school and almost sent them to a religious elementary school but the logistics were tough. Atheism isn't my identity nor is it the focus of my life. I don't have an atheism study group and I don't run a healthcare clinic where I reward people atheism points for refuting religion.

I know you like to anchor around when life "begins." My views do not hinge on when life "begins." To me that is a somewhat academic and religious point and not one that we should rely on for legal effect with respect to abortion. There was a bill that was working its way through the legislature in Louisiana that contended that life begins at conception and there were a lot of potential legal consequences for people relying on fertility treatments to grow their families as well as their medical providers. It would have potentially criminalized the use of certain contraceptive tools like IUDs. So while I don't have a problem with you thinking life begins as early as fertilization of an egg (prior to implantation), I also don't think that view should have any bearing on our laws.

You raise a good point about Christians not being a monolith, and I agree it's one we've mostly gone in circles on. I've said again and again that I take no issue with Christians who are not attempting to enshrine their personal religious views in the law.

I do understand you thinking that it's unfair for me to ask you to weigh in on what other religious people do, so I will stop doing that. The point of my prior post was to reinforce that we should dispense with the pretext that these forced birth laws and activities are not associated with religion. The context of that post was a Texas state-funded "pregnancy center" run by a Christian fundamentalist who believes that a 10-year old rape victim should have been forced to give birth and who is using state-funding to reward pregnant women who engage in bible study. It's not just me claiming this is based on religion, they explicitly claim to be a "locally organized and funded ministry which empowers people to make positive, life affirming choices". They offer information about the "spiritual risks" of abortion and provide referrals to Christian adoption agencies. Again, this is funded by the state of Texas. I understand that Texas isn't 100% theocracy, but it's certainly reasonable for me to claim that there are theocratic elements. I also believe that we are well beyond the point of violating the establishment clause, but the radical clerics on the supreme court don't seem to think there are any limits there.

I can't promise not to continue to post about the tragedies enabled by the awful Dobbs decision, but I will respect your request to no longer seek your input.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The question of abortion begins with the rights of the pregnant person. The fetus is secondary. But in this thread, the Jan 6th Committee is primary.
American Vermin
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Federal Grand Jury subpoenas Pat Cipollone.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearGoggles said:

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

Where does "science" define the point at which human life begins? Do you have a source?
My post you quoted said potential life. And when life begins isn't really the question.

The correct question is at what point does society want to accord rights to a potential life? That is a political/moral question, not scientific.

Most western countries seem to answer that question with "at about 16 weeks", give or take, judging by laws in Europe and other places. Roe arbitrary created the judicially mandated (and made up) trimester/viability standard. Now we get to vote on it.





sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

sycasey said:

BearGoggles said:

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

Where does "science" define the point at which human life begins? Do you have a source?
My post you quoted said potential life. And when life begins isn't really the question.

The correct question is at what point does society want to accord rights to a potential life? That is a political/moral question, not scientific.
I see. Okay, I generally agree with that.
juarezbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

sycasey said:

BearGoggles said:

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

Where does "science" define the point at which human life begins? Do you have a source?
My post you quoted said potential life. And when life begins isn't really the question.

The correct question is at what point does society want to accord rights to a potential life? That is a political/moral question, not scientific.

Most western countries seem to answer that question with "at about 16 weeks", give or take, judging by laws in Europe and other places. Roe arbitrary created the judicially mandated (and made up) trimester/viability standard. Now we get to vote on it.






Given what happened in Kansas, I wish we actually could vote on it. Polls have consistently shown that roughly 65% of the US population supports the right to choose. However, gerrymandered voting districts have assisted in keeping GOP forced birth legislatures (and a Trumpian majority on the SCOTUS) in power and it's those legislators rather than the population that generally vote on the issue. It's not true representative democracy. I'm sure there are states in the Deep South and the Upper. Midwest, along with Utah and maybe Idaho, where the general population might vote against choice and given the recent SCOTUS opinion, pro-choice residents of those states might have to live in a forced-birth Christian Nationalist (as MTG stated) world.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

sycasey said:

BearGoggles said:

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

Where does "science" define the point at which human life begins? Do you have a source?
My post you quoted said potential life. And when life begins isn't really the question.

The correct question is at what point does society want to accord rights to a potential life? That is a political/moral question, not scientific.

Most western countries seem to answer that question with "at about 16 weeks", give or take, judging by laws in Europe and other places. Roe arbitrary created the judicially mandated (and made up) trimester/viability standard. Now we get to vote on it.








Why does an unborn life have rights over and above the person they are living off of? Your rights end where mine begin. Why doesn't that apply to women?
American Vermin
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
juarezbear said:

BearGoggles said:

sycasey said:

BearGoggles said:

And I'm not Christian, which is just another example of you're being 1000% wrong because you foolishly think you know everything and automatically assume the worst motivation in others (projection much?). You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that a fetus is, AT A MINIMUM, a potential life and a viable fetus has rights that are AT LEAST ARGUABLY worth recognizing and protecting (again, Roe acknowledged that). That is science, not religion. That makes you a science denier (in addition to someone who wants to kill viable fetuses).

Where does "science" define the point at which human life begins? Do you have a source?
My post you quoted said potential life. And when life begins isn't really the question.

The correct question is at what point does society want to accord rights to a potential life? That is a political/moral question, not scientific.

Most western countries seem to answer that question with "at about 16 weeks", give or take, judging by laws in Europe and other places. Roe arbitrary created the judicially mandated (and made up) trimester/viability standard. Now we get to vote on it.






Given what happened in Kansas, I wish we actually could vote on it. Polls have consistently shown that roughly 65% of the US population supports the right to choose. However, gerrymandered voting districts have assisted in keeping GOP forced birth legislatures (and a Trumpian majority on the SCOTUS) in power and it's those legislators rather than the population that generally vote on the issue. It's not true representative democracy. I'm sure there are states in the Deep South and the Upper. Midwest, along with Utah and maybe Idaho, where the general population might vote against choice and given the recent SCOTUS opinion, pro-choice residents of those states might have to live in a forced-birth Christian Nationalist (as MTG stated) world.

And if there were just a handful of smaller states with those laws, it would be very easy for people to just move elsewhere and those states would feel the pain of driving people out.

I'm not even convinced Utah would be one of them. Mormons are very religious, but also tend to be very skeptical of heavy-handed government.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

BearGoggles said:

I do not "vociferously attack" any attempt to hold Trump accountable. That's just another lie. I've repeatedly said I want a hearing where all evidence is presented - not just the evidence from one side.


I wonder if you would accept the posit that there really is no defense, no explanation of all the events, that gets Trump et al off the hook.

You hear no supposed "other side" because the "other side" is far far far worse than you could imagine.

And it would not only take down trump but a huge percentage of republican leadership.

Would you accept that posit??

I think it's quite plausible. I think that's spot on.
The implicit and faulty assumption in your question is that we know the facts with certainty such that we can conclude there is no explanation/defense. You can only conclude there is no non-criminal explanation once the facts are known and the best defense is presented. And I am not aware of any non-adversarial system that produces "all" facts. Certainly the 1/6 committee is making no pretense of producing all evidence.

There is no factual basis for the bolded statement - not even the 1/6 committee is making that claim. It is really just a conspiracy theory. And if it were true, then why did Pelosi impose committee rules that prevented republicans from presenting their evidence and arguments? If your crazy theory is correct, then Pelosi would not have given the Republicans the "offramp" you suggest. You're suggesting she and the other dems are complicit in the coverup.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:


Again see my comment above. Also, how do you know Alito's views are based on religion and not a general belief on when life begins? Is you atheism the driving force on when life begins and are you pushing your atheism on others? Our beliefs come from may factors, just like your beliefs come from various factors. Just like it is unfair to say your beliefs on abortion is you trying to push your atheism, it is not fair to say someone who you have never spoken with is someone you know well enough to say where his beliefs are coming from. You don't even seem to have a clear idea where your morals and value originate.


This has been a very interesting exchange. But I think there is a serious assumption not in evidence - that Alito (and the other 5 "clerics" as Unit 2 calls them) in any way based their decision in Dobbs on the view of when life begins. Had they done so, they would have overruled Roe AND found that fetuses have rights under the US constitution from the point of conception, thereby limiting when abortion is allowed. They specifically declined to do that and indicated that the constitution doesn't speak to that issue one way or the other.

The reversal of Roe was based on the shared judicial/constitutional views of the supposed 5 "clerics" (not 6 as Unit2 claims since Roberts didn't join in reversing Roe). They have a common judicial philosophy that is not tied in any way to the issue of when life begins. Unless you believe that conservative judicial philosophy (originalism, textualism, etc), is predicated on Christian views, the ruling has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

And if that is the claim, then maybe we need to discuss the Jewish theocracy imposed by the likes of Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan and Lawrence Tribe (i.e., those who support a living constitution). The entire argument is very reductionist and bigoted.

There are many conservative judicial scholars/judges (Christian or otherwise) who oppose Roe as a horribly reasoned constitutional decision but at the same time are generally supportive of reasonable pro-choice laws as a policy manner. I'm not a scholar, but that's where I land.

When the conservative wing of the Supreme Court starts reversing properly enacted state laws permitting abortion, then I'll be persuaded that we are ruled by 6 Christian clerics. Short of that, there is no evidence the Dobbs decision was based in any way on notions of when life begins.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

calbear93 said:


Again see my comment above. Also, how do you know Alito's views are based on religion and not a general belief on when life begins? Is you atheism the driving force on when life begins and are you pushing your atheism on others? Our beliefs come from may factors, just like your beliefs come from various factors. Just like it is unfair to say your beliefs on abortion is you trying to push your atheism, it is not fair to say someone who you have never spoken with is someone you know well enough to say where his beliefs are coming from. You don't even seem to have a clear idea where your morals and value originate.



The reversal of Roe was based on the shared judicial/constitutional views of the supposed 5 "clerics" (not 6 as Unit2 claims since Roberts didn't join in reversing Roe). They have a common judicial philosophy that is not tied in any way to the issue of when life begins. Unless you believe that conservative judicial philosophy (originalism, textualism, etc), is predicated on Christian views, the ruling has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

And if that is the claim, then maybe we need to discuss the Jewish theocracy imposed by the likes of Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan and Lawrence Tribe (i.e., those who support a living constitution). The entire argument is very reductionist and bigoted.
Thanks for the laugh. Dobbs wasn't a well-reasoned decision - it was an exercise in cherry-picking. You can talk all you want about their "shared judicial philosophy" but that's not what drove the decision in Dobbs. And, no, I don't think pretending to be originalist or textualist, or whatever you want to call it, has anything to do with religion.

Of the radical clerics, Gorsuch is the one who has shown the most adherence to textualism, but the Dobbs decision was far more based on a bunch of random historical anecdota, carefully selected by Alito, to generate the outcome he wanted.

Thomas' dissent went all the way in claiming that substantive due process shouldn't exist, but Alito just said that abortion shouldn't be accorded substantive due process under the 14th amendment because of the cherry-picked history and anecdotes. I don't recall anything in Alito's opinion challenging the concept of substantive due process.

And if we're being honest, the vast majority of people who oppose Roe could not care less about the constitutional bearings of the opinion. This was never about faith to the constitution and always about a different kind of faith. No need to pretend that this opinion came out of an abiding respect for the words of the constitution. The Supreme Court used to value stability and precedent but this new radical court has decided to throw all of that away in favor if its agenda - which is both political and religious.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's early, but so far THIS ^^^ is my Post of The Month.

DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:



Unless you believe that conservative judicial philosophy (originalism, textualism, etc), is predicated on Christian views, the ruling has absolutely nothing to do with religion.




Huh?

Alito cherry-picked historical evidence throughout the 19th Century in his opinion.
Did you bother to read it?

Did you not notice how totally TONE DEAF Alito was as he never examined how women in the 19th Century were treated as second class citizens?

They were not only viewed as "weaker and softer" than men, but inherently passive too. All of Alito's references to states being against abortion during that era were made in an absolute vacuum and provided ZERO CONTEXT. - - - His cherry picking of the historical record should be obvious to anyone, including you.

Women in the 19th Century were recast as pure, chaste and modest.

Commendable women were virgins, wives, mothers. Or else they were prostitutes, nearly criminals, which reflects the Victorian dualistic mindset. - - - It's mind-boggling that there is ZERO REFERENCE to any of this as Alito cherry picks his way through the 19th century.

"In the Dobbs decision, Alito says: "The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition." This is a historical fact: Protection of the right to abortion wasn't around in America before Roe."

"But it is also an incomplete picture of the full story. The criminalization of abortion, plus the decentralization of the woman's experience, plus the medicalization of her feelings that led to that decision, are facets that belong to the long-gone 19th century."

No American lives in that century anymore.
Not even Alito.

How Alito Cherrypicked History in Dobbs - CounterPunch.org



BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

calbear93 said:


Again see my comment above. Also, how do you know Alito's views are based on religion and not a general belief on when life begins? Is you atheism the driving force on when life begins and are you pushing your atheism on others? Our beliefs come from may factors, just like your beliefs come from various factors. Just like it is unfair to say your beliefs on abortion is you trying to push your atheism, it is not fair to say someone who you have never spoken with is someone you know well enough to say where his beliefs are coming from. You don't even seem to have a clear idea where your morals and value originate.



The reversal of Roe was based on the shared judicial/constitutional views of the supposed 5 "clerics" (not 6 as Unit2 claims since Roberts didn't join in reversing Roe). They have a common judicial philosophy that is not tied in any way to the issue of when life begins. Unless you believe that conservative judicial philosophy (originalism, textualism, etc), is predicated on Christian views, the ruling has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

And if that is the claim, then maybe we need to discuss the Jewish theocracy imposed by the likes of Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan and Lawrence Tribe (i.e., those who support a living constitution). The entire argument is very reductionist and bigoted.
Thanks for the laugh. Dobbs wasn't a well-reasoned decision - it was an exercise in cherry-picking. You can talk all you want about their "shared judicial philosophy" but that's not what drove the decision in Dobbs. And, no, I don't think pretending to be originalist or textualist, or whatever you want to call it, has anything to do with religion.

Of the radical clerics, Gorsuch is the one who has shown the most adherence to textualism, but the Dobbs decision was far more based on a bunch of random historical anecdota, carefully selected by Alito, to generate the outcome he wanted.

Thomas' dissent went all the way in claiming that substantive due process shouldn't exist, but Alito just said that abortion shouldn't be accorded substantive due process under the 14th amendment because of the cherry-picked history and anecdotes. I don't recall anything in Alito's opinion challenging the concept of substantive due process.

And if we're being honest, the vast majority of people who oppose Roe could not care less about the constitutional bearings of the opinion. This was never about faith to the constitution and always about a different kind of faith. No need to pretend that this opinion came out of an abiding respect for the words of the constitution. The Supreme Court used to value stability and precedent but this new radical court has decided to throw all of that away in favor if its agenda - which is both political and religious.
Nice deflection - but you did not respond to my point.

Wow - I am totally shocked that a SC opinion includes cherry picked facts and controversial reasoning. Have you read Roe? Have you studied the opinions of the Warren Court? Have you read every single major Sotamayor opinion which is 100% results oriented? I can tell you how Sotamayor will vote in a politically fraught case ahead of time with probably h 90%+ accuracy.

Even assuming your criticisms of Dobbs legal reasoning and cherry picking are correct, there is still no basis for claiming the reasoning of the opinion is based on a view of when life occurs. None. It simply is not in the opinion or related to the judicial philosophy/theory under which Roe was reversed.

And to further make my point, Thomas' view of substantive due process (which he has stated many times in the past in contexts other than abortion) again has literally nothing to do with Christianity.

We're not talking about the motivations of the "vast majority" of people who oppose Roe - you're moving the goal posts. The question is what reasoning did the "radical clerics" (to use your term) adopt? It was not based on a Christian view of morality or the specific point in time when life begins (e.g., conception). Again, if that were the reasoning, the SC would have found fetal rights exist and placed limits on state abortion laws permitting abortion. They did no such thing

And spare me the lecture about the SC valuing stability. We both studied the Warren Court. I've read Obergefell which changed the centuries old definition of marriage and legal precedent (i.e., laws defining marriage). When liberal judges where/are in charge. they place very little value on stability or precedent. If that were the case, Roe would have been decided differently. The theory of the living constitution and other similar interpretations of evolving rights in the constitution are directly at odds with that claim of stability and deference to precedent.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:

calbear93 said:


Again see my comment above. Also, how do you know Alito's views are based on religion and not a general belief on when life begins? Is you atheism the driving force on when life begins and are you pushing your atheism on others? Our beliefs come from may factors, just like your beliefs come from various factors. Just like it is unfair to say your beliefs on abortion is you trying to push your atheism, it is not fair to say someone who you have never spoken with is someone you know well enough to say where his beliefs are coming from. You don't even seem to have a clear idea where your morals and value originate.



The reversal of Roe was based on the shared judicial/constitutional views of the supposed 5 "clerics" (not 6 as Unit2 claims since Roberts didn't join in reversing Roe). They have a common judicial philosophy that is not tied in any way to the issue of when life begins. Unless you believe that conservative judicial philosophy (originalism, textualism, etc), is predicated on Christian views, the ruling has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

And if that is the claim, then maybe we need to discuss the Jewish theocracy imposed by the likes of Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan and Lawrence Tribe (i.e., those who support a living constitution). The entire argument is very reductionist and bigoted.
Thanks for the laugh. Dobbs wasn't a well-reasoned decision - it was an exercise in cherry-picking. You can talk all you want about their "shared judicial philosophy" but that's not what drove the decision in Dobbs. And, no, I don't think pretending to be originalist or textualist, or whatever you want to call it, has anything to do with religion.

Of the radical clerics, Gorsuch is the one who has shown the most adherence to textualism, but the Dobbs decision was far more based on a bunch of random historical anecdota, carefully selected by Alito, to generate the outcome he wanted.

Thomas' dissent went all the way in claiming that substantive due process shouldn't exist, but Alito just said that abortion shouldn't be accorded substantive due process under the 14th amendment because of the cherry-picked history and anecdotes. I don't recall anything in Alito's opinion challenging the concept of substantive due process.

And if we're being honest, the vast majority of people who oppose Roe could not care less about the constitutional bearings of the opinion. This was never about faith to the constitution and always about a different kind of faith. No need to pretend that this opinion came out of an abiding respect for the words of the constitution. The Supreme Court used to value stability and precedent but this new radical court has decided to throw all of that away in favor if its agenda - which is both political and religious.
Nice deflection - but you did not respond to my point.

Wow - I am totally shocked that a SC opinion includes cherry picked facts and controversial reasoning. Have you read Roe? Have you studied the opinions of the Warren Court? Have you read every single major Sotamayor opinion which is 100% results oriented? I can tell you how Sotamayor will vote in a politically fraught case ahead of time with probably h 90%+ accuracy.

Even assuming your criticisms of Dobbs legal reasoning and cherry picking are correct, there is still no basis for claiming the reasoning of the opinion is based on a view of when life occurs. None. It simply is not in the opinion or related to the judicial philosophy/theory under which Roe was reversed.

And to further make my point, Thomas' view of substantive due process (which he has stated many times in the past in contexts other than abortion) again has literally nothing to do with Christianity.

We're not talking about the motivations of the "vast majority" of people who oppose Roe - you're moving the goal posts. The question is what reasoning did the "radical clerics" (to use your term) adopt? It was not based on a Christian view of morality or the specific point in time when life begins (e.g., conception). Again, if that were the reasoning, the SC would have found fetal rights exist and placed limits on state abortion laws permitting abortion. They did no such thing

And spare me the lecture about the SC valuing stability. We both studied the Warren Court. I've read Obergefell which changed the centuries old definition of marriage and legal precedent (i.e., laws defining marriage). When liberal judges where/are in charge. they place very little value on stability or precedent. If that were the case, Roe would have been decided differently. The theory of the living constitution and other similar interpretations of evolving rights in the constitution are directly at odds with that claim of stability and deference to precedent.
LOL, I most certainly did respond to your post. If by "point" you mean I didn't respond to your non-sequitur about when "life" begins it's because I already addressed it with cb93 in the conversation you were reacting to. I have never made any claims about the relevance of that determination. Some people choose to anchor on it, others don't. The fact that Dobbs doesn't anchor on it has f^ck all to do with the religious motivations for the decision.

The reasoning adopted by Alito was purely cherry-picking history to support the preferred outcome of the religious clerics. Rather than look at the last 50 years of history when women's rights were finally beginning to be recognized, he chose to focus on ancient history. It isn't an accident that he chose examples from the era when women couldn't vote and were subordinate to their husbands. Even if limiting himself to that era, had he wanted to continue to protect pregnant people's rights to make their own medical decisions, he could have easily found support. The right to abortion has been protected in Jewish tradition for a long time. Abortion was legal under common law and the first state to regulate abortion by statute was Connecticut in 1821.

I do appreciate you conceding that conservatives don't really value stability or deference to precedent. That means we can dispense with your BS claims about originalist/textualist or whatever other pretend philosophical underpinnings people have for decisions. I don't think it's relevant here, but I don't disagree that liberals can be outcome oriented. I don't consider it a "living constitution" but rather interpreting the constitution within the context of the modern world.

Conservatives are doing the same thing, but choosing to use outdated benchmarks for how they wish the world was. It's not an accident that Alito had to reach back to a time before women had any rights in order to support his religious desire that ****hole states be permitted to outlaw abortion. If you listen to his recent speech in Rome at the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit where he lamented about our society, it's pretty clear where he's coming from. You can continue to pretend publicly that religion was irrelevant to this decision, but you know and I know that is not the case. You are doing a better job pretending than Alito is.

Quote:

This challenge stems from a turn away from religion, polls show a significant increase in the percentage of the population that rejects religion or thinks it's just not all that important. And this has a very important impact on religious liberty because it is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending, if they don't think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection. I'm reminded of an experience I had a number of years ago in a museum in, in Berlin, one of the exhibits was a rustic wooden cross, a young, an affluent woman, a well dressed woman and the young boy, we're looking at this exhibit. And the young boy turns to the woman, presumably his mother, and said, Who is that man? That memory has stuck in my mind as a harbinger of what may lie ahead for our culture. And the problem that looms is not just indifference to religion, it's not just ignorance about religion. There's also growing hostility to religion, or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors. The challenge for those who want to protect religious liberty in the United States, Europe and other similar places, is to convince people who are not religious, that religious liberty is worth special protection. And that will not be easy to do.
...
All I'm going to say is that ultimately, if we are going to win the battle to protect religious freedom, in an increasingly secular society, we will need more than positive law. Think again of the 10 year old boy I saw in the Berlin Museum. Think of the increasing number of young Americans whose response when asked to name their religion, say none. Think of those who proclaim that religion is bad. What can we say to such people, to convince them that religious liberty is worth protecting? That is the challenge. And it is a challenge that will not be met by federal judges for whom the Constitution should be enough. And it certainly will not be met by people of my generation. So my primary point tonight is to pose that challenge to others not to offer anything like a full answer, which I certainly don't have. Nevertheless, I'm going to offer a few brief thoughts. The first concerns a lesson that I think we can learn from American history. And that is that religious liberty promotes domestic tranquility. It provides a way for religiously diverse people to hold together and to flourish. As I said at the outset, I think that the American experience illustrates that well.

I'm sure you will retort that there is nothing in his speech that says that he decided Dobbs on religious grounds. You can continue to play possum here but we all know what is going on. Evangelicals are ecstatic about this opinion and it's not because they believe that Roe was wrongly decided or because they formed their forced birth opinions based on cherry-picked historical anecdota to claim that abortion isn't "deeply-rooted" in our history and therefore doesn't deserve protection under substantive due process (which, I suppose, you would say they would claim is an originalist view despite Clarence Thomas - who they otherwise tend to agree with - claiming that it's not). This is a pointless song and dance and you know it.

The Dobbs decision is theocratic, even if it doesn't expressly say so.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:



Your best post ever. Mike drop. Walk off stage. Never post again because it will never surpass this beauty.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here's a good example of the sort of radicalized moron who stormed the capitol. Is he reflective of the typical GOP voter? I would expect not. Are people like him being further radicalized and egged on by GOPers? Absolutely.

Listen to this voicemail before responding.


DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Here's a good example of the sort of radicalized moron who stormed the capitol. Is he reflective of the typical GOP voter? I would expect not. Are people like him being further radicalized and egged on by GOPers? Absolutely.


I am in some Facebook groups for Motocross and Vintage Dirt Bike enthusiasts.

99% of these people never made it to college. They are roofers, bricklayers, carpenters, mechanics, HVAC installers and people that pour cement for a living. Like me, they grew up in the 60's and 70's and have fond memories of their childhood before things got "complicated". I think that you'd be surprised at how "radicalized" many of these people are. Not surprisingly, the majority are racist low-life's who suffer from a very low IQ and at the end of the day will always differ to God when confronted with facts.

After reading one of these clowns' Manifestos on his Facebook page, I reported him to the FBI.
He was actually talking about assassinating government officials.

Again, I think that you'd be surprised at how many of these people exist in America.
Perhaps not the "typical" GOP voter but there are many shades of "grey" and variations on a theme.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sad to hear.

…When is the next hearing?
I'm all for this dog-piling on Trump happening these days.

September is too far away.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stephen Miller and Brian Jack subpoenaed by Federal Grand Jury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/us/politics/jan-6-trump-political-aides-subpoena.html
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
30+ Trumpers have been subpoenaed thus far.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/12/politics/trump-orbit-grand-jury-subpoenas-justice-department-january-6/index.html

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Stephen Miller and Brian Jack subpoenaed by Federal Grand Jury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/us/politics/jan-6-trump-political-aides-subpoena.html



5 minutes into the interrogation, Vic Mackey would have Stephen Miller begging to provide incriminating information.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jan. 6 panel's subpoena yields "thousands" of Secret Service records


https://www.axios.com/2022/09/14/jan-6-panel-secret-service-texts-records
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sources: Mark Meadows has complied with DOJ subpoena for materials related to January 6th.

--- CNN

The DOJ is far more powerful than Congress or the Jan. 6th Conmittee could ever be. The SQUEEZE is on!
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More evidence of Fox News as Trump's propaganda arm.





The person at Fox who made the correct call ended up getting fired and testified for the Jan 6 Comm.


 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.