Democrats are the ones who appoint judges who betray the constitution and try to ''jurisprudence-in'' privileges that are not in, or against, the constitution.
A constitutional right is a privilege if you are a Rosseauian and you believe that rights are granted to you solely by the state as part of your social contract with the state.
I got a question, has there been any of these 'experts' when you hear these opinion pieces, you haven't felt the sudden urge to punch in the face?
They seem the kind of weak guys in school that because they have connections, either with stronger kids or outside connections, go round like their word is law.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State CEO Rachel Laser
That's not an expert, that's an activist. An expert would be something like a judge with years of experience covering constitutional cases - you know, like the ones who made the decision.
It's not her words, it's yours. Don't dart around your obvious intent with a dishonest argument. I'm just surprised you didn't say it was a "cohencidence".
Nonsense. The separation of church and states creates no moral vacuum, because the state is not a moral actor. The state is incapable or morality, nor ethics. It is a weapon, and a weapon alone. If you give it the opportunity to enforce morality, it will accept that it has the authority to police all human thought and behavior with violence.
Morality resides in the church and the church alone. If the church has failed to inspire good conduct among it's congregants, the state can not do it for them. The state is not moral, it is never moral, it never will be moral, because it never can be moral. It is a weapon.
A good guy with a gun does not make the gun good. A bad guy with a gun does not make the gun bad. The goodness of the man holding the gun is irrelevant to the gun.
The institution is occupied by people, and those people will have values. Either those values will be chaotic, and the institution will collapse, or those values will harmonize, that harmony being described by a moral system.
A state having a moral system described by a religion doesn't necessarily mean it will violently enforce that religion. It depends on the religion. Islam, progressivism, communism, these will be violently enforced. Christianity, there is no guarantee.
Nonsense. A government exists only through violence. Coercion is the only mechanism of the state, and it is the only legitimate mechanism of the state. It is designed for the purposes of being a structure that can settle the disputes of individuals, and has the overwhelming capability of violence, to threaten into compliance anyone that does not meet to it's conclusions.
The state is far more aggressive and self-perpetuating than any simple gun. It is akin to a rabid wolf, or a rampaging dragon, or a permanent runaway-gun.
The state must be forced, violently, typically with the bindings of law, into compliance with the law; and still you must starve it of revenue and opportunity to make sure it can't kill you.
States are not moral actors, and have nor moral system. They are weapons. It can only violently enforce a religion that expresses itself through the state. All the religions you mentioned explicitly express themselves through the state, making their violence maximized.
Christianity has the exact same guarantee. A cursory examination of the atrocities of the 30 Years War explains in no uncertain terms why Christianity is no different. Protestants, Catholics, French, Germans, Sweedes, Spainards, none of it made any difference because the problem is that no government is moral, and the moral system is now enforced with violence inevitably.
The only time when the state wasn't mandated with violence is when English Protestantism, rebuked the authority of the state itself. Religion intentionally separated itself from the state, in order to prevent the state from regulating it. Once the English, Protestant, Liberals decided that religious values could teach men to confine the powers of the state, the violence and madness of the state was finally in check.
Everyone else who didn't learn this lesson, including the French and Spanish, quickly re-learned that the state is a weapon and began fighting for control over it.
When English Protestantism teaches men to contain the state, then the state will not act violently, because it has a boot on it's neck.
When English Protestantism is enforced by the state, then the state will act violently because that is it's nature.
You are not speaking to my point, but around it. English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state, in order for it to limit itself. The doctrine of separation caused English Protestantism to vacate the state, making room for Progressivism to enter.
You moved the goal posts away from "Christian" generally. But, even with this, it is not that English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state (See: Anglican Church); it is that English Protestantism must be the value system of everyone to limit the state.
The state will never limit itself and can never be trusted to. This is very nature of the Bill of Rights. Every single Federalist claimed it was silly to make constitutional articles that explicitly limited state power since everyone was going to be represented anyway. They were wrong, and likely lying.
A rabid bear wearing a cross does not make it less dangerous. A rabid bear tied to the ground is what is needed.
The state is not a moral actor. The state is a weapon.
It uses practically unlimited violence to settle disputes between parties. Laws, made by the people, confine the state's actions to specific responses for specific reasons.
The moment you make an "ethical state" is the moment you get a totalitarian state. If the state decides morality, then it is declaring that it has unlimited jurisdiction to use unlimited force. This is why the very fundamental premise of Fascism relies on the construction of "An Ethical State". The state is literally the intertemporal, metaphysical, representation of the people, and exists as the moral ordering of each person in society to that metaphysic. That is why it is totalitarian.
She’s not an expert - she’s a political activist for an organization that attacks only one religion Christianity.
When Christians were trying to get school prayers allowed this organization fought back and won.
When Muslims demanded private rooms to pray to Allah and change the school dress code so that women could be completely covered this organization … did nothing. And the schools acquiesced.
The state enacts The General Will through the Social Contract.
The General Will is decided by an election
If 50.0001% agree what The General Will is the State must enforce it by any means necessary, otherwise it violates The Social Contract.
Anyone refusing The General Will must be made to comply by any means necessary, because they are violating The Social Contract.
In a Democracy, the people are perfectly represented by the state through The General Will. This is the Social Contract that maintains Democracy: The People's State.
The people are the state and the state is the people.
"Deutschland ist Hitler, und Hitler ist Deutschland" = Perfect Democracy
...
You defied The General Will. SCOTUS defied The General Will. There is one and only one solution to your insurrection against The Social Contract, The General Will, the people, and the state.
Philosophical constraints don't stop them from whining about their rights as "oppressed minorities" and trying to tear down society when they are in the 49%.
I said this in another thread: we are rapidly coming to a showdown between the civil rights act and the constitution, which are not compatible. You cannot have freedom of speech and freedom of association at the same time as you have compelled speech and compelled association.
On purely constitutional grounds, the civil rights act should be overturned. If or when that happens, I think you’ll see another civil war.
And as a religious minority – she was raised as a Reform Jew ... deputy director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (the RAC) ... Her religion is an important part of her identity... At the same time, many in her immediate family identify as atheist or agnostic.
every. time.
Rachel Laser is a lawyer, advocate and strategist who has dedicated her career to making our country more inclusive... She is an advocate for racial justice... She also ran interfaith campaigns on a number of critical issues, including LGBTQ equality, immigration reform, gun violence prevention, and paid sick, family and medical leave... Before the RAC, Rachel directed the Culture Program at Third Way, a Washington, D.C., progressive think tank... As senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), Rachel founded and ran the Pharmacy Refusal Project which challenged pharmacists who were refusing to fill women’s birth control prescriptions in the name of religion.
Gaslighting.
A constitutional right is not a ''privilege''.
Democrats are the ones who appoint judges who betray the constitution and try to ''jurisprudence-in'' privileges that are not in, or against, the constitution.
A constitutional right is a privilege if you are a Rosseauian and you believe that rights are granted to you solely by the state as part of your social contract with the state.
I got a question, has there been any of these 'experts' when you hear these opinion pieces, you haven't felt the sudden urge to punch in the face?
They seem the kind of weak guys in school that because they have connections, either with stronger kids or outside connections, go round like their word is law.
That's not an expert, that's an activist. An expert would be something like a judge with years of experience covering constitutional cases - you know, like the ones who made the decision.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Advocating that jews are the enemies of white christians are are seeking to destroy them.
I'm not advocating for anything. These are literally her words: "we are fighting white, Christian nationalism"
It's not her words, it's yours. Don't dart around your obvious intent with a dishonest argument. I'm just surprised you didn't say it was a "cohencidence".
Sorry guys, it's all over. The experts have spoken. Do not question the experts.
Debooooooooooonked!
Either an immaculate troll or leftists have now reached peak irony
The Separation of Church and state requires both the separation of the church's influence from the state, and the state's influence from the church.
Using government powers to force individuals to violate their religious conscience is the latter.
The separation of church and state creates a vacuum of moral systems in the state. Progressivism fills that vacuum, then exercises power.
Nonsense. The separation of church and states creates no moral vacuum, because the state is not a moral actor. The state is incapable or morality, nor ethics. It is a weapon, and a weapon alone. If you give it the opportunity to enforce morality, it will accept that it has the authority to police all human thought and behavior with violence.
Morality resides in the church and the church alone. If the church has failed to inspire good conduct among it's congregants, the state can not do it for them. The state is not moral, it is never moral, it never will be moral, because it never can be moral. It is a weapon.
A good guy with a gun does not make the gun good. A bad guy with a gun does not make the gun bad. The goodness of the man holding the gun is irrelevant to the gun.
The institution is occupied by people, and those people will have values. Either those values will be chaotic, and the institution will collapse, or those values will harmonize, that harmony being described by a moral system.
A state having a moral system described by a religion doesn't necessarily mean it will violently enforce that religion. It depends on the religion. Islam, progressivism, communism, these will be violently enforced. Christianity, there is no guarantee.
Nonsense. A government exists only through violence. Coercion is the only mechanism of the state, and it is the only legitimate mechanism of the state. It is designed for the purposes of being a structure that can settle the disputes of individuals, and has the overwhelming capability of violence, to threaten into compliance anyone that does not meet to it's conclusions.
The state is far more aggressive and self-perpetuating than any simple gun. It is akin to a rabid wolf, or a rampaging dragon, or a permanent runaway-gun.
The state must be forced, violently, typically with the bindings of law, into compliance with the law; and still you must starve it of revenue and opportunity to make sure it can't kill you.
States are not moral actors, and have nor moral system. They are weapons. It can only violently enforce a religion that expresses itself through the state. All the religions you mentioned explicitly express themselves through the state, making their violence maximized.
Christianity has the exact same guarantee. A cursory examination of the atrocities of the 30 Years War explains in no uncertain terms why Christianity is no different. Protestants, Catholics, French, Germans, Sweedes, Spainards, none of it made any difference because the problem is that no government is moral, and the moral system is now enforced with violence inevitably.
The only time when the state wasn't mandated with violence is when English Protestantism, rebuked the authority of the state itself. Religion intentionally separated itself from the state, in order to prevent the state from regulating it. Once the English, Protestant, Liberals decided that religious values could teach men to confine the powers of the state, the violence and madness of the state was finally in check.
Everyone else who didn't learn this lesson, including the French and Spanish, quickly re-learned that the state is a weapon and began fighting for control over it.
When English Protestantism teaches men to contain the state, then the state will not act violently, because it has a boot on it's neck.
When English Protestantism is enforced by the state, then the state will act violently because that is it's nature.
You are not speaking to my point, but around it. English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state, in order for it to limit itself. The doctrine of separation caused English Protestantism to vacate the state, making room for Progressivism to enter.
You moved the goal posts away from "Christian" generally. But, even with this, it is not that English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state (See: Anglican Church); it is that English Protestantism must be the value system of everyone to limit the state.
The state will never limit itself and can never be trusted to. This is very nature of the Bill of Rights. Every single Federalist claimed it was silly to make constitutional articles that explicitly limited state power since everyone was going to be represented anyway. They were wrong, and likely lying.
A rabid bear wearing a cross does not make it less dangerous. A rabid bear tied to the ground is what is needed.
The state is not a moral actor. The state is a weapon.
It uses practically unlimited violence to settle disputes between parties. Laws, made by the people, confine the state's actions to specific responses for specific reasons.
The moment you make an "ethical state" is the moment you get a totalitarian state. If the state decides morality, then it is declaring that it has unlimited jurisdiction to use unlimited force. This is why the very fundamental premise of Fascism relies on the construction of "An Ethical State". The state is literally the intertemporal, metaphysical, representation of the people, and exists as the moral ordering of each person in society to that metaphysic. That is why it is totalitarian.
She’s not an expert - she’s a political activist for an organization that attacks only one religion Christianity.
When Christians were trying to get school prayers allowed this organization fought back and won.
When Muslims demanded private rooms to pray to Allah and change the school dress code so that women could be completely covered this organization … did nothing. And the schools acquiesced.
The same way leftists are pro “democracy”
They're just going off of Rousseau:
In a Democracy, the people are perfectly represented by the state through The General Will. This is the Social Contract that maintains Democracy: The People's State.
The people are the state and the state is the people.
"Deutschland ist Hitler, und Hitler ist Deutschland" = Perfect Democracy
...
You defied The General Will. SCOTUS defied The General Will. There is one and only one solution to your insurrection against The Social Contract, The General Will, the people, and the state.
Hitler was a Socialist, not a German Catholic.
If he had any interest in German Catholicism, he would have joined the Catholic Centre Party, not the NSDAP.
Why did he build a state that displaced worship of God with worship of the state, and Gobbels "Aryanism" pseudo-religious psycho-babble?
Philosophical constraints don't stop them from whining about their rights as "oppressed minorities" and trying to tear down society when they are in the 49%.
I said this in another thread: we are rapidly coming to a showdown between the civil rights act and the constitution, which are not compatible. You cannot have freedom of speech and freedom of association at the same time as you have compelled speech and compelled association.
On purely constitutional grounds, the civil rights act should be overturned. If or when that happens, I think you’ll see another civil war.
That's not an expert, it's an atheistic lib activist. https://www.au.org/about-au/people/rachel-laser/
every. time.
Their “privilege” of not being forced to do labor they morally object to
"Expert" rails against her own dying privilege as fewer and fewer people inclined to listen to her.
Scotus are the literal experts.
Religious people have privilege? That's even less realistic than white people supposedly having privilege.
The only privilege is the amount of money you have. Every other "privilege" is a distraction by leftist corporations.