Conservatism

[HenrySwanson]

Speaking of....



Coincidentally I came across his story today (his story is near the start):

 

[Danoff]

Speaking of....

Lead students in prayer? First amendment protection.
Tell students you're gay? ...

 

[HenrySwanson]

Lead students in prayer? First amendment protection.
Tell students you're gay? ...

That's what I thought, especially when I first saw the video, but I figured there must be a reason Stern is talking about separation of church and state and religious speech in the follow up tweets. I don't know enough about law to know if his (or the dissent's) opinion is valid....

EDIT: Oh I misinterpreted your post, thinking they should both be allowed. Has there been a decision that went against someone telling their students they're gay (I'm really out of the loop)?

 

[Danoff]

That's what I thought, especially when I first saw the video, but I figured there must be a reason Stern is talking about separation of church and state and religious speech in the follow up tweets. I don't know enough about law to know if his (or the dissent's) opinion is valid....

EDIT: Oh I misinterpreted your post, thinking they should both be allowed. Has there been a decision that went against someone telling their students they're gay (I'm really out of the loop)?

The quote was not really about what I think the right answer is so much that it's pointing out that this is hypocrisy held by conservatives. This is the "conservative" view, as evidenced by DeSantis in Florida combined with the latest in supreme court ruling.

Leading students in prayer according to your religion has first amendment protections.
Telling students you're gay does not have first amendment protections.

This is a hypocritical and contradictory position. I've said nothing about what I think is the right answer according to the constitution.

 

[TexRex]

The fact that prayers are recited at inaugurations and the Oath of Office is done on a Bible is enough to eliminate this notion that there is any realistic separation of Church and State in the US.

Inb4 "'IN GOD WE TRUST' appears on the money" and "'under God' is in the Pledge of Allegiance."

"Separation of church and state" has never meant that there's no overlap between religion and government.

There's also still a National Prayer Breakfast in Washington and lots of federal holidays are religious observances. Here's a good piece on challenges to religious observances:

Religious Holidays

The recognition and celebration of religious holidays by government can run counter to the First Amendment prohibition of government endorsing a particular religion.

www.mtsu.edu

"Separation of church and state" is an expression of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment holds that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That it appears first in the Bill of Rights ought to express the importance placed on it, but it's explicitly about governance and not mere observance.

By the way, "under God" having a place in the Pledge doesn't meaningfully begin until 1951 when the Catholic organization the Knights of Columbus started adding it internally, and it would officially be added to the Pledge nationally in 1954--some 60 years after having veen composed by Francis Bellamy--in part as a response to the Red Scare to galvanize the nation against the threat of the godless communists.

Hand-over-heart also isn't the original salute proscribed by Bellamy during invocation, and that was changed in part due to an earlier threat.

In regard to the oath of office you're mixing up preference with requirement, as the Bible is not required at all. Four Presidents have not used the Bible and when you get below Presidential level it becomes more common.

Plenty of examples of issues with a mixing of Church and State exist, but that's not one of them.

Bibles Aren't Required for the Oath of Office - FactCheck.org

Q: Did the Supreme Court rule that it is illegal to take the oath of office with anything but the Bible? A: No. That is a made-up claim that originated on a self-described satirical website. FULL QUESTION Did the United States Supreme Court rule that Congress has to swear on the bible? FULL...

www.factcheck.org

Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This dude submitted to affirmation with a ****ing Captain America shield:

And that Dennis "The Left Wants to Take Away Your Penis" Prager* objected to Ellison's submission over the Quran is the perfect expression of modern American conservatism as mental illness.

*

Lead students in prayer? First amendment protection.

I love this response:



Also, Justice Sotomayor has been responding to the conservative activist majority with pure fire, first in Dobbs and now in Kennedy.

This is the "conservative" view, as evidenced by DeSantis in Florida combined with the latest in supreme court ruling.

@LeMansAid thinks that there's quite a bit of deviousness and divisiveness in how some people contort and limit both "liberal" and "conservative" as terms.

Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Loving (interracial marriage) and Griswold (contraception) have been brought up a lot in response to the latest swath of holdings by the conservative activist majority Roberts Court, both by liberals fearful that they may be overruled (triggering insistence by conservatives that they are irrational and the holdings in those cases, especially the first two, were reasonably justified, while Roe somehow was not) and by conservatives who want to see them overruled.

Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) added Brown (racial segregation in public schools), in a tone-deaf (if not simply racist) statement on Twitter.

I'd add Barnette (Pledge of Allegiance) and Johnson (flag desecration) among those I'm concerned wouldn't withstand challenge before this Roberts Court. They've both been criticized by conservatives, Barnette for even longer than Roe.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Huh, I didn't see the harm of the guy Tebowing in the middle of the field but I see now it's pretty clear he shouldn't have been doing that with those students.

Surely there's some way to hold these judges to account, it seems crazy they can interpret and arguably twist cases to fit a narrative.

 

[UKMikey]

Whoops, wrong thread.

 

[Scaff]

Huh, I didn't see the harm of the guy Tebowing in the middle of the field but I see now it's pretty clear he shouldn't have been doing that with those students.

Surely there's some way to hold these judges to account, it seems crazy they can interpret and arguably twist cases to fit a narrative.

Not really, it is, after all, the highest court in the land.

It would, to my knowledge require a fresh ruling by the same court to change it. So its either time (death, retirement or impeachment are the only way a SCJ leaves) or stuffing the court.

Even impeachment based on statements they made regarding Roe V Wade, while understandable, stands little chance of being effective. When asked, under oath if they intended to repeal or overturn it, they stated that it was settled law, a none answer to the question.

 

[TexRex]

When asked, under oath if they intended to repeal or overturn it, they stated that it was settled law, a none answer to the question.

Can you provide anything that confirms they were under oath? My understanding is that only individuals who have been brought in to offer testimony regarding scandal have done so under oath.

I gather they lied rather than perjuring themselves.

 

[Scaff]

Can you provide anything that confirms they were under oath? My understanding is that only individuals who have been brought in to offer testimony regarding scandal have done so under oath.

I gather they lied rather than perjuring themselves.

It may well be, I'm quoting from memory.

 

[TexRex]

It may well be, I'm quoting from memory.

The nominees aren't there to offer evidence. It's really like a job interview. There are certain processes proscribed by the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, but I'm seeing nothing about oath or affirmation as it relates to confirmation in the Constitution, Senate practices or relevant jurisprudence.

 

[TexRex]

Ah.

 

[McLaren]

Any politician seen hanging w/ Fuentes should be removed from office based on that association alone. Rogers, Greene, Gosar, throw 'em all out on the street.

 

[Biggles]

Ah.

Jesus Christ.

 

[Populuxe]

Jesus Christ.

Hey, there's an idea. Someone should start a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[Biggles]

Hey, there's an idea. Someone should start a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

It'll never catch on.

 

[m76]

It means I have a far better understanding of the average conservative ideals in the states; I live amongst them.

I just gave you 3 examples from the Texas GOP, the party in actual power here, that are far more severe than a small number of weird fanatics who wanted safe spaces for black people.

You said it is the most conservative state, how are examples from the most conservative state representative of the average conservative?

Left wing extremists might not have much power in US government yet, but their influence in the media and corporations is undeniable.

Not sure why, but I had it in my head that it was more than this. The current freakout for something so innocent would be absurd...but then that's exactly what it is.

Edit: Woke Disney could have at least thrown in some over the pants scissoring.

Most right wing commenters say it is innocent. But it served as the spark that ignited the flame coming so soon after the leaks of disney's "not so secret gay agenda".

When they hear them saying they are going to insert as much gayness as possible into everything, then they actually see it in a kid's cartoon of course **** hits the fan. Without the internal speech leaks I think Lightyear's lesbian kiss would've went mostly under the radar, with nothing but the most fanatic right wing conservatives complaining about it.

 

[Scaff]

Left wing extremists might not have much power in US government yet, but their influence in the media and corporations is undeniable.

Left wing extremists influencing the media and corporations in the US?

The US barely has a left wing past what is in reality a centre-left, the number of true left wing extremists in the US certainly don't have enough sway to influence the media, corporations or government.

When they hear them saying they are going to insert as much gayness as possible into everything,

I'll take things that didn't happen for 100 please Bob.

Content - Disney Social Responsibility

We reimagine tomorrow through stories and storytellers who inspire a more inclusive world.

impact.disney.com

 

[UKMikey]

Hey, there's an idea. Someone should start a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

From God's lips to your ears.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Keef]

mental illness

They literally are.

Also I've taken to calling things that are anti-women "gay" for the lulz. We're throwing it back to sixth grade, to all the future conservatives who loved to call things they didn't understand or like "gay". You know what's gay? Preferring guns to women.

 

[Biggles]

You said it is the most conservative state, how are examples from the most conservative state representative of the average conservative?

Left wing extremists might not have much power in US government yet, but their influence in the media and corporations is undeniable.


Most right wing commenters say it is innocent. But it served as the spark that ignited the flame coming so soon after the leaks of disney's "not so secret gay agenda".

When they hear them saying they are going to insert as much gayness as possible into everything, then they actually see it in a kid's cartoon of course **** hits the fan. Without the internal speech leaks I think Lightyear's lesbian kiss would've went mostly under the radar, with nothing but the most fanatic right wing conservatives complaining about it.

When I was growing up there was a "left wing". It was uncomfortably linked to the authoritarian, fascistic Communism of the Soviet Union and its satellite states - Hungary being a prime example (and victim). With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of a communist/capitalist China, what used to be considered "left wing" - actual socialism - was marginalized to the point where it was barely a thing in most developed countries. What has arisen in it's place is an attempt to address inequities within the social structure & culture.

While "conservative" parties exist in most countries - mostly focused more on "fiscal conservatism" - the United States is an outlier in having such an extremist right wing now controlling the agenda of the conservative movement. I recently came across this explanation - on Quora - of the point of view of centrist parties in Europe:

What is understood in most capitalist driven nations is:
1. Capital is most secure in a nation where poverty is minimal and those in poverty have security in knowing their needs for food, shelter, and clothing are met with maybe a small amount of cushion for emergencies.
2. Paying for your employees’ health coverage is a cost that does not provide a measurable rate of return, so health coverage costs should either be shifted to government or otherwise kept under control reducing the amount of your investment that must be spent on costs that do not provide a return.
3. Capital spent on national or regional infrastructure is beneficial but does not provide a direct rate of return. Shifting those costs to government provides efficiency for investors.
4. A skilled workforce provides greater opportunity to generate a good return on your investment but only if that workforce is affordable. A public education system can turn out large numbers of skilled workers who are available at affordable costs. In a system where the worker has to pay to obtain those skills, the worker must have a higher return on his/her investment in gaining those skills to make it worthwhile to obtain them. If the worker cannot get a good return, they won't make the outlay required. If the employer has to teach those skills then the employer has to attract workers, spend the money to train and does so knowing that not all will end up learning those skills effectively (wasted expense) or will take those skills to a competitor offering higher wages when they do not have to pay to train and gamble that the worker will learn those skills.
5. Employees tend to be more content, happier, more productive (per hour worked), and loyal when they have generous leave guaranteed, but when government does not guarantee that leave, an employer is faced with the problem of if they offer such leave their competitors will undercut them in expenses by not offering as generous of a package meaning investors will put their money in the competitor because the benefits of leave doesn't show up as a line item on a balance sheet. With no leave guarantee, skilled workers may depart after the birth of a child if they wish to spend more time with their child during infancy thus losing skilled employees, but because it is a short-term expense with a long-term benefit, investors will place their money with the short-term return more often.

The United States is a short-term investment economy because the government has not stepped in like in other nations, so what seems perfectly normal to large investor who is thinking in terms of a decade or more seems positively leftist when viewed through the lens of the US.

This seems pretty accurate to me.

 

[m76]

Left wing extremists influencing the media and corporations in the US?

The US barely has a left wing past what is in reality a centre-left, the number of true left wing extremists in the US certainly don't have enough sway to influence the media, corporations or government.

I can't even fathom shuffling so far to the left to say that there isn't even a left in the US. Almost the whole entertainment industry is pandering to their every will and you say they have no influence in media?

I'll take things that didn't happen for 100 please Bob.

Sure, it contradicts your narrative therefore it didn't happen. Denial is still not an argument.

 

[Scaff]

I can't even fathom shuffling so far to the left to say that there isn't even a left in the US.

Not what I said, try again.

Almost the whole entertainment industry is pandering to their every will and you say they have no influence in media?

Not what I said, try again.

Sure, it contradicts your narrative therefore it didn't happen. Denial is still not an argument.

You're own source doesn't support your claim.

Try again, this time without making stuff up.

 

[TexRex]

 

[BoneSawTX]

Hey, there's an idea. Someone should start a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

not enough money in that.

 

[McLaren]

You said it is the most conservative state, how are examples from the most conservative state representative of the average conservative?

It means I see conservatism at every level. I see what the average viewpoint is here.

Left wing extremists might not have much power in US government yet, but their influence in the media and corporations is undeniable.

So much influence "in the media and corporations" that the "advocating for segregation" from a small group of people has gone absolutely no-where & since well forgotten....

 

[Biggles]

I can't even fathom shuffling so far to the left to say that there isn't even a left in the US. Almost the whole entertainment industry is pandering to their every will and you say they have no influence in media?

Sure, it contradicts your narrative therefore it didn't happen. Denial is still not an argument.

Yeah sure. In what parallel universe has the "whole entertainment industry" shifted its focus from making money to being "leftist"?

 

[TexRex]

Connies lose their **** over a cisgender athlete in women's competitive swimming. A ****ing badass at that.

 

[Scaff]

Yeah sure. In what parallel universe has the "whole entertainment industry" shifted its focus from making money to being "leftist"?

Not just leftwing, but leftwing extremists. The demand for economic collectivism across the board and the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie is apparently rife on Disney+ and Netflix!