Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[GasBandit]

Payback is a bitch. Besides, it's not like I said anything which wasn't true. Your argument was shit.

Do you often go down to AA with kegs and hoot at the addicts, too?

But hey, that's how arguments on these issues work here. Everyone has their own idea and come hell or high water no one is going to listen to anyone else when it comes to the issues which actually matter.

Yes. Thank you for once again coming into my political thread for the 900th time to remind us how pointless political discussion is. Thank you drive through. It's certainly righteous and deserved payback for all those times I went into your miniatures and pottery threads and mocked your interests as trivial nonsense. I mean, I don't remember doing that, but surely I must have, right?

Anyway, time to close down the thread, everybody, Krisken's convinced me all discussion is futile and fruitless! Last call!

 

[Krisken]

Do you often go down to AA with kegs and hoot at the addicts, too?



Yes. Thank you for once again coming into my political thread for the 900th time to remind us how pointless political discussion is. Thank you drive through. It's certainly righteous and deserved payback for all those times I went into your miniatures and pottery threads and mocked your interests as trivial nonsense. I mean, I don't remember doing that, but surely I must have, right?

Anyway, time to close down the thread, everybody, Krisken's convinced me all discussion is futile and fruitless! Last call!

Only when the arguments are poorly supported and the 'rules' you set down are only for others and not for yourself. Thanks for playing though.

 

[GasBandit]

Only when the arguments are poorly supported and the 'rules' you set down are only for others and not for yourself. Thanks for playing though.

I don't remember setting down any "rules." And you talking about not supporting arguments is very much the pot calling the kettle black, when you loudly, actively, proudly refuse to do any sourcing or "look up any numbers."

 

[Krisken]

I don't remember setting down any "rules." And you talking about not supporting arguments is very much the pot calling the kettle black, when you loudly, actively, proudly refuse to do any sourcing or "look up any numbers."

Your 'rules' are set in the discussions where you complain that people move the goalposts or provide information which can't be substantiated. Yet in the same breath you are happy to provide numbers which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, expect information which cannot be provided by any person who isn't writing a thesis on a subject, or simply ignore information which doesn't already support your current position. There is never a time where I felt like I had provided enough information for you, no matter how may links I provided. That is why I stopped spending 2 hours searching for links for you.

I've never seen your position evolve on a subject, and to be honest that is the most telling thing. When we show ourselves to be so dogmatic in our views we refuse to even acknowledge an opposing position as has having the possibility of being more credible than our own, we close ourselves off from growing as people. We might as well treat our politics as a religion at that point, faithful in the positions we hold.

But hey, you keep being you. It gives me something to read while I kill crap in Diablo.

 

[GasBandit]

Your 'rules' are set in the discussions where you complain that people move the goalposts or provide information which can't be substantiated. Yet in the same breath you are happy to provide numbers which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, expect information which cannot be provided by any person who isn't writing a thesis on a subject, or simply ignore information which doesn't already support your current position. There is never a time where I felt like I had provided enough information for you, no matter how may links I provided. That is why I stopped spending 2 hours searching for links for you.

I've never seen your position evolve on a subject, and to be honest that is the most telling thing. When we show ourselves to be so dogmatic in our views we refuse to even acknowledge an opposing position as has having the possibility of being more credible than our own, we close ourselves off from growing as people. We might as well treat our politics as a religion at that point, faithful in the positions we hold.

But hey, you keep being you. It gives me something to read while I kill crap in Diablo.

There are plenty of people in this thread who don't agree with me and yet don't have the problems you seem to have. At some point you have to be stopping to wonder where the problem really lies.

 

[PatrThom]

We all have opinions. But there is no such thing as a "right/correct opinion." Those are called "facts" and exist independent of opinion(s).
Of course, what the facts might tell us is open to interpretation and will be the source of many opinions.

--Patrick

 

[Bubble181]

We all have opinions. But there is no such thing as a "right/correct opinion." Those are called "facts" and exist independent of opinion(s).
Of course, what the facts might tell us is open to interpretation and will be the source of many opinions.

--Patrick

Well, that's, like, your opinion, dude.[DOUBLEPOST=1453272391,1453272118][/DOUBLEPOST]More seriously: there's no dividing line between "fact" and "opinion". "1+1=2" may look like a fact, but it's still determined and influenced by base assumptions. I can say 1+1=10 and be right, too, depending how you're counting. Some people treat the Bible as a source of Fact. Some people consider the Constitution unbreakable and holy and beyond reproof. Some would say "the sky is blue" is an opinion based on inconclusive data.

Any set of numbers can be manipulated. Some are better at hiding their prejudices than others, and many try to be impartial and neutral - very few actually succeed. An observation made only more visible and important with the advent of the internet. Anyone can put any spin on some statistics and make an impressive-looking website.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Well, that's, like, your opinion, dude.[DOUBLEPOST=1453272391,1453272118][/DOUBLEPOST]I can say 1+1=10

Secret robot infiltrator found.

 

[Eriol]

More seriously: there's no dividing line between "fact" and "opinion". "1+1=2" may look like a fact, but it's still determined and influenced by base assumptions.

While I don't agree, this is interesting: http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia

Have a nice day going through 150 proofs deep for 2+2=4.


As for Gas/Krisken, from my perspective the "debate" is thus:

• Gas says Obama's orders are overreach of power and setting a bad precedent for any future president.
• Krisken says Obama's number of order's isn't significantly higher than previous presidents
• Gas re-asserts that the number of orders isn't what he was arguing about, but the scope of what they do is what's bad (re-stating point 1, where he started)
• Krisken says that's too much research to find and Gas is trying to use something unknowable to make a point that can't be disproven
• Gas shows the number of orders challenged up to your Supreme Court by previous presidents, implying that Executive Orders are rarely (if ever) challenged, and thus overreach is dangerous because of it.
• Much other Whining

Krisken, you're the only one who's said it's about numbers. Gas has been very consistent over months (years maybe?) that it's about what the orders are about, not the number of them.

 

[Krisken]

There are plenty of people in this thread who don't agree with me and yet don't have the problems you seem to have. At some point you have to be stopping to wonder where the problem really lies.

They are much more patient than I am, I have to admit. Of course, nevermind all the people who just stopped posting or checking the thread because they found arguing with you pointless.

And you might not have noticed, but while the thread has your name on it this has become the general posting place for political news on the forum. I come in here quite a bit and rarely ever make a comment. I admit last night was a weakness.

But again, enough about us.

Executive action regarding immigrants is nothing new.
Pres. Dwight Eisenhower:

1956
By executive order, circumvented immigration quotas to allow 900 orphans to join their adoptive families in the U.S.
1956-1958
By executive order, allowed 31,000 Hungarian anti-Soviet insurgents to emigrate.
1959-72
By executive order, allowed 600,000 Cubans fleeing Castro to emigrate. [PDF]
Pres. Gerald Ford:

1975
By executive order, allowed 360,000 refugees, mostly from from Vietnam, to emigrate.
1976
By executive order, allowed 14,000 Lebanese nationals to emigrate.
Pres. Ronald Reagan:

1981
By executive order, allowed 7,000 Polish anti-Communists to emigrate.
1982
Allowed 15,000-plus Ethiopians to emigrate.
1987
By executive order, rescinded deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans.
1987
By executive order, deferred deportation of undocumented children of 100,000 families. [JSTOR]
George H.W. Bush:

1989
By executive order, deferred deportations of Chinese students.
1989
By executive order, reversed visa denials of 7,000 Soviets, Indochinese.
1990
By executive order, deferred deporations of previously amnestied citizens’ 1.5 million spouses and children.
1991
By executive order, deferred deportation of 2,000 Gulf War evacuees.
1992
By executive order, deferred deportations of 190,000 El Salvadorans.
George W. Bush:

2002
By executive order, expedited naturalization for green-card holders who joined military.
2005
By executive order, deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina.
2006
By executive order, enabled 1,500 Cuban physicians to seek asylum at US embassies.
2007
By executive order, deferred deportation of 3,600 Liberians.

 

[Krisken]

Krisken, you're the only one who's said it's about numbers. Gas has been very consistent over months (years maybe?) that it's about what the orders are about, not the number of them.

Fair.

I've been searching for 20 minutes and I still haven't found a list of executive actions ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and it was ruled unconstitutional. He didn't respond to it.

 

[AshburnerX]

Really, the only fair comparison regarding the number of orders has to be over ones that had large, wide reaching consequences... of which there have been few because 98% of executive orders are over stuff no one really cares about, like establishing parks and holidays. Going by total number of orders issued is misleading because virtually all of them are benign, symbolic acts... however, then we need to come to an agreement over what exactly is a powerful executive order.

 

[Bubble181]

we need to come to an agreement over what exactly is a powerful executive order.

Which is exactly why Krisken said Gas' insistence on quality over quantity is impossible to prove - quality, by definition, can't be quantified properly.

 

[Krisken]

Nice list of contentious executive orders at CNBC-

• President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War.
• President Franklin Roosevelt—who holds the record for most executive orders—issued one in 1942 that led to Japanese-Americans internment camps during World War II.
• President Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under an executive order in 1948.
• President Dwight Eisenhower issued an executive order in 1957 dispatching federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., where crowds had prevented the desegregation of all-white Central High School.
• Both President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson used executive orders in the 1960s to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring and contracting.
• President Ronald Reagan used an executive order in 1984 to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Bill Clinton reversed it when he took office in 1993.
• Clinton used a series of executive orders to allow U.S. military forces to fight in the Balkans in the 1990s.
• President George W. Bush issued an executive order in 2001 that restricted public access to the papers of former presidents. Obama revoked it in 2009.
• Obama's executive orders include one in 2012 halting the deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. He also issued one raising the minimum wage for federally contracted workers to $10.10 from $7.25 an hour.

 

[GasBandit]

They are much more patient than I am, I have to admit. Of course, nevermind all the people who just stopped posting or checking the thread because they found arguing with you pointless.

Heh, talk about unquantifiable numbers, though, eh?

And you might not have noticed, but while the thread has your name on it this has become the general posting place for political news on the forum. I come in here quite a bit and rarely ever make a comment. I admit last night was a weakness.

My point was not that the thread had my name on it, but that it is a thread I come to post in because I like political discussions, and you were posting that political discussions were pointless because everyone - not just me - is too entrenched in their position. Going into a thread to poo-poo the discussion of the thread's topic is kind of a Charlie thing to do, man. If you wanna talk politics, great. If you have nothing to add other than "I don't agree," I'm fine with that, too. But if the only thing you have to say is "there's never any point to discussing any of this" then maybe it's best you just click over to the next thread on your list instead of trying to convince the other half dozen people currently participating that they shouldn't be enjoying themselves.

But again, enough about us.

Executive action regarding immigrants is nothing new.

You are correct. If I made it sound like it was, or that it wasn't allowed, that was not my aim. There's a substantial difference in the scope of each of those executive orders however, and the 2 or 3 I have a problem with right off the top of my head. Not to make it about numbers, but a single order affecting 20 million illegal aliens in one fell swoop is a much huger deal than five or six over the course of 8 years that affect a few thousand (or in one case, 1.5 million), and furthermore, there's a very important difference between deferring deportation and granting legal status. Notice, as was also pointed out by Eriol above, these orders were not challenged, as the legislature of the day didn't consider them inappropriate or overreaching.

Nice list of contentious executive orders at CNBC-

• President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War.
• President Franklin Roosevelt—who holds the record for most executive orders—issued one in 1942 that led to Japanese-Americans internment camps during World War II.
• President Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under an executive order in 1948.
• President Dwight Eisenhower issued an executive order in 1957 dispatching federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., where crowds had prevented the desegregation of all-white Central High School.
• Both President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson used executive orders in the 1960s to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring and contracting.
• President Ronald Reagan used an executive order in 1984 to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Bill Clinton reversed it when he took office in 1993.
• Clinton used a series of executive orders to allow U.S. military forces to fight in the Balkans in the 1990s.
• President George W. Bush issued an executive order in 2001 that restricted public access to the papers of former presidents. Obama revoked it in 2009.
• Obama's executive orders include one in 2012 halting the deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. He also issued one raising the minimum wage for federally contracted workers to $10.10 from $7.25 an hour.

We could have quite the discussion about the Emancipation Proclamation alone, about how it only affected states in rebellion (not in the union), so technically wasn't enforceable by any method other than reconquest, how it was a purely political move to shift the "theme" of the war from preserving the union to ending slavery, etc, but let's leave that by the wayside for now.

FDR is an excellent example of why you don't want a president to have THAT much power.

The actions listed from Truman through Reagan were much more limited in scope, and more in line with the powers of the office, even Truman's integration of the armed forces. He is the commander-in-chief of the military, after all. Clinton's unauthorized Balkan military action is another excellent example of why executive orders should be reined in - he went to war without even bothering to ask Congress and we all just let it slide because it was half a world away in a place we barely thought about and it was the 90s so everything was awesome.

Anyway, it's all beside the point - it's not just that these orders were about controversial topics, the point is no president should have this kind of power - be it the power to legalize 20 million illegals with the stroke of a pen and congress be damned, or the power to rewrite major, transformative laws without involving congress (here I'm talking about his re-re-re-writing of the Affordable Care Act after its passage, which was another thing that had to go to the supreme court), or the flat-out undermining of the 2nd amendment.

 

[strawman]

This is the natural pull of checks and balances built into the system. The executive branch has over the last several decades become more powerful, relative to the justice and legislative branches, but they only have themselves to blame, particularly in the wake of 9/11 when they granted the executive branch very broad sweeping powers over intelligence and internal security.

Just like any human, each president will push at the boundaries of their capability and power, and they will be checked - or not - as congress and the supreme court decide when the president should get a bonk on the head.

 

[GasBandit]

This is the natural pull of checks and balances built into the system. The executive branch has over the last several decades become more powerful, relative to the justice and legislative branches, but they only have themselves to blame, particularly in the wake of 9/11 when they granted the executive branch very broad sweeping powers over intelligence and internal security.

Just like any human, each president will push at the boundaries of their capability and power, and they will be checked - or not - as congress and the supreme court decide when the president should get a bonk on the head.

The problem is, there comes a tipping point, and precedent isn't elastic. It doesn't shrink back down, as illustrated in this very thread - When Obama mandates X, it's ok because FDR mandated Y and Z. Each overreach becomes a stepping stone to the next one. Each new finger in the sphincter is possible because of the previous, and over time, it doesn't even feel all that intrusive when you realize it's in all the way to the elbow >_<

And the supreme court doesn't do anything because 5 of them are the same tribe as the President, and that tipping point is reached, and then it's goodbye USA, hello Imperial States of America.

 

[Bubble181]

The problem is, there comes a tipping point, and precedent isn't elastic. It doesn't shrink back down, as illustrated in this very thread - When Obama mandates X, it's ok because FDR mandated Y and Z. Each overreach becomes a stepping stone to the next one. Each new finger in the sphincter is possible because of the previous, and over time, it doesn't even feel all that intrusive when you realize it's in all the way to the elbow >_<

And the supreme court doesn't do anything because 5 of them are the same tribe as the President, and that tipping point is reached, and then it's goodbye USA, hello Imperial States of America.

Speaking from the outside, I assure you we're far more scared of the Christian Theocracy of America than we are of the American Empire. Empires and Republics flow into one another over time with limited upheaval. Theocracies die explosively.

 

[strawman]

The problem is, there comes a tipping point, and precedent isn't elastic.

He's still wringing his hands over the second amendment. In the past we get pulled too far in one direction, then a correction is made. Perhaps there's an overcorrection, perhaps we get whiplash in the process, but typically the only thing the three branches agree on is an ever increasing government.

What about the latest executive orders makes you think that we've reached past the "correction" tipping point and fallen into the "can't be reversed" tipping point?

 

[GasBandit]

He's still wringing his hands over the second amendment. In the past we get pulled too far in one direction, then a correction is made. Perhaps there's an overcorrection, perhaps we get whiplash in the process, but typically the only thing the three branches agree on is an ever increasing government.

What about the latest executive orders makes you think that we've reached past the "correction" tipping point and fallen into the "can't be reversed" tipping point?

I'm not saying we have, I'm saying we shouldn't say "we haven't yet so it's ok to keep going."

 

[Dei]

Speaking from the outside, I assure you we're far more scared of the Christian Theocracy of America than we are of the American Empire. Empires and Republics flow into one another over time with limited upheaval. Theocracies die explosively.

I find it interesting you say this, since there is definitely a generational pushback over the very concept, which is why you find most of the most egregious "Bible Thumping" governmental types coming from the Republicans, who tend to represent the older generation.

Of course, I say that, but we'll see how many "younger generation" types are motivated to vote this election. That will basically be the deciding factor in the primaries, and if they do mobilize enough to get Bernie on the ballot, will they STAY mobilized through Nov?

 

[Bubble181]

I find it interesting you say this, since there is definitely a generational pushback over the very concept, which is why you find most of the most egregious "Bible Thumping" governmental types coming from the Republicans, who tend to represent the older generation.

Of course, I say that, but we'll see how many "younger generation" types are motivated to vote this election. That will basically be the deciding factor in the primaries, and if they do mobilize enough to get Bernie on the ballot, will they STAY mobilized through Nov?

As fade said in one of the other threads - there's lots of young savvy people supporting Trump, too. Same can be seen all over Europe - the younger generation has lost faith in "mainstream" politics, and looks to the (perceived) extremes for answers/revolution/change. In some countries, it's the left, in some countries, the right. Sure, higher-educated, left young people at university will be overwhelmingly for Bernie. Uneducated, poor, hopeless black inner city youth is leaning all the way over to the other side. Because yes, it's this sort of people who get convinced by stupid promises like sending back those pesky Mexicans who are "stealing" their jobs and "profiting" off society where they don't succeed themselves; they're the ones Trump can convince things'll be better if it wasn't for those "others". That they're often those "others" themselves is hidden easily enough.

 

[Dei]

The point I'm trying to make though, is that I don't see the US becoming a theocracy anytime soon. Regardless of what extremes people are going to go to, religion is one of those things that is becoming less of a deciding factor in life as generations go by. So crazy mother fuckers yes, theocracy, no.

Trump is about as far from a religious candidate as the Republican party can get, and the times when he tries to say something religious to appeal to those voters, it's hilariously fake.

 

[Eriol]

He's still wringing his hands over the second amendment. In the past we get pulled too far in one direction, then a correction is made. Perhaps there's an overcorrection, perhaps we get whiplash in the process, but typically the only thing the three branches agree on is an ever increasing government.

What about the latest executive orders makes you think that we've reached past the "correction" tipping point and fallen into the "can't be reversed" tipping point?

Maybe you shouldn't get there in the first place? Maybe every extra-judicial thing that happens, no matter how "good" should be examined from the perspective of, "Did he HAVE to do that because nobody else could?" If it isn't, then maybe somebody else already failed, and that should be the focus.


See this is something that I see as a fundamental difference in how people approach government. From a very broad sense, when you see a problem in the public space, do you see something that the government can do something about? Or do you think the government should only do something when they MUST? It's quite different in how you approach things. For this discussion from the first perspective, your President is "fixing" something that your congress hasn't done. But from the 2nd, it's something that shows the disfunction of the lower level of government if they wanted it but couldn't make it happen, and if it's something that the lower level deliberately did NOT do, then it's (probably) overreach.

Who's right? It depends on what your perspective on how government should work, let alone what you want it to actually do. You may both agree on the action, and one can call it overreach, and the other doesn't. If you disagree on the action, well then obviously one will more likely call it overreach if they don't like it, but are more likely if they see nearly everything as that.


One question on your form of government though: can the President (or a cabinet secretary) introduce a Bill into your congress? Obviously they can't pass/vote on it (except the VP in case of a senate tie IIRC), but introduce it at all? If not, how do their policies get implemented? Must they work with others in congress to introduce the actual Bills? It's a point of your system I'm not clear on and is unnecessary in Canadian/British Parliamentary systems.

 

[Null]

I believe that the President can sponsor a bill to be put before Congress.

The other issue is that of money. In the case of the NRA, the top gun manufacturer's organization in the USA, they spend a lot of money on their Congressmen. In 2014, they spent $984,152 in direct donations, $3,360,000 in lobbying, and Outside Spending of over $28,000,000.
Independent Expenditures: $27,048,581
For Democrats: $24,262
Against Democrats: $15,200,018
For Republicans: $10,823,998
Against Republicans: $92,034
Electioneering Communications: $0
Communication Costs: $1,164,137

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2014

 

[GasBandit]

One question on your form of government though: can the President (or a cabinet secretary) introduce a Bill into your congress? Obviously they can't pass/vote on it (except the VP in case of a senate tie IIRC), but introduce it at all? If not, how do their policies get implemented? Must they work with others in congress to introduce the actual Bills? It's a point of your system I'm not clear on and is unnecessary in Canadian/British Parliamentary systems.

The President can author a bill (anyone can really) but only a member of Congress can introduce it. That's usually not a big issue though, that's historically how budgets get passed - the president writes it up, and one of his party's congressman introduces it. Of course, we haven't actually had a real budget passed in 10 years... just "continuing resolution" after "continuing resolution" because nobody wants to pay the political piper for what is going on.

 

[Null]

The President can author a bill (anyone can really) but only a member of Congress can introduce it. That's usually not a big issue though, that's historically how budgets get passed - the president writes it up, and one of his party's congressman introduces it. Of course, we haven't actually had a real budget passed in 10 years... just "continuing resolution" after "continuing resolution" because nobody wants to pay the political piper for what is going on.

Funny how cutting taxes on the wealthy and starting 2 wars will do that.

 

[GasBandit]

Funny how cutting taxes on the wealthy and starting 2 wars will do that.

There's blame to go around on this one, although your "cutting taxes on the wealthy" bit is false, the wars are indeed expensive. However the real impetus to continue no longer submitting/passing formal budgets has been to obfuscate the cost of the ACA.

 

[Krisken]

Last Federal budget was technically 2009, but that was an omnibus spending bill. The last full Federal Budget was in 1997.

 

[GasBandit]

Last Federal budget was technically 2009, but that was an omnibus spending bill. The last full Federal Budget was in 1997.

It gets really difficult sometimes when the definition of what constitutes a budget seems to change yearly, depending upon what's politically advantageous, and both major parties have their thumbs in this pie, as with so much else. Makes you long for Hercules' solution to the Augean stables - just divert the Potomac right through the capitol building, IMO.

 

[Krisken]

Yup.

 

[Bubble181]

religion is one of those things that is becoming less of a deciding factor in life as generations go by.

You....may want to rethink that? Unless you think fundamentalist religion and its interference in politics is less of a problem now, worldwide, than before? Fundamentalism is typically a young man's game. Either side. There's a reason people are so afraid they're passing laws forcing cantinas to have pork on the menu and that sort of thing (which is a completely ridiculous and completely counter-productive law that should never have passed, IMNSHO)

 

[strawman]

There's a reason people are so afraid they're passing laws forcing cantinas to have pork on the menu and that sort of thing (which is a completely ridiculous and completely counter-productive law that should never have passed, IMNSHO)

Unfortunately it's cyclical. If you force religion out of the public square, then the religious tend to become more so, which causes the anti-religious to sue, pass bills, etc and try to squeeze religion further out of the public square. We swing too far in one direction, and there's pushback to go the other way, only the oscillations are becoming more wild and extreme in both directions.

Forcing businesses to serve meals that violate one specific religion's tenets essentially forces them out of a given career path. We now know that in the US if you subscribe to traditional marriage beliefs you cannot work in photography, cake baking, reception halls, and some public offices without putting your religious beliefs second to your need to earn an income. The anti-religious are fine with this situation, but the religious see it as a violation of their human rights to both practice their religion and to choose any career they prefer.

In some cases and for some things we can strike a reasonable balance - for instance you can become an obstetrician/gynecologist but never have to perform an abortion if it violates your beliefs. Some states have laws that permit officials to perform marriages that the usual official has a personal objection to, thus denying no one any rights, and permitting the religious officials to hold offices that would otherwise present theological problems for them. Some states are threading a fine line - for instance if you run an apartment in your home you can screen some applicants based on your religious beliefs, but in other cases (such as 4 or more apartments, or apartments not connected to your personal residence) you have to completely follow the equal housing regulations.

There are often ways to meet most people's needs without violating anyone's rights, but it's often the extremists on either side that call for no compromise, and want it all their way, or not at all.

 

[Dei]

You....may want to rethink that? Unless you think fundamentalist religion and its interference in politics is less of a problem now, worldwide, than before? Fundamentalism is typically a young man's game. Either side. There's a reason people are so afraid they're passing laws forcing cantinas to have pork on the menu and that sort of thing (which is a completely ridiculous and completely counter-productive law that should never have passed, IMNSHO)

When did we start taking about religion as a worldwide problem? We were talking about the US becoming a theocracy. [emoji14]

 

[Bubble181]

And you made a general statement

Anyway, I assure you, every time there's one of those "46% of Americans believes in creationism!", "103% of Americans believes the US should ban all non-christian religions", "only 7% of Americans knows the Theory of Evolution!", or whatever crap statistic someone managed to wrangle out of a poor study, it's accompanied by "..And that's bad because these religious nuts are running the world, and it's only getting worse!"

(stats pulled out of a place 42% of Americans couldn't even find with a map )

The whole "religious people control Texan school books" & "All US school books pretty much follow the Texan standard" => "all American kids get taught religious crap" thing is honestly something talked bout by the free thinkers and strong atheists and so on around here. Besides "the European left fought the Church for centuries and is now openly welcoming and loving another religion simply for electoral reasons, we're going to become re-missionaried", it's one of the main worries.

Note that I don't mean religion is crap by itself; it's the whole "being taught creation as a valid alternative to evolution in science class" and the like that's scary and dangerous and cause for concern.