U.S. Politics: If Trump Is In Attendance, The Next Protest Should Be A Roman Salute

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Forced patriotism is fake patriotism, and Trump’s brouhaha over the protests during the anthem in the NFL needs to be called out for what it is. I associate forced patriotism with Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China and Stalin’s Soviet Union, among other dictatorial regimes. Now sadly I have to associate it with Trump’s America. What a time to be alive.

Continue…

[Mexal]

This will be fun.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Ser Scot A Ellison

Quote

Exactly.  When the cake is Generic... it's part of public accommodation.  When the cake is special... then it gets more complicated.  That said, when was the last time you saw a wedding cake with piped frosting writing on it?

I think “special” doesn’t even meet my standards. It should have to be either a clear, unambiguous political/social/religious/etc. statement and/or a cake that the baker would otherwise never make.

As far as writing on a wedding cake goes, I’ve seen it before, but it’s always just been some form of congratulations. As far as I can remember, the only time I’ve ever seen a cake with a political or social statement written on it was at a victory party for the defeat of a state constitutional amendment that would have made same sex marriage illegal.

Speaking of which, since you’re a lawyer, intellectually speaking, how have bans on same sex marriages and abortions ever pasted constitutional muster? Their origins are religious in nature, and it would appear to me that they violate the First Amendment.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Forced patriotism is fake patriotism, and Trump’s brouhaha over the protests during the anthem in the NFL needs to be called out for what it is. I associate forced patriotism with Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China and Stalin’s Soviet Union, among other dictatorial regimes. Now sadly I have to associate it with Trump’s America. What a time to be alive.

Continue…

Is there much resistance to saying the pledge of allegiance in schools? It's hard to convey how crazy it is to Europeans that you guys still do that. It really reminds me of fascism. 

You make the best point though- coerced patriotic gestures, whatever you think of them, are totally meaningless. And patriotism is very subjective. Surely trying to make your country a better place is patriotic? Therefore, the anthem kneelers are being patriotic. If a central value of America is freedom, isn't doing anything that promotes freedom patriotic? As soon as there is coercion, patriotism becomes nationalism. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

46 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Ser Scot A Ellison

I think “special” doesn’t even meet my standards. It should have to be either a clear, unambiguous political/social/religious/etc. statement and/or a cake that the baker would otherwise never make.

As far as writing on a wedding cake goes, I’ve seen it before, but it’s always just been some form of congratulations. As far as I can remember, the only time I’ve ever seen a cake with a political or social statement written on it was at a victory party for the defeat of a state constitutional amendment that would have made same sex marriage illegal.

Speaking of which, since you’re a lawyer, intellectually speaking, how have bans on same sex marriages and abortions ever pasted constitutional muster? Their origins are religious in nature, and it would appear to me that they violate the First Amendment.

I know atheists who are anti-abortion rights.  Believing that unborn humans have a right to life is not a purely religious point of view:

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/10/19/atheists-case-against-abortion-respect-human-rights

[edited to add]

For clairities sake please understand that I am pro-abortion rights.  I'm simply pointing out that a case can be made by people in opposition to abortion rights that is not religious in nature.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

13 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Is there much resistance to saying the pledge of allegiance in schools? It's hard to convey how crazy it is to Europeans that you guys still do that. It really reminds me of fascism. 

You make the best point though- coerced patriotic gestures, whatever you think of them, are totally meaningless. And patriotism is very subjective. Surely trying to make your country a better place is patriotic? Therefore, the anthem kneelers are being patriotic. If a central value of America is freedom, isn't doing anything that promotes freedom patriotic? As soon as there is coercion, patriotism becomes nationalism. 

I can totally understand that.  And the pledge is, objectively, weird.  However, I have a somewhat nuanced and more positive view of American patriotism.  We are not a country that has 1,000+ years of shared cultural history.*  In fact, our shared cultural history (such as it is) - our mythology so to speak - is our patriotism and in a sense our performing rituals, like the pledge and the anthem, signifies belonging.  Rejecting those rituals is unsettling to people whose narrative of place and time is given meaning by those rituals.  It is even more powerful when the people rejecting otherwise do not fit within (what I'm going to call) a dug in minority's view of what that myth looks like (white and male).  I wholly agree with you that anthem kneelers are in fact living out our nominally shared ideals way better than the people demanding anthem standing.  But the reason that it is such a powerful protest in my mind is that by kneeling they are both rejecting and embracing our supposedly shared values at the same time.  

 

 

*Noting that most of the European countries' mythology of shared cultural history was made up in the 19th Century and used nefariously.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The Pledge is weird.  It has always been weird.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Speaking of which, since you’re a lawyer, intellectually speaking, how have bans on same sex marriages and abortions ever pasted constitutional muster? Their origins are religious in nature, and it would appear to me that they violate the First Amendment.

Doesn't matter if the origins are religious or not - if marriage that is state-sponsored is defined as between a man and a woman, restricting other things is perfectly fine because it's not based on a specific religious ground - it's based on law. Just like proscriptions against prostitution are. 

Also, somewhere between 1000 and 9000 American citizens died in a natural disaster under Trump's watch. 

[S John]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Is there much resistance to saying the pledge of allegiance in schools? It's hard to convey how crazy it is to Europeans that you guys still do that. It really reminds me of fascism. 

You make the best point though- coerced patriotic gestures, whatever you think of them, are totally meaningless. And patriotism is very subjective. Surely trying to make your country a better place is patriotic? Therefore, the anthem kneelers are being patriotic. If a central value of America is freedom, isn't doing anything that promotes freedom patriotic? As soon as there is coercion, patriotism becomes nationalism. 

Not quite.  In conservative circles one of the Obama quotes you hear thrown around a lot is the one where he used the words (I believe in a pre-2008 campaign speech) 'fundamentally transform' America.  This is often used as proof by conservative numb-nuts that Obama, and all liberals by extension, 'hate' America.  Because - why would you want to fundamentally transform something that you love?  Often Obama's actions as president get tied back to that statement by his critics, Trump being among those critics.  The Iran Deal, the Paris Agreement, his comments about Trayvon Martin, and on and on all get tied back to the fact that Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, therefore all of these actions of change are manifestations of his hatred for America.   

In addition to being nonsense its also hypocritical, in that many of the same people who would pounce on Obama for that word choice voted for Trump to 'shake things up' a little bit, but there it is.  Change, particularly liberal change = progressivism / socialism, which are considered fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of the United States by many modern conservatives.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Is there much resistance to saying the pledge of allegiance in schools? It's hard to convey how crazy it is to Europeans that you guys still do that. It really reminds me of fascism. 

You make the best point though- coerced patriotic gestures, whatever you think of them, are totally meaningless. And patriotism is very subjective. Surely trying to make your country a better place is patriotic? Therefore, the anthem kneelers are being patriotic. If a central value of America is freedom, isn't doing anything that promotes freedom patriotic? As soon as there is coercion, patriotism becomes nationalism. 

I’m not sure it’s that common anymore. I don’t recall doing it much in grade school and never in junior high or high school outside of civics classes, and even then I don’t recall doing it that often. I’m guessing it varies a lot by region though. I grew up in a very liberal area and wouldn’t be shocked if it was very different in the deep south.

Now that you have me thinking about, I honestly can’t even remember if we played the anthem at football games. I was a three year varsity player and I genuinely cannot recall if it was something we did.

And yes, the players who are protesting are demonstrating a much higher degree of patriotism than the people complaining about the protests.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I know atheists who are anti-abortion rights.  Believing that unborn humans have a right to life is not a purely religious point of view:

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/10/19/atheists-case-against-abortion-respect-human-rights

[edited to add]

For clairities sake please understand that I am pro-abortion rights.  I'm simply pointing out that a case can be made by people in opposition to abortion rights that is not religious in nature.

I’m well aware that there are people who oppose abortion on non-religious grounds, but the majority of people who do oppose abortion rights do so because of their religious beliefs. I have no problem with an individual who does so, but I do with a person who then wants to force those views on other people. And I believe that doing so via legislation is unconstitutional.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Doesn't matter if the origins are religious or not - if marriage that is state-sponsored is defined as between a man and a woman, restricting other things is perfectly fine because it's not based on a specific religious ground - it's based on law. Just like proscriptions against prostitution are. 

Also, somewhere between 1000 and 9000 American citizens died in a natural disaster under Trump's watch. 

Is that accurate? I would think that if you express a religious motivation for a law, that would make it unconstitutional, at least at the federal level, because that is having the state favor one religion over all others.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m well aware that there are people who oppose abortion on non-religious grounds, but the majority of people who do oppose abortion rights do so because of their religious beliefs. I have no problem with an individual who does so, but I do with a person who then wants to force those views on other people. And I believe that doing so via legislation is unconstitutional.

Tywin,

I’m confused are you claiming that because a religious justification can be offered for a law against Abortion that even a secular law making abortion illegal in limited circumstances would violate the Establishment Clause?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, S John said:

In addition to being nonsense its also hypocritical, in that many of the same people who would pounce on Obama for that word choice voted for Trump to 'shake things up' a little bit, but there it is.  Change, particularly liberal change = progressivism / socialism, which are considered fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of the United States by many modern conservatives.  

Arguably my favorite conservative hypocrisy is the bemoaning of activist liberal judges while advocating for conservative judges who will hand down rulings that favor conservative principals*. I wonder if they’re actively aware that they’re doing this?

Probably not for the reasons you laid out.

 

 

 

*I’m not sure they exist anymore, at least not in the new mainstream. Principals are annoying things when all you care about is the acquisition of power.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

*I’m not sure they exist anymore, at least not in the new mainstream. Principals are annoying things when all you care about is the acquisition of power.

Liberals care too deeply about hypocrisy - both in others and in themselves. It strikes deeply to their core value of fairness. Conservatives have never cared about it that much, but use it as a particularly effective weapon against liberals.

Because being unfair is one of the most damaging things you can levy against liberals to make them wage war against themselves and against other liberals. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

I’m confused are you claiming that because a religious justification can be offered for a law against Abortion that even a secular law making abortion illegal in limited circumstances would violate the Establishment Clause?

Absolutely not. If there is legitimate medical reason to limit abortions in certain situations, I’m all for hashing it out and figuring out what the best outcome is. What I am against is people who say abortions violates their religious views so therefore it should be illegal. Personally speaking, I don’t think there are many legitimate medical reasons to outlaw abortions, and the reason abortions should and need to be legal is because it’s a lot safer than a back ally abortion. The desire to seek an abortion will always exist, so we might as well make it safe, legal and rare.

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is that accurate? I would think that if you express a religious motivation for a law, that would make it unconstitutional, at least at the federal level, because that is having the state favor one religion over all others.

By that token, anything derived from the 10 commandments could not be a law. That is obviously not the test of a law's efficacy. 

[Corvinus85]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Arguably my favorite conservative hypocrisy is the bemoaning of activist liberal judges while advocating for conservative judges who will hand down rulings that favor conservative principals*. I wonder if they’re actively aware that they’re doing this?

Probably not for the reasons you laid out.

 

 

 

*I’m not sure they exist anymore, at least not in the new mainstream. Principals are annoying things when all you care about is the acquisition of power.

I think most high school students would agree with you. Especially when those principals lack principles. Sorry, couldn't resist. 

[Mexal]

Fun times coming in the future.

 

[Kalbear]

This David Frum quote applies (from Nov 2016):

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/796413966931132422

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

45 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Absolutely not. If there is legitimate medical reason to limit abortions in certain situations, I’m all for hashing it out and figuring out what the best outcome is. What I am against is people who say abortions violates their religious views so therefore it should be illegal. Personally speaking, I don’t think there are many legitimate medical reasons to outlaw abortions, and the reason abortions should and need to be legal is because it’s a lot safer than a back ally abortion. The desire to seek an abortion will always exist, so we might as well make it safe, legal and rare.

Okay, that makes more sense and I certainly don't disagree. 

[Trebla]