If it were up to me, the 9th amendment would prevent the first-amendment rights of one person or entity from asserting inequality on other persons. Refusing to serve a person because he's gay would be regarded similarly to refusing to serve a person because he's black.
Which is to say I completely disagree with SCOTUS' Hobby Lobby ruling.
I've never seen a Hobby Lobby, so I've never had the opportunity to not shop there and pay more at a competitor's for a hobbyist item to avoid shopping there.
I wonder what the reaction would be if the christian religions suddenly decided that all christian women must wear a nun's habit in public.
Except that supposition doesn't reflect the current situation. Not all Muslims are suddenly deciding that all Muslim women must wear the hijab. Yes, it's mandated in some Islamic states, and France may have some families in which the women are pressured to wear Hijab, but to be sure a man in France who attacked improperly adorned women would be regarded as a criminal and a madman, and not tolerated.
I'd be in favor of banning all religion.
The problem there is that it's difficult to tell what counts as religion, what counts as ideology, and what counts as non-ideological information (e.g. the Theory of Evolution). We human beings suck at being able to separate out what is a fact (an observed event in nature) from what is an opinion, let alone notions like the value ratio between capital and labor.
And as western culture is, religions would just pretend to be non-religions in order to be legally disseminated.
Yes it's Islamophobia because something like that would NEVER happen...
From this, I take that you are saying it's not Islamaphobia (id est, acceptable) to assume that a Muslim might dress as a woman and hide a bomb in his burqa because you can link to incidents in which terrorists did such a thing, yes?
By the same logic can we assume that the people of the United States endorse massacring brown people considering how little anyone complains of the CIA drone strike programs (yet we do complain when someone shoots up a school of white children and kills twenty of them). That's legit, right?
How about that conservative Americans and members of the Religious Right endorse the CIA Extrajudicial Detention and Interrogation program (id est, the state kidnapping and torturing people without due process), since so many of those outspokenly endorsed the torture program during the Bush years. That works too, right?
I take we can assume by the article above that all French hate Muslims to the point they cannot stand seeing someone dressed in Islamic fashion.? Fucking bigots.
Or maybe, just maybe, terrorists will terrorist, and it really doesn't matter what their religion is, considering western history is deluged in the blood of true Christians and Christian heretics.
Once you decide that a certain logic is valid to condemn one group, you must apply it to all groups to which the paradigm fits.
Unless you want to specially plead for one of them.
We've done this before. You might even remember some instances, such as when things were a bit rough in Northern Ireland. Yeah, it's still pretty tense there, (especially with Brexit looming.)
The difference between (say) the US and Saudi Arabia is that here in the US we try to respect the rights of the individual, where in Saudi Arabia, the rights of the individual are disregarded.
And that's the thing, it should be up to the woman. If a woman wants to wear a full-body swimsuit (burqini or otherwise) it should be her right to wear one, even if the local custom is to swim in a (limbless) one-piece, or a French-cut or nude. She should have the right in all cases to make her own decisions, and we condemn any nation that tries to impose limits on her, whether that is Saudi Arabia who wants all women completely concealed (including the face) or France, who disfavors Muslim-indicative attire.
Fuck those nations for their contempt of their own people.
Now, yes, some women in France (or here in the US) are forced by their husbands to do things they don't want. We here in the US have a considerable domestic abuse problem in and out of Islam. We want those women (and male victims) to be informed that they can escape that abuse if they want, and will be safe and supported once they do.
But the beach of Nice is not the battleground for that. Especially since some women want to wear the burqini.
What's more interesting to me is that you're continuing to blame Obama
...As if Romney or McCain would have been better?
The system is irreparably corrupt. Putting Trump into office is only going to make it worse by (as what happened with Bush) providing a puppet for people to hate while people behind him steer public assets into their own coffers. Trump would let it happen, and probably wouldn't even care how it affects his image in history.
I'm not arguing Clinton is a good choice. As someone who believed Obama's 2008 campaign promises of reform (Hope and change, remember that?) what he did is not what I voted for. But then again, Bush before him went hard right and full hawk despite his Compassionate Conservative campaign in 2000. Even after he lost the popular vote, and knew the nation was more liberal than he was.
And yes, Clinton may continue to put the US further in debt (a topic worthy of its own discussion) but trump is not going to pull us out of debt, or even put us in less debt. As I said, most likely he'll subsidize those interests that will motivate him, possibly by having a shill insult him in public.
No president is going to fix the nation. That's the problem. And blaming presidents for not fixing the nation doesn't move us any closer to fixing the nation.
So yeah, social unrest if that's what you want to call it may be what dismantles the United States, but that's going to happen no matter who goes in the oval office, because the hands in the puppet (whichever puppen) aren't interested in fixing the nation for the long term, or in the interest of the people.
Which was something I was trying to say in the first place. Please try to look past the party contest.
Um, Nuns are monastic, not clergy. And yes, some wear simple clothing out in public.
But disallowing women to wear burqas or hijab or any other part of attire mandated by religion is the equivalent of disallowing a kippah. It is a violation of freedom of religion.
To be fair I don't know if freedom of religion is as valued in France as it is in the US. I had always thought that France was Catholic and that regulation of other religious practices was acknowledged and accepted.
Regardless, in an egalitarian state, any regulation of religious practice has to apply to all religions, not just a specific subset.
Incidentally, wetsuits are often worn without a beach-ready swimsuit on underneath, rather have their own undergarment layers, if not a layer of grease.
I suspect that those who suffer the harshest from Sharia law in Saudi Arabia don't have great options for escaping Saudi Arabia. Here in the US we have women trapped in Fundamentalist Muslim counties and we have Scientologists who are desperate to get out of their abusive circumstances, who know there are sanctuaries to which they can go, and yet are terrified to make that move.
Moving from what you know to what you don't is considerable process even when you have enough support for it to be low risk. And in Saudi Arabia, low risk it is not.
...and he really wants to own all your shit and fuck your wife.
He just needs to find something to pin on you, it doesn't even have to be a frame or a trumped charge, just enough to get probable cause.
The SWAT guys come in, shoot up your house, take you to jail. Everything you own is seized via civil forfeiture. Chance of conviction (with no solid evidence) is 90%+, now you're in lock up.
So he says to your wife, be my love slave and your hubby gets to stay in the swanky white-collar prisons. Refuse, and I'll make sure he's Bubba's plaything for a long, long time.
If your wife doesn't cooperate, he can make you disappear into one of the secret infomax prisons, where you live under fluorescent lights 24/7 and the guard who walks up and down the hallway never talks to you. Ever.
And this official, say a police chief, or a deputy mayor or even some civic-building middle office clerk, can totally do that. Has done it. There are more false convicts in US prisons than there are actual criminals. It's too bad that we can't separate the guys who were targeted from the guys with bad luck to be in the wrong place, from the guys who actually committed crimes. We have no functional justice system that actually determines guilt from innocence.
Fair enough. No, he didn't literally set the nation on fire, but he did bring us a lot closer, by rekindling nuclear escalation with the Soviet Union. Nixon and Carter negotiated with the USSR and stood behind Peaceful Coexistence. But for Reagan (like Wilson) allowing for the godless Soviet Union to continue was intolerable to him, and he he felt that the fall of the USSR was the only acceptable outcome, even if it all had to end in nuclear fire.
But no, the gates Reagan opened was to corporate lobbyists and the allowance of soft money in campaigning, from which we now have the corporate deadlock on politics today.
But yes, it goes back to the eighties, and even further than that, but you might have to history some if you're going to comprehend anything beyond the party rhetoric.
And all you think to do stroke your harp while it burns.
Ah, it seems you and I were having different conversations entirely. I was talking about the virtues -- and necessity -- of a large powerful government. You seem to be seeing government as not a tool for creating a civilization but a campaigning chip by which to extol your party platform of choice.
Considering the GOP is ready to spend billions on a useless wall and create Neuremburg laws regarding the Nonwhite and Muslem problems, the DNC distaste for dissent starts looking mild, particularly given the previous Repuplican administration burned spies and representatives for less than an imperfectly lined toe.
Even before the current Trump problem, the GOP's platform had long festered down to who is or isn't allowed to fuck. And any pretense by the GOP of taste for small governmend disintegrates with military considerations.
But the GOP is the only competition against which the DNC runs, and the more pathetic your caracatures of candidates run, the less the DNC has to do to compete, which is how Hillary can effectively run with total technical incompetence. The GOP failure to compete, gave the DNC a monopoly on rationality, and like Comcast, they provide shitty service at ridiculous cost.
I'm not sure if the historians are going to argue that Reagan was the dolorous stroke from which the US bled out, or George W. Bush, but both of those guys were picked from the post-Southern-Strategy GOP pool, and between them, the shining city is ablaze. The proverbial barbarians are at our gates.
Since it would take a constitutional amendment to change the voting system to other than FPTP and it would take a constitutional amendment to remove the electoral college and go by popular vote, we could just do them both in one amendment.
We decided that proper and reasonable treatment of refugees was important after the Napoleonic wars, and the standards for such treatment remain enshrined as a testament to humanity in the Geneva and Hague conventions.
Hospitality and fair treatment of refugees is not a duty that one nation owes to another nation, it's a duty that each of us, as individuals who benefit from national laws and identity, owe to all other individuals, considering that but for the grace of God (or your luck and fortune) you could also be outlawed by your own state and pushed out of its borders... or just executed and cremated in a mass oven.
Of course, thanks to George W. Bush's administration the Geneva Convention doesn't mean as much as it once did, and we will have to relearn why we created and ratified it in the first place.
So you can choose to vote against allowing refugees into your borders. You can choose to deny others sanctuary when their own have turned against them and the trains are getting packed and the ovens are on day and night.
But when fortune turns around, and it happens to you, or your grandchildren or your descendants down the line, when they become the persecuted, when the death camps are cooking once again, you had best hope that the people controlling those borders are kinder, more empathetic or more honorable than you are.
I bet there are many millions of people who would have preferred far less powerful government were they not already killed by that government.
Are you referring to demographics that are not regarded by the government except as outlaws, such as Jews in Nazi Germany?
That is the same end result of when you have too small a government, which is invasion by a larger one.
As for this mythical people who regard corporations as bad but governments as saintly, you'll have to be more specific. I don't know a single person, or a single group that insists that is a platform.
Here, we know that government is necessary for infrastructure, but it is also prone to corruption, which is a problem we've yet to solve.
But if you choose to have a smaller government, then you choose to have less infrastructure, which means lower standards of living e.g. not only no running water, but no consistent supply of safe drinking water. And if you get the fever, you're just written off.
Safe meat, safe water, consistent electricity, firewood every winter, sewage processing, waste disposal, disease control...all these things require infrastructure which requires government regulation. Market forces do not make for these things.
If you like them then you like the fruits of big government.
It continues to be curious to me how representatives and agency officials, when they suspect a policy might get an unfavorable response from the public consider as their first option to continue with the policy, but make it secret.
This is in contrast to other options that seem more in line with serving the people of the United States, such as first hearing and addressing concerns from the public in a public forum, or even avoiding unpopular or distasteful policy.
It's also curious to me how a growing record of secret implementations of disagreeable policy have not turned into an indictment of our representatives and agents who endorse these policies, and endorse the method of secret implementation.
When secret implementation is the accepted operating procedure, doesn't that mean we are no longer a for-the-people government? And if so, why do we continue to pretend that we are?
Isn't this exemplary of clear and present tyrany against the people of the United States?