|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2008 : 17:24:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
I think it should be possible to consider the fairness of a rule or behavior independent of whether it serves a liberal or conservative agenda.
Is that hard to understand? |
It is extraordinarily hard to understand when your primary critique of Mooner's suggestion is the effect that it would have on religious conservatives. The rule itself wouldn't mention them, now would it? In other words, if you want to consider the fairness of the rule independent of its political agenda, then do so. All you've done so far is to consider it unfair because you think it serves a liberal agenda.
There is already a rule that says a-political 501(c)3 groups cannot engage in activism for (or against) a particular political candidate. Mooner is suggesting that that rule be expanded to prevent a-political 501(c)3 groups from engaging in activism for (or against) a particular voter referendum.
How is that unfair to anyone? It is independent of religion or political stance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2008 : 23:43:49 [Permalink]
|
My apologies. I wrote this a while ago and mislaid it.
Originally posted by Dave W.
If you'd asked me that in 1990, I would have said "no." |
I'm asking today.
Originally posted by Dave W.
The part where you say, without qualification, that all expression of ideas should be protected, otherwise we are not free. |
I said no such thing. I said, ”A pluralistic society has to respect the right of the individual to be wrong and to advocate for a wrong point of view, or there is no freedom.” Nothing in that statement takes away from any of the limitations to free speech already established by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Originally posted by Dave W.
So "Joe Schmoe raped his own sister" and "we should burn this town down in protest" are somehow ideas that deserve less protection than "vote for McCain," in your ideal pluralistic society. |
Yes. Is there even a question about it?
Originally posted by Dave W.
I see. How do you draw these lines demarcating someone being an asshat for suggesting that the law be enforced on the one side, and someone being an upstanding citizen for suggesting that the law be enforced on the other? |
On one side you're using the law to harass someone who disagrees with you, on the other side the law is protecting people from immediate physical harm. I don't think that's a difficult distinction.
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, let's not. A majority agree with him on some points, and a sizable minority on others. He hasn't been a fringe thinker for many years, but is dangerously close to being mainstream. The recent election wasn't a referendum against religious whackaloonery, because the vast majority of the campaigning had nothing to do with purely social issues. |
I really don't see this as an issue of whether Ray Comfort is right or wrong, or if he represents a lunatic fringe or a quiet majority. I don't like Ray Comfort or the things he stands for either.
Originally posted by Dave W.
What it is that you refuse to acknowledge is that stripping a church of its tax-exempt status does nothing to "silence" any ideas. That was simply a consequence that you fabricated out of thin air, and have used as a rhetorical bludgeon, to demonize those who disagree with you. |
Okay, so the proposed harassment probably does not rise to the level of actually silencing him. So what? The principle is the same; the only difference is the degree.
Originally posted by Dave W.
You also bizarrely say that harming someone is okay for certain violations of the law, but not for others. You refuse to acknowledge that if Ray Comfort had violated the law against campaigning from the pulpit, he should face the same punishment that anyone else would face. In fact, you keep trying to shift the burden by asking others here if they would enforce the law if it were a campaign issue they agreed with, and when someone says, "yes, I would," you effectively ignore the response, thereby evading the answer entirely. |
I don't have a problem with tha |
| Edited by - Mycroft on 11/15/2008 23:46:49 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 00:08:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It is extraordinarily hard to understand when your primary critique of Mooner's suggestion is the effect that it would have on religious conservatives. |
That's because you can't seem to understand that I would have the exact same objection if Mooner's proposed rule changes were targeted against secular liberals, or any other identifiable group.
Can I make that any more clear? The issue isn't who is targeted. It's that anyone is targeted.
Originally posted by Dave W.
The rule itself wouldn't mention them, now would it? |
Read up on black voter disenfranchisement post US civil war and how in places such as Mississippi or Louisiana southern democrats used poll taxes, literacy tests and grandfather clauses to prevent blacks from voting then tell me if you still think it matters if the target group is actually named in the law or not.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 01:20:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by Dave W.
If you'd asked me that in 1990, I would have said "no." |
I'm asking today. |
Did you find no answer?Originally posted by Dave W.
The part where you say, without qualification, that all expression of ideas should be protected, otherwise we are not free. |
I said no such thing. I said, ”A pluralistic society has to respect the right of the individual to be wrong and to advocate for a wrong point of view, or there is no freedom.” Nothing in that statement takes away from any of the limitations to free speech already established by the Supreme Court of the United States. |
I see I was wrong. But based on your support for the SCOTUS, I must conclude that you do not support the right of someone to advocate wrong ideas maliciously, or even accidentally, if someone could be harmed by those ideas.
Of course, we're not interested in whether Ray Comfort's ideas are right or wrong in this discussion, only whether his advocacy stepped over a legal line. You think Ig was an "asshat" for asking that question, and I don't. Nowhere does the truthiness of Comfort's ideas enter in to that discussion. Only the mechanism through which he dispersed his ideas is relevant.Originally posted by Dave W.
So "Joe Schmoe raped his own sister" and "we should burn this town down in protest" are somehow ideas that deserve less protection than "vote for McCain," in your ideal pluralistic society. |
Yes. Is there even a question about it? |
There was. I guess there isn't, now.Originally posted by Dave W.
I see. How do you draw these lines demarcating someone being an asshat for suggesting that the law be enforced on the one side, and someone being an upstanding citizen for suggesting that the law be enforced on the other? |
On one side you're using the law to harass someone who disagrees with you, on the other side the law is protecting people from immediate physical harm. I don't think that's a difficult distinction. |
And this is where we are back to the baloney. You have done absolutely nothing to support your assumption that Ig intended to "harrass" Ray Comfort for no other reason than because they disagree.
Beyond which, the people who donate money to support Ray's ministry's efforts may have been harmed, monetarily, by Ray's post. That's part of the reason for the law in the first place. It has nothing to do with immediate physical harm. How does libel cause immediate physical harm, anyway? That's one of the ways the Supreme Court has limited speech, and you're in favor of such limitations, yes?| I really don't see this as an issue of whether Ray Comfort is right or wrong, or if he represents a lunatic fringe or a quiet majority. I don't like Ray Comfort or the things he stands for either. |
I was explaining why I see him as more dangerous than a tree on fire ten feet from |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 01:51:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
That's because you can't seem to understand that I would have the exact same objection if Mooner's proposed rule changes were targeted against secular liberals, or any other identifiable group. |
You would? Really?! The only way for an analogous situation to occur would be for a secular, liberal group like the National Center for Science Education to be using donations for buying King James Bibles for missionary work overseas. I would have a huge problem with that, and would advocate in favor of a law preventing 501(c)3 organizations from using donated funds in ways that contradict their mission statements in general. You would be against such a law? How odd...| Can I make that any more clear? The issue isn't who is targeted. It's that anyone is targeted. |
Then we'll have to repeal the laws against murder, now won't we? They target murderers! How can a law be untargeted at all? Good grief! Laws against incest target (possibly) loving brothers and sisters. Laws against gambling target gamblers. Laws against fraud target con-men. How can we possibly get away from targeting identifiable groups with laws? Can you name a single law that does not target an identifiable group?
The proposed change targets 501(c)3 charities who wish to inject political messages regarding referenda into their otherwise normally apolitical speech. While by "identifiable group" you might have meant "protected group" as in equal-employment law or the 14th Amendment, Mooner's change would affect all such protected groups equally.
Surely there's one liberal group you can find who'd be effected negatively, isn't there? Just to ask the rest of us if we really want them to be "silenced," too? No?| Read up on black voter disenfranchisement post US civil war and how in places such as Mississippi or Louisiana southern democrats used poll taxes, literacy tests and grandfather clauses to prevent blacks from voting then tell me if you still think it matters if the target group is actually named in the law or not. |
Why don't you tell me the specifics of those laws, and cite the legal cases (if any) brought them down? It's your argument, you support it.
Of course, the difference is that religious conservatives have many ways of getting their messages out to the masses, while black people in the South had few ways to earn more money, get a decent education, and/or change the date on which they were born. Those in favor of Mooner's change to the law are doing nothing to silence religious conservatives themselves, they are simply in favor of clamping down on the methods through which corporations have access to the citizenry.
Last I heard, even though corporations are "people" for many facets of the law, they still don't get to vote. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 09:56:15 [Permalink]
|
Actually, he is right about the Jim Crow laws. None of the electoral laws targeted black specifically but the combination of tax requirement and literacy test did affect blacks more, as they had much lower incomes and access to education.
The poorest among the white people were also affected but, on some case, a 'grand father clause' was put in so that, even if did not qualify now, if you were allowed to participate in elections before the laws, your voting privilege were maintained.
Again, it does not say anything about race, but, in effect, only applied to white as black were previously forbidden from voting, despite the facts that race was never mentioned in any of these laws.
What brought the laws down were, you gotta love it, "activist judges"; supreme court's decisions.
Interestingly, when the segregation laws were first introduced and challenged, the supreme court did find them constitutional suggesting that it was really a matter of interpretation.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 11:37:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Interestingly, when the segregation laws were first introduced and challenged, the supreme court did find them constitutional suggesting that it was really a matter of interpretation.
|
That's the way checks and balances work, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 11:53:13 [Permalink]
|
| Thing is, considering that the reference document, the constitution, had not changed between the two ruling, the difference illustrates how subjective it can be. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 12:44:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Thing is, considering that the reference document, the constitution, had not changed between the two ruling, the difference illustrates how subjective it can be.
|
Are you sure you didn't mean to say "how subjective judges can be"?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 14:33:58 [Permalink]
|
| How subjective a ruling or the interpretation of the same text can be. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 17:16:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Actually, he is right about the Jim Crow laws. None of the electoral laws targeted black specifically but the combination of tax requirement and literacy test did affect blacks more, as they had much lower incomes and access to education. |
Yes, I even mentioned that. The Jim Crow laws were unfair because the targeted group could do nothing (more or less) to get around their disenfranchisement. Mycroft's analogy is thus shown to be false because religious conservatives have many perfectly legal ways to voice their opinions, mechanisms that nobody is talking about squashing, even if the ability to advocate for referenda from the pulpit were eliminated.
It's as bad an analogy as his gay-bashing bit. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 17:36:09 [Permalink]
|
I am not sure if it is an analogy, but it is an example of a law (or several) that targeted quite accurately a population without ever literally mentioning them.
Another example would be the toughening of the anti-drug laws in the 60ies - 70ies that allowed Nixon to criminalize the youth and hippies, a portion of the population that was; in its overwhelming majority; voting against him.
So indeed, it is true that the application of this law would only concern certain demographies. Obviously, it will only affect religious organizations that are interested in having a political impact.
I would agree with Mycroft that most of these organizations in the US are on the right of the political scale.
But what Mycroft seems to fail to realize that applying this law will not discriminate against the religious right (give them a handicap) as much as removing the tax exemption they benefit when competing against non-religious political organization (in effect, removing an advantage).
Roughly, this law is not about discrimination against the Religious Right, it is about removal of a discrimination against everybody else. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2008 : 00:58:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, I even mentioned that. The Jim Crow laws were unfair because the targeted group could do nothing (more or less) to get around their disenfranchisement. |
No, that's not why they were unfair.
They were unfair because they were bigoted and discriminatory towards blacks period. They still would have been unfair even if blacks could have circumvented them somehow.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Mycroft's analogy is thus shown to be false because religious conservatives have many perfectly legal ways to voice their opinions, mechanisms that nobody is talking about squashing, even if the ability to advocate for referenda from the pulpit were eliminated.
|
I think you're misunderstanding my point again. My objection to Halfmooner's suggestion was based on the stated motivations behind it. I don't think it's right to change the political system itself to favor one point of view over another. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2008 : 01:12:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
I think you're misunderstanding my point again. My objection to Halfmooner's suggestion was based on the stated motivations behind it. I don't think it's right to change the political system itself to favor one point of view over another. |
It still doesn't do that, it only favors certain mechanisms of expressing one's views over others. As soon as the act of a church advocating for a particular referendum is itself a "view," you will have a valid objection. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2008 : 07:36:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
I don't have a problem with that law. If the IRS catches up with Ray Comfort and applies some penalty , I won't lose any sleep over it. What I described as asshat behavior isn't being in favor of the law or enforcing the law, but being the one to call in the law on someone you disagree with.
|
A flasher isn't really harming anyone either, walking around flaunting what nature provided him with.
People who are calling the cops to arrest him would likewise be asshats for harming his ability to freely express himself.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How do you report somone to the IRS?
