"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." EO instead, then.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Fort Fun Indiana, Dec 11, 2019.

?

Does this violate the Establishment Clause?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. No, and all government-recognized religious groups should be protected in the same way

  4. It may, but I would make an exception for the Jews, given the circumstances.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    30,472
    Thanks Received:
    10,356
    Trophy Points:
    2,755
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    Ratings:
    +45,084
    The order defines examples of Israel criticism as such. Can you not read?

    Combating Anti-Semitism 2019 Executive Order | Antisemitism | Discrimination

    (i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities"; and

    (ii) the "Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism" identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.

    I remember the term 'self-hating Jew' coined by conservative Americans, I think, around the time of Dubya's invasion of Iraq.
     
  2. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    30,472
    Thanks Received:
    10,356
    Trophy Points:
    2,755
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    Ratings:
    +45,084
    Or not.
     
  3. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    30,472
    Thanks Received:
    10,356
    Trophy Points:
    2,755
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    Ratings:
    +45,084
    First class 'whataboutism' there. But as a whimsical thought, perhaps because participants in the other conflicts don't steal our passports in order to execute their agendas.
     
  4. Fort Fun Indiana
    Offline

    Fort Fun Indiana Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    35,347
    Thanks Received:
    2,209
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Ratings:
    +15,846
    Well, religion is specifically mentioned. So maybe lecture the people who wrote it?
     
  5. Damaged Eagle
    Offline

    Damaged Eagle On the Dark Side Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12,191
    Thanks Received:
    16,703
    Trophy Points:
    2,445
    Location:
    In a galaxy far, far, away
    Ratings:
    +24,143
    [​IMG]

    And Hate Crime legislation thought up and enacted by progressives mentions specific groups. If you don't like setting precedents for further legislation that mentions specific groups then perhaps progressives shouldn't be setting precedents for the enactment of such type of legislation.

    I personally don't see any reason for any of this legislation. The Jewish students should just sue the college for condoning and allowing discrimination if the college doesn't want to stop the abuse.

    *****CHUCKLE*****



    :)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Questioner
    Offline

    Questioner Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,541
    Thanks Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Ratings:
    +526
    In practice, I'm not sure that this, as in any other 'right' is absolute.

    The Common Law system which the states are subordinate to is indeed based off of "religious" principles and morality, such as the Golden Rule, having developed from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as "Exodus".

    And atheist, for instance, who doesn't believe there is anything wrong with rape or murder, will not be able to escape from a rape or murder charge simply by claiming that the state is forcing "religion" or "morality" on him, no.

    Since, in practice, the entire "religious-secular" dichotomy is a myth to begin with; so-called "secular" systems incorporating "religious" principles, ideas, and concepts, and so-called "religious" systems serving "secular purposes", I'm thinking it might be better just to acknowledge this reality, give us a background and context on it, as well as acknowledge what "religion" actually is to begin with, in theory and practice, and see what the history of actual court rulings on the subject are in reality, as opposed to idle fantasy.

    I'd argue that since history reveals that all systems are "religious", or founded on faith-based axioms to begin with, whether they purport to be "religious" or "secular" in name, we could use this as evidence to do away with the myth of the "secular-religious" dichotomy except in pure abstraction, and simply assert the reality that America, Britain and other Western nations do overtly favor certain religion, or at least certain aspects of religion over others, and for good reason.
     
  7. Fort Fun Indiana
    Offline

    Fort Fun Indiana Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    35,347
    Thanks Received:
    2,209
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Ratings:
    +15,846
    Also irrelevant. Please stay on topic.
     
  8. Damaged Eagle
    Offline

    Damaged Eagle On the Dark Side Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    12,191
    Thanks Received:
    16,703
    Trophy Points:
    2,445
    Location:
    In a galaxy far, far, away
    Ratings:
    +24,143
    [​IMG]

    It set a precedent for further legislation similar to it to be enacted so it is completely relevant to the topic at hand. Of course you're free to have the judicial system challenge the EO in court and see whether you can have it overturned or have all Hate Crime legislation removed from the books.

    *****SMILE*****



    :)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2

Share This Page