WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


The Cold Civil War

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 07-01-2017, 09:44 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default The Cold Civil War


The day after the Obergfell decision my good friend Adelbert opined

I'd just prefer that people who can't live together anymore to simply live apart. There's no reason to pretend that the fissure in values between the center of the country and the liberal cities is a shallow one. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Though given what's at stake, I can't see the easy way being the possible way. Adelbert
Several years later, someone else is picking up that sentiment
“The reality is that, today, the people of California and Massachusetts continue to diverge from those of Texas and the Dakotas in so many ways that applying the administrative state’s formulae to them requires ever more force. Substituting administrative force for waning consensus makes for less national unity, not more. Why not, then, deal with the problem by accepting reality? Texas passed a law that, in effect, closes down most of its abortion clinics. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. What if Texas closed them nonetheless? Send the Army to point guns at Texas rangers to open them? What would the federal government do if North Dakota declared itself a “Sanctuary for the Unborn” and simply banned abortion? For that matter, what is the federal government doing about the fact that, for practical purposes, its laws concerning marijuana are being ignored in Colorado and California? Utah objects to the boundaries of national monuments created by decree within its borders. What if the state ignored those boundaries? Prayer in schools? What could bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., do if any number of states decided that what the federal courts have to say about such things is bad?”Angelo Codevilla, The Cold Civil War
http://www.claremont.org/crb/article...old-civil-war/

As the Ancients remind us, the statesman’s primary concern must be the good of his own nation. In revolutionary times especially, thoughts, words, and deeds about international affairs must be subordinated to internal needs. That is the primary meaning of “America First.”
The US Civil Rights commission is filled with idiots. How do I know? Because like idiots in these discussions they accuse people with opposing views of "Talking in Code". Only the severely mentally diminished accuse others of "Talking in Code" to advance a point instead of being making a cogent argument of their own: Accusing others of Talking In Code is the latest version of accusing others of "Being Hitler" or "Racist". It's the sign that you've lost.

Anyway:
According to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy, or any form of intolerance.”
I've pointed out in my meanderings, some of the same folks that during the reign of Obama were derisive of States Rights, Federalism, Scale, Federalism are now champions of it - in the limited instances it would benefit them.

__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-01-2017, 11:02 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,841
Thanks: 361
Thanks 846
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
The day after the Obergfell decision my good friend Adelbert opined



Several years later, someone else is picking up that sentiment


http://www.claremont.org/crb/article...old-civil-war/



The US Civil Rights commission is filled with idiots. How do I know? Because like idiots in these discussions they accuse people with opposing views of "Talking in Code". Only the severely mentally diminished accuse others of "Talking in Code" to advance a point instead of being making a cogent argument of their own: Accusing others of Talking In Code is the latest version of accusing others of "Being Hitler" or "Racist". It's the sign that you've lost.

Anyway:

I've pointed out in my meanderings, some of the same folks that during the reign of Obama were derisive of States Rights, Federalism, Scale, Federalism are now champions of it - in the limited instances it would benefit them.


I think you're missing the larger point.

There is no reason that people who disagree with each other can't live together and prosper. With or without government interference. Anyone who says different is an 'idiot' like you said and not just someone on the other side of the divide.

If you and I were neighbors Mo, and you needed my help, I would give it. Wouldn't matter what I know about your beliefs or ideals, or how much we disagreed. It wouldn't be about your lifestyle or opinions at all. It would be about helping someone who asked.

So yes, there are idiots on all sides of the issues. But idiots don't justify implementation of drastic changes in the way the country fundamentally operates. Or, they shouldn't.

Furthermore, phrases like 'religious freedom' ARE code words for: I'm an idiot who can't figure out how to cooperate financially or socially (in a capitalist society) with people I don't agree with.

If one doesn't like the gay lifestyle, one should not be gay.

If one doesn't like abortion, one should not have an abortion.

Why would I refuse to do plumbing work at an office headquarters for an extremely religiously conservative think tank? I wouldn't. It would never occur to me that I was helping them advance their agenda.

We are part of a project right now to build a Presbyterian church. I'm an atheist. I think these people are bonkers and hypocrites, and potentially dangerous with their ideas. But it's not about that.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-02-2017, 06:36 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,735
Thanks: 337
Thanks 353
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
Furthermore, phrases like 'religious freedom' ARE code words for: I'm an idiot who can't figure out how to cooperate financially or socially (in a capitalist society) with people I don't agree with.
That's the rational way to look at it. But I'm ambivalent on the issue.

My first impulse is to disagree with laws or threats of law suits that force people to provide services to people if they don't want to.

If a baker wants to refuse service to gay couples -- let him. And then let the free market decide. He may lose business or go out of business. That's the risk he takes.

If you are refused service, then go elsewhere and get over it. If it gives you satisfaction to retaliate and put someone out of business, then I think you are being just as irrational as he is.

Of course, it's very hard to arrive at reasonable solutions when you're dealing with made up religious rules -- rules that are fundamentally irrational. And that's where it gets problematic.

If there is only one baker or wedding photographer in Podunk, Georgia then it might not be so simple. And you may have entire regions populated by the aforementioned idiots where it might actually be GOOD for business to refuse service to gay couples. And although I think the slippery slope scenarios are unlikely, who's to stop any other kind of business or service provider from refusing service to gay people or even refusing to hire them?

Of course, the Christian baker could simply realize that the people he's serving were gay before they walked into his store, they'll be gay afterward -- and whether or not he condones the marriage, it's going to happen -- and he's going to be encountering and living side by side with them in the community and providing them service without his knowledge anyway. But I'm probably asking too much -- from the perspective of someone who isn't hindered by irrational beliefs.

Or maybe he really could ask, WWJD -- and find it in his loving Christian heart to bake and sell the cake regardless.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-02-2017, 09:48 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,735
Thanks: 337
Thanks 353
Default

If I was gay, I know what I'd do. I'd order the cake, pay for it, and as I was walking out I'd say -- "It's for a homo wedding sucka!"

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-04-2017, 12:38 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Religious rules are usually very practical - in austere times they can be "survival of the people" rules.

This reasoning is harder for all but the most discerning to see when society is so flush that those "in poverty" often have homes with expensive electronics and have BMIs approaching large aquatic mammals - also spoiling Bergmans Rule.....
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:00 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,735
Thanks: 337
Thanks 353
Default The Cold Civil War

Sure. Some of the rules make sense.

Some of the more arcane and draconian rules were abandoned long ago -- even by more conservative Christians.

Some are common to many faiths or among cultures that simply recognize how people should behave to maintain a civil society -- doesn't mean they came from God.

Same sex unions don't affect anyone. They won't make more people gay or affect the population -- or whatever it is people are afraid is going to happen -- so no, not "practical" in the least.

Last edited by Myers; 07-04-2017 at 01:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:17 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

I've had several Jews, and converted Jews tell me that the OT Levitical Laws in many aspects were only meant for the Jews and not anyone else.

The Apostle Paul covers this explaining that what was once clean is now clean under the new covenant, except where otherwise specified. Both the Old and New Testaments have prohibitions against same sex relations so that didn't change.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:22 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post

Or maybe he really could ask, WWJD -- and find it in his loving Christian heart to bake and sell the cake regardless.
What would Jesus do? He'd tell the gay couple that they were living in sin. He'd offer them forgiveness of their sin, but he wouldn't enable it or encourage it.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:36 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,841
Thanks: 361
Thanks 846
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Religious rules are usually very practical - in austere times they can be "survival of the people" rules.

This reasoning is harder for all but the most discerning to see when society is so flush that those "in poverty" often have homes with expensive electronics and have BMIs approaching large aquatic mammals - also spoiling Bergmans Rule.....


Yeah, some of them are basic survival rules but many of them are societal controls designed to maintain a top down authority structure and enforce a mostly patriarchal dominated society.

Now, I'm not a feminist or any -ist really, but it seems that most religious rules are just ridiculous these days.

I can understand if a person WANTS to follow them and it makes them fulfilled to do so. But... trying to legislate them is a no-go from me.

And all the prophecy about what's going to happen if we don't follow these laws feels like a Sunday afternoon UFO's did it documentary.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:48 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,735
Thanks: 337
Thanks 353
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
I've had several Jews, and converted Jews tell me that the OT Levitical Laws in many aspects were only meant for the Jews and not anyone else.
I know. But we were talking about rules that are practical...

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
What would Jesus do? He'd tell the gay couple that they were living in sin. He'd offer them forgiveness of their sin, but he wouldn't enable it or encourage it.
Maybe it's because he never saw a gay couple living and functioning just fine in the real world, all while not bothering or trying to recruit anyone.

But I guess when it comes down to it, I don't care what Jesus would do.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:57 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

There is a danger in looking at the charter as "a living document" whose meaning or interpretation can change to fit the whimsy of the times.

If nine selected thugs in black dresses make enough head scratching decisions, via strange extrapolations then the decisions will seem illegitimate.



Via the (now defunct?) Appalachian Messenger


"Let me spell it out. There is no Constitution. The fact that it exists on paper somewhere is wholly irrelevant. Why do you think I have largely (not completely, but largely) refused to reference it over these past few years?

I used the Constitution, not as a shield as some seem to think, but as a reference point to demonstrate that our government was no longer bound by it. It was in the vain hope to give some courage to those who thought our government was somehow still legitimate. Everything I have written on the Constitution, even when I wrote my book, was to illustrate the fact that it was not in use by our government and that all of the machinations of the Supreme Court were, if not designed, at least instructive, that they knew how to get around all those pesky words.


The only thing the Constitution is good for now is to bludgeon the Marxists, to make them violate it, to explain their violation and watch them make logical fools of themselves when they try to justify their illegal actions. That's all.
Nothing more. " This Is A War - By T. L. Walker
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-04-2017, 02:19 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,841
Thanks: 361
Thanks 846
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
What would Jesus do? He'd tell the gay couple that they were living in sin. He'd offer them forgiveness of their sin, but he wouldn't enable it or encourage it.


Would he work to create a law prohibiting the practice, with punishments (jail, beating, penalties, fines)?

I don't care if you 'say something' to me or others who don't agree, it's the legal stuff. And the penalties and punishments outside the law.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-04-2017, 02:36 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
Would he work to create a law prohibiting the practice, with punishments (jail, beating, penalties, fines)?

I don't care if you 'say something' to me or others who don't agree, it's the legal stuff. And the penalties and punishments outside the law.
He would not have needed to create a law - because it existed at the time.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-04-2017, 02:40 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,847
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Back to the jist of the OP

“The reality is that, today, the people of California and Massachusetts continue to diverge from those of Texas and the Dakotas in so many ways that applying the administrative state’s formulae to them requires ever more force. Substituting administrative force for waning consensus makes for less national unity, not more. Why not, then, deal with the problem by accepting reality? Texas passed a law that, in effect, closes down most of its abortion clinics. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. What if Texas closed them nonetheless? Send the Army to point guns at Texas rangers to open them? What would the federal government do if North Dakota declared itself a “Sanctuary for the Unborn” and simply banned abortion? For that matter, what is the federal government doing about the fact that, for practical purposes, its laws concerning marijuana are being ignored in Colorado and California? Utah objects to the boundaries of national monuments created by decree within its borders. What if the state ignored those boundaries? Prayer in schools? What could bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., do if any number of states decided that what the federal courts have to say about such things is bad?”Angelo Codevilla, The Cold Civil War
“The reality is that, today, the people of California and Massachusetts continue to diverge from those of Texas and the Dakotas in so many ways that applying the administrative state’s formulae to them requires ever more force.
Angelo Codevilla, The Cold Civil War
I'd just prefer that people who can't live together anymore to simply live apart. There's no reason to pretend that the fissure in values between the center of the country and the liberal cities is a shallow one - Adelber
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-04-2017, 03:08 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,841
Thanks: 361
Thanks 846
Default

Okay, I'll say it again...

A fissure in values is no basis for separate societies for anyone except idiots who can't find a way to live (socially, fiscally) with people who don't share their values.

If that thinking were the standard, there would be no big cities, no metropolises, no centers of trade and industry. Just a bunch of little towns where everyone shared each other's 'values.'

And many of these little towns would be bastions of prejudice, or bent to the will of the local strongman.

Look... it's already here. Globalism. Technology and coming advancements won't let it go back in time. Once the box is open it can't be closed. And the American capitalist drive will just keep getting bigger until it swallows the rest of the world.

We are at a point it would be hard or impossible to stop now.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cold Storage (a short story) 1356 Words RJReynolds Fiction 6 01-29-2015 06:57 AM
Your favorite lyrics from a song. DFischer Writers' Cafe 178 03-10-2011 10:24 AM
Cold Days Stepshed Poetry 3 03-04-2011 06:24 AM
The Cold, Cold Shutdown timothyjward Poetry 0 01-16-2010 07:42 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:14 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.