Why do R-wing Xians hate gays?

Q, your link is broken somehow.
But what you "originally said" was from Usher's incredibly garbled misunderstandings. Again, there is no such term as "suspect class" (the term is "suspect classification"; what is "suspect" is not the class, but the making of distinctions, to the disadvantage of one class, and that is a very different thing), nor are the court cases about granting any class "special rights" (quite the opposite: equal-protection litigation is about deciding when a suspicious distinction-making should be struck down so that everyone is treated the same); the tangents about Natives having semi-sovereign status on their reservations and women being granted the vote were completely irrelevant since, no matter how fascinating those bits of history might be, they did not arise out of any court decisions.
 
bob x said:
Q, your link is broken somehow.
But what you "originally said" was from Usher's incredibly garbled misunderstandings. Again, there is no such term as "suspect class" (the term is "suspect classification"; what is "suspect" is not the class, but the making of distinctions, to the disadvantage of one class, and that is a very different thing), nor are the court cases about granting any class "special rights" (quite the opposite: equal-protection litigation is about deciding when a suspicious distinction-making should be struck down so that everyone is treated the same); the tangents about Natives having semi-sovereign status on their reservations and women being granted the vote were completely irrelevant since, no matter how fascinating those bits of history might be, they did not arise out of any court decisions.
Click to expand...
I am reading what you wrote, but in the mean time let's try this again.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol27/feigen.pdf
 
bob x said:
Q, your link is broken somehow.
But what you "originally said" was from Usher's incredibly garbled misunderstandings. Again, there is no such term as "suspect class" (the term is "suspect classification"; what is "suspect" is not the class, but the making of distinctions, to the disadvantage of one class, and that is a very different thing), nor are the court cases about granting any class "special rights" (quite the opposite: equal-protection litigation is about deciding when a suspicious distinction-making should be struck down so that everyone is treated the same); the tangents about Natives having semi-sovereign status on their reservations and women being granted the vote were completely irrelevant since, no matter how fascinating those bits of history might be, they did not arise out of any court decisions.
Click to expand...
I would not consider the 19th ammendment irrelevant, nor not based on court decisions leading up to such an ammendment. And there were arguments before the courts and legislators, before that ammendment was put to society for a vote. I understand the wording I used "suspect class" should have been noted as suspect class(ification), my bad. And the laws granting native Americans special rights are laws that accompany those of the Constitution in order to enforce compliance with equal rights under the law because of those who would otherwise ignore the basic rights of the minority...

That was and is my point.

I can read "diatribe", and glean what truth is attempted to be said, and I have merely stated (para) be vigilant, on one's toes and aware of what is going on, for one's own sake.

Ms. Feigen is concerned about the same thing.
 
Quahom1 said:
I am reading what you wrote, but in the mean time let's try this again.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol27/feigen.pdf
Click to expand...
Much better.
Quahom1 said:
I would not consider the 19th ammendment irrelevant, nor not based on court decisions leading up to such an ammendment. And there were arguments before the courts and legislators, before that ammendment was put to society for a vote.
Click to expand...
No: there were NO court decisions about it, NO arguments before any courts. There were legislative moves toward suffrage (Western states and a few in the Great Lakes area gave women full voting rights before the federal amendment, and in many other states women had the right to vote in some elections at least, say for City Council), but this is irrelevant to discussion of what the courts do.
Quahom1 said:
And the laws granting native Americans special rights are laws that accompany those of the Constitution in order to enforce compliance with equal rights under the law
Click to expand...
No: it is a holdover from the treatment of the tribes as separate "nations" (although we did not give them the same respect as we would to, say, nations in Europe) with whom we dealt with by "treaties" (although we did not honor treaties with them very well). The Supreme Court in the 1820's used the phrase "domestic dependent nations" for them, meaning that we would not allow them to make their own foreign policy as a fully independent nation could (that is, they could not enter economic or, especially, military agreements with other countries, presumably against the US), but internally they were to be self-governing (which is not to deny that there was a lot of interference, but the Supreme Court consistently held that US courts could not prosecute offenses committed "by an Indian against an Indian on Indian land"; that states could not impose any taxes there, etc.)

I emphasize that in the 1820's no equal-protection clause existed (that was part of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment) so this has, again, nothing to do with equal-protection litigation. And when the equal-protection clause was enacted, it did not apply to the natives, because they were not "citizens"; they were still counted as foreigners, living in separate nations, which just happened to be nations whose borders were completely surrounded by our territory. In the 1930's they were granted US citizenship without immediately losing their separate nations, but on the theory that they would be assimilated, and that once enough of them had left the reservation the native nation would be abolished, as was done to several of them (this policy was called "Indian termination"!) There is a lot of torturous history here, but it is not very related to our topic.
 
I live about 5 miles north of Focus on the Family's HQ and I thought this article would be of interest:

"For the last few days, an “educational analyst” for Focus on the Family has been getting a lot of press. She’s been suggesting that anti-bullying efforts that draw attention to the harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students are part of a “gay agenda” to “sneak homosexuality lessons into classrooms.”
One can argue, as some have, that Focus on the Family is a fringe group that doesn’t represent the majority of Christians in the United States. That’s true. But it’s also true that Focus on the Family has an outsized impact on conservative thought in this country. And by using deception and spin, the group has managed this week to grab the media spotlight. The goal is apparently to make schools less safe for LGBT students and more safe for their harassers. That cannot be ignored."


Focus on the Family Goes After LGBT Students | Teaching Tolerance


I spent years befriending the upper movers and shakers of this organization and I found that there is a strong belief that the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation" and should return to the morality of the Founders. Also, I heard that only "born again" believers can be moral and the "unbeliever" is lost and immoral. Think of the implications of that for a moment and then tell me what do you think?
 
Janz said:
Also, I heard that only "born again" believers can be moral and the "unbeliever" is lost and immoral. Think of the implications of that for a moment and then tell me what do you think?
Click to expand...
This comes from generations of 'circling the wagons' mentality, but a closer representation is people standing in two concentric circles. There is an inner circle facing out and an outer circle facing in. The inner circle shouts and shoots over the shoulders of the outer and is protected by the backs of the outer circle of people. The outers feel afraid of the outside and look intently inward. When these 'Outers' come to your workplace, the marketplace, their backs are all you'll see figuratively speaking. They are not doing much but are watching the expressions of those on the inside. That how they perceive the world. Many out-circlers are afraid that by simply turning their faces outward to look for themselves they will be snatched out of the circle. The outsiders cheer on the inside circle with smiles and encouragement and live through them vicariously. There are only two circles and these are the only two acceptable behaviors. There is outreach but the overall focus is inward and everything outside the circle is evil.
 
Janz said:
I live about 5 miles north of Focus on the Family's HQ and I thought this article would be of interest:

"For the last few days, an “educational analyst” for Focus on the Family has been getting a lot of press. She’s been suggesting that anti-bullying efforts that draw attention to the harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students are part of a “gay agenda” to “sneak homosexuality lessons into classrooms.”
One can argue, as some have, that Focus on the Family is a fringe group that doesn’t represent the majority of Christians in the United States. That’s true. But it’s also true that Focus on the Family has an outsized impact on conservative thought in this country. And by using deception and spin, the group has managed this week to grab the media spotlight. The goal is apparently to make schools less safe for LGBT students and more safe for their harassers. That cannot be ignored."


Focus on the Family Goes After LGBT Students | Teaching Tolerance


I spent years befriending the upper movers and shakers of this organization and I found that there is a strong belief that the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation" and should return to the morality of the Founders. Also, I heard that only "born again" believers can be moral and the "unbeliever" is lost and immoral. Think of the implications of that for a moment and then tell me what do you think?
Click to expand...


I read the Gazette article on this Jan, but it was a terrible write up as far as I'm concerned. According to the US Dept of Health and Human Services Gay kids are three times as likely to be bullied. Focus sees this as pushing the gay agenda. Apparently Focus didn't say what part of the anti-bullying curriculum was offensive to them so we don't know exactly what they are talking about.
Normal tactics for this organization, using the "we feel" argument so that they cannot get nailed down to a specific argument.
The whole thing throws critical thinking out the window. Of course this is pretty much de-rigueur for FOTF.
 
Paladin said:
I read the Gazette article on this Jan, but it was a terrible write up as far as I'm concerned. According to the US Dept of Health and Human Services Gay kids are three times as likely to be bullied. Focus sees this as pushing the gay agenda. Apparently Focus didn't say what part of the anti-bullying curriculum was offensive to them so we don't know exactly what they are talking about.
Normal tactics for this organization, using the "we feel" argument so that they cannot get nailed down to a specific argument.
The whole thing throws critical thinking out the window. Of course this is pretty much de-rigueur for FOTF.
Click to expand...
Isn't whoever is 'different' much more likely to get bullied?

the black kids in a primarily white school...

the white kids in a primarily black school...

whoever is in the minority is most likely to be bullied as I see it, and school kids can be ruthless, especially when mob mentality moves in...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top