Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pyrtolin

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]
401
General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts
« on: December 22, 2015, 04:14:19 PM »
The goal of ISIS is not to declare war on America, or destroy America, or to triumph over the American materialist infidels.

Not to destroy, to maintain a state of ongoing, ever threatening, but distant war with the US/Europe/the West.

They don't want to destroy the US they want to convince Muslims to come join them for their own protection and overlook their abuses in the name of self defense. The comment is a bit self centered because it uses the United States as a proxy for Western powers in general, but it's the same tactic they've been using to recruit and radicalize up til now, the same tactic that Iran uses to maintain power. Provoke the West into anti-Islamic bigotry or causing civilian casualties, then sell that prejudicial response as an ongoing war that the people need them for as they're the only credible protection.

402
General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts
« on: December 22, 2015, 04:00:08 PM »
OTOH, lefties betray our moderate Muslim allies in this struggle when they fail to address ISLAMISM, which is a term that moderate Muslims have coined to describe the disease of our time. (Just as numerous Christendom was the malady of early sixteenth century Spain.)
Well, sure. That's why the more liberal/progressive crowd makes a point of raising that distinction to the right's attempts to paint allof of Islam with the same brush, and tries to put forth solutions that specifically address Islamism rather than agreeing to the kind of military, social, and political problems that help it spread that Trump et al. advance.

403
General Comments / Re: Hell bent on the Caliphate
« on: December 22, 2015, 03:50:03 PM »
after they tried to burn an Arab man alive in Baltimore, I guess comparison with DAESH and KKK seems apt. Hate groups that burn people alive.
So any random rioter that you want can represents an entire movement that happens to have commentary on the issue that the riot was over?

404
Congress .she'll makeall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exerciseshall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereothereof
Not what Pyr said.

Nothing that stops Congress from selective immigration
I guess that means there's nothing preventing Congress from passing laws that say taht peopel of a particular religion aren't allowed to drive then. Or to cross the street on Mondays. Any infringement on the freedom of people based on their religion amounts to a burden of free exercise of religion.

And that would include the freedom to be considered for immigration.

405
General Comments / Re: The Force Awakens (SPOILER ALERT)
« on: December 21, 2015, 12:12:39 PM »
Rey to me fits right into the mold of Anakin and Luke, continuing the family tradition of being natural pilots who (probably aided by the force) seem to be able to sit down in a ship and know how to handle it purely by instinct. There's at least solid backing for her being a competent engineer, between scavenging and the conversational cues talking to Han about her opinions on the modifications that were made to the Falcon. Luke went from joyriding in a landspeeder to being a top notch XWing pilot without blinking. We aren't clearly told one way or another just how much Rey had worked with the other ships or equipment on the planet, but there are some clear nods to the fact that he experience went far beyond the scavenging that we saw her doing on screen.

In general I like that the move didn't stop to bog you down with back story. Like the original it just picked up and told the story forward only stopping to explain things where absolutely necessary and just adding details when they became relevant. Obi Wan was a general in the Clone Wars. What were the Clone Wars? An important historical point that no one would have needed to explain to anyone else, so no one went off on a monologue about, the audience was just expected to fill in the blank.

It does feel like a formulaic copy of the original, but in light of the fact that the original was a by the numbers implementation of Joseph Campbell's heroic myth formula, that's not really surprising at all.

I do agree with Joshua on the way the Starkiller was handled (plus other comments I've seen regarding accounting for number suns and its current location given that it was firing its second shot)

Darth Emo is a great name for Kylo Ren, and his behavior seems right in line with a petulant teenager that happens to control way more power than he knows how to manage properly (I loved the physical comedy where the troopers were shown coming down the hall while he was in the middle of his tantrum and suddenly decided that they should go in a different direction) I've seen high functioning autistic kids that map perfectly to his behavior.

406
I was under the assumption that you have to at least be physically present in the country,  or a citizen or resident if abroad, for Constitutional rights to apply. I don't see how 1st Amendment rights apply to potential refugees who are not Americans and have never lived there.
The First Amendment doesn't extend any explicit rights. It limits Congress's/the government's power to take actions that curtail freedoms, creating rights in the negative space where government isn't allowed to act. You don't need to be a citizen to benefit from the fact that Congress is actively denied the authority to act in those areas.

407
Islam includes ideologies. I'm not sure how it's a disservice that I point out taht it's a large portfolio of smaller pieces, and not an individual small piece. That doesn't change the fact that our laws should pick out the specific pieces that we find harmful an prohit those instead of blindly targeting the entire body of faith regardless of individual ideology

Interesting. Based on this statement, you would think that you wouldn't have a problem with a law that forbids religious courts from stripping human rights from people without specifying any one religion that it is referring to.
You're suggesting that there is something inherently harmful or dangerous to society about a given human right that would justify using the law to restrict it? I'm not sure how you get from "We can filter for ideologies that represent a manifest danger to us without singling out entire religions" to "we can arbitrarily strip rights as long as we don't mention religion"

408
I specifically rejected the idea of excluding Muslims as a group.  Those I want excluded from immigrating are those who believe the demagogues such as Khomeini and DAESH who proclaim that Muslims have a religious duty to do harm to Americans.
Neither or which are religions, but ideologies and political affiliations that can be filtered for without breathing a word about Islam, as you actually seem to be admitting here. Congress/the Executive do not need to retain the option of religious discrimination to enact those exclusions.

You say that we can exclude based on BEHAVIORS and I say it's a day late and a dollar short to expel those who have already done harm.
[/quote]
I said a willingness or commitment to engage in certain behaviors. Ideologies which can arise _independent_ of a specific religion. A fundamentalist Christian who has had been radicalized to attack medical providers or other sources what they see as of moral corruption should be equally banned. Or an atheist radicalized to try to take out the WBC. It's the willingness to use violence to attain political ends that should be the behavioral/ideological filter not just the fact taht they're Muslim, Christian, Atheist, or any other religious identification as was proposed.

409
Let's not forget either that our government is still fighting to protect its right to discriminate against people solely based on their race. Specifically white people and sometimes Asians of course.
Nope. That's pure fantasy. The fact that programs taht exist to mitigate the effects of certain kinds of discrimination do not apply to people that are not suffering from that kind of discrimination is not discrimination against those that already aren't negatively affected in that particular sphere.

410
It's bad enough when you make idiotically vague statements of your own. It's offensive and vile when you put such false and idiotically vague statements into my mouth.

I never said that it's generally OK to discriminate on a religious basis. I said that Congress can specifically discriminate WITH RESPECT TO ENACTING IMMIGRATION RULES.
So which is it? That it's okay to discriminate on the basis of religion or not okay? You only get one or the other.

Quote
  You admitted that they can and do discriminate on the the basis of religion when they specifically allow one persecuted religious group in.
That, again, is discrimination on the basis of _persecution_ not religion.

411
If I understand correctly, if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a majority on the Supreme Court that there is a compelling government interest to do something then the Constitution is fair game for an exercise in flexibility. This could happen with demonstrating a compelling government interest not to reward undocumented immigrants by granting their children automatic citizenship or by denying entry to Muslims if the terrorism situation is getting out of control.
Compelling interest is the key. There is no compelling interest for religious discrimination, because it's not the members of the religion that are a threat, but specific behaviors by a minority that could arise in any religion, so the proper interest is in looking for that behavior.

As for immigration, there really is not credible threat there either, and if there is, then it's the behavior that actually brings threat that should be watched for, not the high complement paid to us by people that believe their kids will be better off as US citizens.

412
Counter argument to what?  We were discussing Constitutional interpretation and you jumped in with your assertions - based on your philosophical interpretation - and asserted them as true.  To my thinking, you've not added anything to the debate to argue against.
To whether discrimination based on religion in immigration policies amounts to a restriction on the freedom or religion. You have only counters the argument on pure assertion, not presenting any reasoning to support your case.

Quote
Quote
If this were a matter of settled, verifiable facts, then it wouldn't be worth discussing.
If we were discussing policy, then your opinions would be worth considering. 
A proposal to restrict immigration on the basis of religion is a matter of policy. Policy, then defines who legally can and cannot immigrate.

Quote
Quote
Categorical discrimination against any religion by any government agency amounts to a restriction on the free practice of that belief.
Then please cite the case that so states.  You are mixing up rationales without regard to the thought process behind them.
What do you mean case? Gravity make things fall toward the Earth, there's no case needed to support that. Categorical discrimination against religion penalize the free exercise of religion by making it subject to that discrimination. It prohibits any person applying for entrance to the US from freely practicing whatever religion they choose to by restricting them only to the State approved family of religions.

Quote
My argument is NOT that they only believed in negative rights.  My argument is that they did not believe the Constitution created or grants rights to the people but rather that it establishes the powers and limits on the government.  The people have rights inherently.
So what? That's not relevant here. We're not talking about what they believed, but the functional result of what they produced based on modern language for classification.

Quote
It only "underscores" your point, if - as I've said three times now - there is a right or entitlement to immigrate.  Congress is not interfering with anyone's free exercise by not making a privledge available to them.
 
Ah, so since driving is a privilege, a law the forbade Methodists from driving wouldn't be an imposition on them?

It doesn't matter whether the restriction is on a privilege or a right. All it matters is that it creates an imposition on them because of their specific chosen belief system.The amendment doesn't read "Congress may abridge no rights" on the basis of religion. It says "Congress shall pass no law" That means a law that would restrict privileges or rights. That's what the fundamental nature of the right to free exercise entails. That there will be not direct impediment to your rights or privileges on that basis.

If there were a right to immigration, the the religion issue would be moot. It's specifically because immigration is not a right unto itself taht the free exercise clause is relevant- because it means taht religion cannot be used as an excuse to restrict it without regard to whether it's a right or privilege.

Quote
Sigh.  The right of a government to subject its citizens to trial does not arise without being granted, hence the limitations on such use of the granted police power being necessary clarifications.
Power, not right. People have rights, not governments.

 
Quote
In fact, the jury trial itself is directly structured specifically to ensure that the citizens control that exercise of the power of the state to avoid the potential for abuse in an unaccountable government convicting people of crimes against the government.
Indeed. But that doesn't change the fact that the right to a trial by jury is a positive provision of government. It's an active obligation of the government to provide something that would not exist if the government did not act to establish and maintain it. It's not simply a limit on the government's power to restrict an existing freedom.

Again, it doesn't matter how the founders happened to define the word "right" here. The simple fact is taht this provision created a positive obligation on the part of the government to the people. SOmething that it was required to provide to them. That's what a positive right, by modern terminology, is.

413
And others here were arguing for a constitutional construction that would bar any religious discrimination in religion. That's what I was responding to when I said that a free society needed the OPTION of closing it's borders to any group that poses a threat.
Here for example. You say taht we need to allow for discrimination based on religion- the ability ban any given group based on religion because we might construe the religion itself to pose a threat.

And again, the point is, that we can identify the beliefs and behaviors that represent the threat and ban those without reference to any specific religion. it's the latter that represents any given threat, not any given religion itself. The degree to which any given religion faction happens to be excluded becomes purely incidental, rather than needed to keep a laundry list of religions taht we decide taht we're going to discriminate against this week.

It's the willingness and desire to cause harm that's the problem, not the nominal religion that peopel identify with.

414
Pyr misrepresented me as saying: "We should be free to arbitrarily ban religions if we feel taht some members of them may support ideologies taht we want to restrict""

I never said any such thing. Never used those words and never said words that could reasonably be interpreted in good faith as signifying what you just MI's attributed to me.

This is why I use specifics, Pyr, rather than making obscenely broad overreaching statements.
you said, over and over, that we should retain the freedom to ban immigration based on religion. That that should be okay rather than only targeting specific practices and behaviors without regard to specific religion. That's the entire point of the debate on teis thread of the conversation.

415
Again, I think you grossly misapprehend Islam when you say that it is merely a religion and not an ideology. I think your characterization would offend most of the world's Muslims.
Islam includes ideologies. I'm not sure how it's a disservice that I point out taht it's a large portfolio of smaller pieces, and not an individual small piece. That doesn't change the fact that our laws should pick out the specific pieces that we find harmful an prohit those instead of blindly targeting the entire body of faith regardless of individual ideology

416
The context here is Trump's obscene proposal, so if you word your principle in a way that supports Trump rather than hindering him, it is you not I who have lost sight of context.
The context is what is a reasonable basis for restricting immigration. Harmful ideologies are a reasonable basis. Religions are not, even if some harmful ideologies might be associates with some subset of them. If you want to ban an ideology, you should ban the ideology, not a specific religion, because the ideology is the problem, regardless of what religion it arises from, while there is no problem with adherents of a religion that do not support a specific ideology.

Keep in mind, that you're the one supporting Trump when you say "We should be free to arbitrarily ban religions if we feel taht some members of them may support ideologies taht we want to restrict" against peopel saying that we should focus on the ideology rather than blanket religious discrimination.

417
"a specific willingness or desire to behave in certain ways" if it pleases you, ,,[goes on to instruct me not to use this definition in a way that demonstrates it's absurdity]."
Which is to say, I reminded you of the context that we're discussing so that we can talk coherently instead of wasting hours and hours making sure that the wording doesn't change the price of tea in China, despite it not have any relevance here.

Quote
BTW, are you familiar with the US oath of naturalization?  Do you think that requiring such an oath is constitutional?
Seems fine, and it has nothing to do with religion, so isn't relevant to the context. To the degree that some sects might fall afoul of it, that's incidental. Not one word of the oath in question even pretends to reference religion.

418
Note Pyr chops out the context before asking the question answered by what he chopped out:

Pyr demanded that we employ this definition of "ideology":

"Ideology as in "a specific willingness or desire to take a categorically ,harmful actions""

He now asks me "who said" that all ideologies involved a willingness to do harm". Why you did, Pyr.

To misspeak is human.  To refuse to own up to one's error is demented. 

If you can't own up, why don't you just restate intelligently and I will try to move on without rubbing it in.
What, like I did in that reply to avoid exactly this kind of absurd derailment? Why don't you address the point instead of coming up with every possible out-of-context misinterpretation and wasting time on debating them?

419
You take a true principle and overstate it to the point of absurdity.  Obviously the government has taken some actions  on the basis of religion (admitting Jew's as a persecuted group) without the awful results as describe.
First of all, that's not a limiting action.

You didn't limit your statement to limiting actions. Don't blame me if you did not mean what you said.  I agree that your statement becomes less ludicrous if you limit the scope, and if you limit the scope to the point the statement becomes true, I will stop pointing out the absurd loopholes.
I didn't limit the scope, because the conversation we're having makes the scope clear.

420
If we DID use Pyr's ghastly religion/ideology construct, it would serve as such a facile end run around the first Amendment that Trump's proposed Muslim ban would slip through easily.  Trump says Islam is an "ideology" since it's adherents are willing indeed cannot be stopped from, "harmful" halal food practices which are unsanitary by FDA standards and (by other hypocritical modern standards) exemplify "animal cruelty."
Except "Islam" is not an ideology" here "I only eat food taht had been slaughtered under these standards" is the ideology.
He could not identify "Islam" as the ideology under my standard- he'd have to specify the specific belief or practice and argue why it should be targeted regardless of what religion gives rise to it.

421
Pyr, you are jerryrigging the words again. Consider this:
,,Not ideology as in "A formally named system of beliefs" Ideology as in

That's a bull*censored* definition. Since when are all ideologies "harmful"?
Who said all of them are? We're talking about the subset of harmful ideologies here. If the ideology isn't harmful, it isn't germane to the conversation.

Do you have a point here, or are you being absurdly pedantic?

"a specific willingness or desire to behave in certain ways" if it pleases you, then apply the context that we're specifically talking about limits on harmful ones, not any out of the entire field.

422
You take a true principle and overstate it to the point of absurdity.  Obviously the government has taken some actions  on the basis of religion (admitting Jew's as a persecuted group) without the awful results as describe.
First of all, that's not a limiting action. SEcond, taht's an action based on _perscution_ not based on their religion.

Were we to _only_ recognize persecution of Jews, that would be a violation of the principle, because then the decision would be centered around the religion and not the action.

423

I deny that  any dispositive difference between religion and ideology exists, for purposes of first Amendment and immigration purposes.
Sure there is. "I am of this faith"

Religion.

"I believe it is okay to kill people in the name of religion"

Ideology.

Not ideology as in "A formally named system of beliefs" Ideology as in "a specific willingness or desire to take a categorically harmful actions"

We can target based on specific beliefs or practices without religions. WE can outlaw murder, and thus prevent human sacrifice, and that's the right way to do it. We can't ban people who adhere to a reconstruction of Aztec religious beliefs on the basis that some of them might support human sacrifice. Target the actual practice or belief not the religion that our current bias inclines us to associate with it.

424
A non-citizen has the right to practice their religion freely. They don't have the right to immigrate, but putting a religious test on immigration does bar them from free practice if they wish to immigrate. There are relevant, legal grounds to deny people that might be dangerous from immigrating. Nominal religion is not one of them because Congress explicitly and the rest of our Government implicitly is restricted from judging them on those grounds, whether they're citizens or not.
This is the kind of statement you make that drives me crazy.  You just assert things you wish were true as if they were in fact true.  The only thing you said that is verifiable and accurate is that there are legal grounds to deny dangerous people from immigrating.
If you want to make a counter argument make it. If you only want to point out that I'm making an argument and thus must be wrong because it's the position I'm taking, then you're pretty much just trying to handwave away the argument by assertion.

If this were a matter of settled, verifiable facts, then it wouldn't be worth discussing.

Categorical discrimination against any religion by any government agency amounts to a restriction on the free practice of that belief.
Quote
Quote
The first Amendment isn't a positive right; a direct protection or empowerment of people, it's negative right- a limit on the use of power, so it applies regardless of citizenship.
The first Amendment isn't a "positive" right, because the framers believed in natural law rights,
Did apples not fall downward before Newton invented gravity? The Amendments starts off "Congress shall make no law" that's a active limit on the power of Congress, which, by definition is a negative right. The fact taht they didn't make the explicit distinction at one point in time does not prevent us from later using categorical descriptions, especially since your argument here is that they only believed in negative rights, even though other powers and amendments debunk that notion.

Even if we take what you said for granted, it only serves to underscore my point here. Any government action taken on the basis of religion violates what's been codified as a fundamentally recognized human.natural right that the constitution has language noting that the government should not have power over. Wile it explicitly restricts congress from exercising power over religion, that implicitly suggests that the other branches also should not do so, otherwise the Congressional restriction is moot.

Quote
hence the amendments don't grant rights - as the government can't give anything to the citizens, only the other way around. 
Ah, so jury trials arise naturally, and they are the default state of affairs without interference?

425
I really don't see why anyone would disagree with what Pete is proposing.  He has simply said that we should exclude people who openly support ideologies that call for killing Americans.
That would be fine. He's arguing that we should consider allowing let religion to stand in for ideology instead of focusing on ideology alone without regard to religion.

426
"AFAIK, no one has advocated that the boarders be thrown open."

You err. Pyr has.
No I haven't. I've always specifically supported health and security based check. But only those checks, not race, income, etc... We should be operating on a reason to deny basis, not on an arbitrary quota basis.

Quote
And others here were arguing for a constitutional construction that would bar any religious discrimination in religion. That's what I was responding to when I said that a free society needed the OPTION of closing it's borders to any group that poses a threat.  It's a straw man  to claim I ever said that this particular group of Syrians risks engulfing our democracy.
If a group poses a threat, then the functional way taht it poses a threat can be filtered for without regard to religion. At no point is there a reasonable basis for saying "Well if we just ban this religion, then we'll have mitigated the threat properly" because there is no situation where any religion and threat exist entirely on a one to one basis and the threat cannot be expressed in a way that requires reference to the religion.

If you just try to ban a religion, you improperly exclude members of that religions taht do not represent a threat, and you also miss people who represent substantially the same threat but claim other or no religious affiliation.

427
I've been fascinated by the reports regarding Daesh fighters and aversion to being killed by women. Almost makes opening our front line combat roles to women a valuable strategic move.

428
Pyr, obviously America's greatest threat at this time comes not from DAESH affiliates but from DAESH sympathizers. Boston, San Bernardino, etc are not political affiliates but fellow believers.  As best we can we need to exclude Islamist's to whom the ISIS/DAESH message resonates.
Indeed, and we can make a clear set of standards regarding what's problematic there without systematically discriminating against Muslims or even mention one word about religion, especially as ISIS was so kinds as to declare itself a political state, against whose active subscriopption to which we can discriminate to our hearts content.

429
Khomeini isn't an NGO, PYR. He's a dead head of state whose teachings include a religious Gaea requiring deceit and terrorism against America, and authorizing child molestation and the ducking of goats to be fed to other villages.
Indeed. He's a political entity. Hence the word "or" above between "political entity _or_ NGO" inserted to head off exactly this kind of beside-the-point pedantry.

Though I was expecting to have to deal with it over al Qaeda, which is why I qualified NGO in the first place.

430
If you can test for religion to protect a persecuted people, you can test for religion to exclude religions who murderously persecute others as an article of faith.
In fact, you can test for people who murderously persecute others for _any_ reason without regard to faith. And then you don't need to bring faith into it.

Quote
Pyr, ,do you really want to go on record opposing my exclusion of Daesh death cultists?  Or are you going to strawman me as trying to exclude all Muslims a la Trump?
/
Daesh is an entity unto itself without regard to religion. The fact that it has a nominal religious affiliation is irrelevant. Daesh is not a religion unto itself, and the reason that it comes under scrutiny has nothing to do with its religion, but with its practices.

431
Congress has specifically opened up spots for Jews to immigrate from the USSR and other lands. That's a religious test. 
Was it a religious test or a political persecution test with the fact that their religion is what they were being persecuted for being incidental?

The fact that we've done things on inappropriate lines in the past doesn't make them inappropriate, it's more a testament to the human power of rationalization to bend the meaning of the rules to whatever people want them to be at a given time. I don't think that we should let the fact that people in the past violated what seems to spirit of the rules be an excuse to justify future violations, especially since radicalization and affiliation with political or NGO entities such as ISIS, al Qaeda, the Ayatollah, etc... can be tested for directly without any religious restrictions. It would make sense to ask about certain affiliations based on religion, but that's much, much different than using the religion itself as a qualifying test.

432
It would not, which is why I covered that in my initial response.  There is no bar on free exercise, unless you believe that a non-citizen has a right or entitlement to immigrate.  Now if they were removed for conversion after they arrived, you might be able to swing that argument.
A non-citizen has the right to practice their religion freely. They don't have the right to immigrate, but putting a religious test on immigration does bar them from free practice if they wish to immigrate. There are relevant, legal grounds to deny people that might be dangerous from immigrating. Nominal religion is not one of them because Congress explicitly and the rest of our Government implicitly is restricted from judging them on those grounds, whether they're citizens or not.

The first Amendment isn't a positive right; a direct protection or empowerment of people, it's negative right- a limit on the use of power, so it applies regardless of citizenship.

433
I don't see what the 1A has to do with immigration.

Not on immigration directly, but on the free exercise of religion. A religious test on immigration would be a de facto limit on free exercise.

(Limits based on county of origin, race, political affiliation, etc... are different matters, not relevant to 1st amendment questions.)

434
General Comments / Re: Welcome to the New Ornery American Forums!
« on: December 14, 2015, 10:16:40 AM »
Other than the tread titles, I don't think there's going to be backend content migration. We just have to manually grab what we want to reply to and bring it here.

I do need to remand myself that it's pointless to refresh the tab that I have open to server that purpose when I find the time to, though.

435
I don't think that position is directly supported. But It's not an unreasonable to say that the first amendment implies that protection.

On the other hand this:
Quote
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Seems to be what people cite, which is not really applicable, because I don't think you can bend the concept of "public trust" enough to include immigration status.

Far better to make the argument based on interpretation of the 1st Amendment, even if it's purely a matter of interpretation at that point.

436
General Comments / Re: Welcome to the New Ornery American Forums!
« on: December 13, 2015, 12:19:49 AM »
I'll add my voice to thanks for the effort that went into the upgrade and transition.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]