"Perverse" is a key word in the American processing of the religious dimension of terrorist attacks.
I have a post from mid-June — just after the Orlando massacre — titled "President Obama's Sermon of 2 Perversions."
It happened to be Flag Day — today is Independence Day — and I quoted a line from the Supreme Court's famous case about pledging allegiance to the flag: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion...."
Obama used his position of authority to instruct us about what is orthodox in religion:
Since before I was president, I've been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As president, I have called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great religions.I said:
There are many versions of all of the religions. How is he supposed to know what versions are perversions? It sounds awful: perversion! But how can it mean more than that it's religion that seems bad to him? In which case, it's still religion. It's religion he doesn't like.
पोस्ट्स
११४ टिप्पण्या:
The sweetest sound to him is the Muslim call to prayer.
For a guy who isn't a Muslim cleric and scholar he sure speaks about Islam with authority.
[redacted]
Your reaction to Barry was right. Your reading of "perverse" is right. It's Islam for dhimmis.
[expletive deleted]
Ah, yes, the extended arm, upraised palm salute to the Stars and Stripes. It brings to mind West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, in which the Supreme Court noted that some people objected to this type of salute because it was "too much like Hitler's."
Good thing this terrorist attack didn't have anything to do with Islam.
I'm thinking the victims of the Baghdad bombing were hoping for the same consideration...
Any faith that does not include love as it's basic is ..... well perverse. It's not a religion, it's an ideology.
"One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, “Teacher (Jesus), which is the great commandment in the Law?”. And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
"The Bellamy salute is the salute described by Francis Bellamy, Christian socialist minister and author, to accompany the American Pledge of Allegiance, which he had authored."
Humperdink said...
Any faith that does not include love as it's basic is ..... well perverse. It's not a religion, it's an ideology.
Pure nonsense.
but but but Crusades, and Islam is wonderful. We don't need to say "Radical Islam". What difference could that make? Just words. Never mind all the corruption. Please vote Hillary.
--Obama
Talk about perverted.
Perversion as measured by Prophet Mohammed is all about surrendering to him and his Raiding band of thieves and murderers. Calling that a religion is a perversion of reality. Mohammedism is a war fighting conquest doctrine that always slaughters victims it has captured with great pride and total approval from a hard to please one god that Mohammed copied from Moses.
When they run out of tribes to attack and turn on one another, then they dress up their truces as if they are doing it for the god. But the assholes are only doing it for loot, slaves and women, silly.
Hey Ann why don't you talk to your Althouse Hillbillies? Do you think it is amusing that the rabble you have cultivated engage in racist talk and still accuse our president of being a secret Muslim?
When I was in Arabia, we always launched the KC-135 tanker at 4:30AM, and this was the old "A" model that had water injection.
We were in a hotel about 5 miles off the runway, and you could hear the engines spool up after the water hit, even still on the runway. Whaaaaaahhhhhh, a deep roar.
Down the runway they went, and then they leveled off at 200 feet to pickup airspeed. This noise waking-up the whole city of Riyadh, and timed to occur just before the morning call to prayer.
Than again at 11:30am the second tanker sortie of the day would launch. This was the fun one, these guys would get down with the telephone wires to fly over our swimming pool. Whaaaaahhhhhhhh! Holy shit, all my gizzards would vibrate in my body. The third tanker would blast off at 6:30pm. Basically our orbiting reconnaissance planes needed more gas every 7 hours.
We figured if we had to protect the oil fields during the Iran-Iraq war, then these f'kers could at least hear the sound of freedom three times a day, instead of just that droning crap coming from the mosque speakers!
Obama is a creationist Christian. He should renounce himself, because All the Christians are the real killers.
Perverse!?! Hell, it's Standard Operating Procedure for the Jihadi Fascist Scumbags.
Obama believes that lies uttered to advance Islam and defeat the infidels are acceptable and virtuous.
Ann gets a perverse little tingle in her private parts when she gets her hillbillies on her porch all worked up into a lather with their Muslim hate talk.
It's kind of interesting to see how the PC-elites react when someone migrates or wishes to migrate into their system of authority and thought as was done by the Brexit vote. The PC elites rain down insults on these outsiders; they are utterly unrestrained in their attacks; and they exclude these others as far as possible from the universities. They are far worse in their talk than those who wish to exclude or limit migrants from crossing national boundaries and utterly conceited and self-righteous about their othering. But as we others say: if they didn't have a double standard they would have no standards at all.
God Bless America
According to Pres Erdogan of Turkey, there is no moderate Islam, just Islam. Presumably the same applies to perverse Islam.
I do not recall government officials opining on the validity of religious doctrine in the pre-Obama era, except W and his famous religion of peace utterance. Nowadays, it seems like just another talking point that nitwit liberals (including government officials, high and petty) spew out after every domestic overseas contingency operation. I would not expect Obama to be familiar with the U.S. Constitution and SCOTUS opinions, but certainly other government officials have at least a rudimentary education. "Fundamentally transformed! ", as some wise blogger is always pointing out. It seems Islam is really stress testing the Constitution.
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion...."
Unless you are a Dem state AG, then you can mandate the thinking and speech of people at will.
Unless you are in the Navy. AGW has become a "religious test" in the Military under Mabus.
"a hard to please one god that Mohammed copied from Moses."
Yes, I am convinced that Islam is a Jewish heresy. Mohammed copied the Jewish religion and expected Jews to flock to his "improved" version. When they ignored him, he got angry and the rest is history.
There is a guy named Tom Holland, who has written about this history, and is now in hiding from angry Muzzies looking to chop his head off.
His book started as serious history. He did not realize how much he offended the Religion of Peace by inquiring into its origins.
From a review:
It is essentially an attempt to present a historical account of Mohammed and the early history of Islam, as opposed to the idealized version subsequently enshrined in the religion that was founded in the name of the prophet. In order to achieve this, the author traces the development of the three major religions of antiquity - Christianity, Judaism and the Zoroastrianism of the Sassanian Persian empire. This forms the essential context for explaining the rapid spread of Islam on the back of the Arab conquest of the ancient east early in the seventh century. He describes how some form of monotheism was by this time already pervasive in most of what we call the middle east.
It's quite good.
This is how genocide works. Their motivations and actions are the same as other evil genocidal murders throughout history.
Based on the fact that Muslims kill more Muslims than Infidels, I believe that all Muslims consider all other Muslim versions to be perversions.
Christian high-horse thinking for sure!
Obama "does not like" ANY religion; for him, the State is the god. That happens to correlate better with Mohammedanism--as written--than to the Judaeo-Christian culture, but to Obama, what detracts from the State is inimical.
Do Catholics think Protestantism is perverted Christianity? And vice versa? Who can mediate these disputes? Everyone who tries is just claiming his version is the right one.
All you can do is step back into the zone of ideology and say what's bad the same way you'd say Nazi ideology is bad. No special kid-gloves for religion.
But we feel that religion is different, and religious ideas deserve special respect, even though religion makes ideology especially dangerous. It authorizes irrationality and you might feel especially compelled to step up and do something truly evil if you think it's what God demands.
Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”
God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin’ you better run”
Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
God says, “Out on Highway 61”
True religions, peace, economics, law, whence the arc of history bends...
This guy knows everything...
"The Bellamy salute is the salute described by Francis Bellamy, Christian socialist minister and author, to accompany the American Pledge of Allegiance, which he had authored."
Edward Bellamy, socialist author of the fascist science fiction novel Looking Backward, was a cousin of Francis Bellamy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bellamy
...and then Ann pulls out one of her ten Bob Dylan quotes...
"once written, twice…"
Please identify the race that is under discussion in order for any of the above to count as racism.
Once written, twice... said...
Hey Ann why don't you talk to your Althouse Hillbillies? Do you think it is amusing that the rabble you have cultivated engage in racist talk and still accuse our president of being a secret Muslim?
7/4/16, 9:43 AM
Preserved so the delete is not an option.
Obama's a pervert.
And, in Baghdad, ISIS (who are Suuni Muslims) blew up mainly 142+ Shia Muslims - no separation of faiths and no questions asked.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/04/baghdad-blast-death-toll-rises-to-142-pm-orders-tighter-security-checks
Ann Althouse said...
"But we feel that religion is different, and religious ideas deserve special respect, even though religion makes ideology especially dangerous."
The notion that religious ideas deserve special respect, is, in fact, a perversion of the idea exemplified by the First Amendment, which is that religious ideas are so irrational and pernicious that those who espouse them must never be allowed to wield the power of the State.
From WSJ:"As usual with Islamic State, this attack was distinguished by savagery and propaganda. Seven terrorists stormed the cafe Friday night and demanded that patrons recite verses of the Quran. Those who failed—including nine Italians, seven Japanese, two Indians and possibly one American—were tortured and hacked to pieces. The killers then spent the night posting their atrocities on social media and lecturing Muslims on Western moral pollution. Six of the seven were killed when authorities stormed the cafe the next morning, and one was captured.
Police quickly identified the attackers as Bangladeshis, mostly well-educated and from wealthy families. So much, once again, for the theory that poverty and hopelessness are the cause of terrorism. Islamic State is a religious and ideological movement of Muslim fanatics."
Perverse just means turned away, from vertere, to turn.
As Someone said, "Barack Obama, the defender of the Moslem faith".
Interesting thing is that at some point he called Isis "conservative".
Jupiter:
What you wrote is thoughtless babble.
The point of the First Amendment is to prohibit the state from intruding on a purely private realm. That is why the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law…" and not "Religion must be excluded from…"
Your bigotry is showing.
I have a tag! It's like a double holiday now.
"All you can do is step back into the zone of ideology and say what's bad the same way you'd say Nazi ideology is bad. No special kid-gloves for religion."
Honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you express it some other way?
To "pervert" something is to turn it away from, or against, its purpose. Therefore, a thing can only be "perverted" if it has a purpose. The clear purpose of the First Amendment was to avoid the violence which had long wracked European nations when the power of the State was used to support a particular religion. The idea of sexual perversion assumes that sex has reproduction as its purpose, a rather dubious proposition in the current state of biology.
It seems likely that the people who invented Islam intended it to aid the spread of their power. One might deem that purpose to have died with those who originally held it. But I suppose we might say that a religion, like a gun, retains its purpose when it changes hands. From that perspective, it is the peaceful practice of Islam that is a perversion. Islam is a gangster religion, and its purpose is to recruit violent young men by the promise of booty, and to use them to secure that booty.
Blogger Birkel said...
"Jupiter: ... Your bigotry is showing."
I have noticed that people who can find no fault with your reasoning, but nonetheless do not like your conclusions, will often use this term "bigot". What, if anything, does it mean?
Actually, what the 1st Amendment says is that the central government shall not interfere with the state and local governments in matters of religion.
Justice Hugo L. Black turned that on its head, and the current state of affairs is a result of changing SCOTUS interpretations; not that the text of the amendment has changed.
bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself
The definition is clear.
You can prefer to exclude religion from your own life and I support your freedom to do so and to advocate for the same behavior from others. What you wrote above (...religious ideas are so irrational and pernicious that those who espouse them must never be allowed to wield the power of the State.) is, however, an effort to deny religious people the same opportunity to "petition the government for redress of grievances" that every citizen of the United States.
And that is exactly the power that the First Amendment affirms no man should have over another.
Failing a simpler explanation, I believe you have prejudged religious thinking as irrational and pernicious, as you stated in your own post. That is textbook bigotry.
Any other commonly used words you need defined will be my pleasure to help you understand.
When Obama speaks "authoritatively" on Islam or the Constitution, whatever he actually knows is beside the point. What he says is what he believes will advance his beloved cause, the ideological religion that goes, for now, by the name Progressive. Any truth found it what he says in incidental.
"What, if anything, does it mean?"
In this case, I think it means your comment about the First Amendment was nonsensical.
Hagar:
That is an artifact of the "Incorporation Doctrine" of the 14th Amendment which applied the Bill of Rights to the states, as I am sure you know.
I cannot see how the 14th could be interpreted otherwise to achieve its intended, desired and desirable results, but perhaps you can direct me to thoughtful analysis on that point.
What makes people so sure that the members of ISIL actually are motivated by religion or are even religious? Maybe they just like to pretend. How would you distinguish between a religion and a bunch of deceptive people trying to look religious?
" ISIS (who are Suuni Muslims) blew up mainly 142+ Shia Muslims "
Yes, we are in the midst of an Islamic civil war that began in 658 AD with the assassination of Ali.
It would be all right with me if we let them kill each other and kept them away from us. Instead, the insane left wants to import the killers. There was some excuse when oil was present in Muslim lands but we are now capable of our own energy independence.
Birkel said...
"bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself"
Actually, I thought I was tolerating you fairly well. I just don't happen to agree with you. Can you tolerate that?
It's pretty simple, but understandably hard for a right-winger to get through her thick head. Tell Muslims that the terrorists have gone astray from doctrine, and you maintain their support in catching them. Demonize all Muslims because the politician tells them that the religion itself is bad, and then you lose their support.
But I'm sure you numbskulls will find even more interesting ways to get us all killed, so if this explanation/"version" falls on deaf ears, so will all the others. I forgot, you had a war to fight, if not to win.
Blogger Paco Wové said...
"In this case, I think it means your comment about the First Amendment was nonsensical."
I had thought it was generally understood that the First Amendment prohibition of Establishment was motivated by revulsion at the religious wars which caused so much suffering in Europe in the centuries prior to the American Revolution, and a desire that such disturbances should not arise in the New World. I am amazed to learn that this view is controversial.
Instruct me. Who wrote the Establishment Clause, and why?
Jupiter:
You may not have your own facts. You are wrong about the First Amendment. If you do not wish to be less ignorant and less intolerant, fare thee well.
The United States did not really become one nation until the Civil War settled that question.
At the time of the Revolution, Pennsylvania had its Quakers, Rhode Island its Baptists, Maryland largely Catholic, and so on, and there was considerable apprehension that a "central government" dominated by Anglicans would try to establish their church as the official church of the Federation.
R&B thinks we need the extremely questionable added 'support' from muslims in the US (almost all of who if we ratchet up the social disapproval and say why, will be *more* likely, not less, to rat out bombmakers/shooters/etc) more than we need to not have the same millions of added muslims Europe is currently enjoying.
I do agree that we should be warm+loving+human to people who already have a right to be in the US. But we must be as mean as necessary to stop the immigration disasters advocated by Obama and Hillary. We *must*.
All the projections about great harm due to *our* rudeness ... tou helpless, beaten dogs. You're just going to double down, and double down ...
And Birkel, you are entirely right; an "artifact" it is.
(you, obviously, not 'tou')
Compare and contrast:
"religious ideas are so irrational and pernicious that those who espouse them must never be allowed to wield the power of the State."
"the First Amendment prohibition of Establishment was motivated by revulsion at ... religious wars"
Hagar:
I am genuinely interested how the 14th could be interpreted otherwise and still achieve its undeniable goals (not all the ones tacked on since).
kafirsplaining islam: no guys, that's *perverse*. that's a perversion of the real islam. the religion of peace and nike and baywatch.
So, Paco, you agree with the second statement, but not the first?
Let's narrow this down a bit. Are you saying religious ideas are rational? All of them, or just yours?
And the wars they caused merit revulsion, but the ideas are not pernicious?
Mary Beth said...
I have a tag! It's like a double holiday now.
Welcome to the elite club.
I got my tag in 2008. Perhaps there are other posters with earlier dates. Not counting Nina here...I think she got a tag in 2005. I did see a post that mentioned Bruce Hayden (whose comments I like very much) in 2007, but he didn't get a tag till 2011. Sorry Bruce :)
Though I think I beat meade. He has a lot more. a very lot, but his earliest tag I saw was mid-2011. not definitive by any means. they just keep scrolling by.
perhaps we can get ann to do another tags post like
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/07/all-those-tags.html#more
Jupiter:
You asserted something about the purpose of the First Amendment that is ahistorical.
It is not whether anybody agrees with your interpretation of religion, but whether your interpretation is at odds with the stated reasons for adopting the Bill of Rights.
And it is your personal animus toward religion that gave rise to the bigotry you will not admit, but readily display.
I'm reaching for a Grand Unified Theory to explain the underlying motivation of all the privileged adolescent scumbags of the earth. It seems to me that a goodly fraction of the children of the wealthy have an overwhelming need to demonstrate how much more righteous they are than their parents. We thus find the well born children of pious Anglicans turning to Rome during the Oxford movement. This was relatively harmless, but it picked up steam...... The children of well heeled civil right attorneys joined the Weathermen. The BLM movement is comprised mostly of kids who went to good schools in expensive SUV's. All of these annoying snots wish not so much to change the world but to show how hypocritical and inadequate their parents are and how.much more authentic and righteous they are in comparison to them.
Jupiter: "I have noticed that people who can find no fault with your reasoning, but nonetheless do not like your conclusions, will often use this term "bigot". What, if anything, does it mean?"
The fault with your reasoning is that it does not displace history and you apparently have not noticed. Your blind spot may stem from an unreasonable aversion to religion and its adherents, that is, bigotry. Alternatively, you may just be ignorant of non-revisionist history.
Interpretations of the Establishment Clause by the SCOTUS, while differing slightly, uniformly interpret it as favoring freedom as against a federally, later any government, sponsored or imposed religion.
That freedom itself was sufficient motivation for the Clause. Your extrapolation reflecting the faddish new atheist revisionism - that war and suffering inevitably derive from religion - is, as other commenters have stated, nonsense.
Jupiter said...
So, Paco, you agree with the second statement, but not the first?
Let's narrow this down a bit. Are you saying religious ideas are rational? All of them, or just yours?
And the wars they caused merit revulsion, but the ideas are not pernicious?
7/4/16, 11:48 AM"
First start off be defining what is religious and what isn't. It gets complicated.
Birkel,
I'm still waiting to hear your theory regarding the motivation for the First Amendment.
I just realized that the reason you call me a bigot, is that I express my supposed personal animus to religion with a keyboard, not a machete. My mistake. I should have burned someone at the stake, so you'd know I was a like-minded soul.
BTW, what is with the stack of cheese slices?
Obama and others using the word "perverse" in this sense are just falling into their regular habit of attempting to isolate and demonize and ridicule the Other, in order to be able to attack the created demon rather than the reality.
This works in public relations, as followers of Alinskyite Rules for Radicals will recognize, because control of public perception is the goal of that isolation, demonization and ridicule.
However, verbally attacking a demonized but real opponent, who wants to do you harm, rather than physically attacking the reality, the actual opponent, still affects only the public perception of the demonized opponent.
The actual opponents are still able to pursue their aims unimpeded by the US public perception of the straw-man demon so created.
This seems to me a signal failure of Obama's methodology, in that he is trying to change public perception rather than dealing with an actual threat, but hey, I didn't get elected President twice using Rules for Radicals, so what do I know.
Jupiter:
Your comment at 12:02 PM is a fine example of bigotry. You really are making this very easy for everybody (but you) to see.
The motivation of the First Amendment was espoused by the people who moved others to ratify the document. Read Federalist #10 and #51 as a primer. You see, I don't have to impose my modern sensibilities on past events. They helpfully laid bare their reasoning that run contrary to your ahistorical beliefs.
The goal was to protect citizens from intrusion against their inalienable rights as against the federal government, aka Congress.
Blogger William said...
I'm reaching for a Grand Unified Theory to explain the underlying motivation of all the privileged adolescent scumbags of the earth. It seems to me that a goodly fraction of the children of the wealthy have an overwhelming need to demonstrate how much more righteous they are than their parents. We thus find the well born children of pious Anglicans turning to Rome during the Oxford movement. This was relatively harmless, but it picked up steam...... The children of well heeled civil right attorneys joined the Weathermen. The BLM movement is comprised mostly of kids who went to good schools in expensive SUV's. All of these annoying snots wish not so much to change the world but to show how hypocritical and inadequate their parents are and how.much more authentic and righteous they are in comparison to them.
7/4/16, 11:57 AM"
William please be humble. I don't say that as a slight but if one of the greatest minds whoever lived Albert Einstein who tried but failed to a unifying theory of nature which is a much simpler thing to do than finding a grand theory of unity and limitation principle of human stupidity what makes you think you can? Still, I admire your effort.
Not perverse if Islam had a lot to do with the attacks... Which it does.
The "Incoropration Doctrine" was not discovered to reside within the 14th Amendment until the 1920s - 60 years after the amemndment was passed.
Even so, it would only oblige the state legislatures as well as Congress to "pass no laws ...."
IOW, if the City of Belen has a statue of a creche on the plaza and you don't like it, you can petition the city council to have it removed, write letters to the editor, etc., but what you can't do is go to court and demand that a judge order it removed.
You have no constitutional right not to be offended by whatever sight of the day you might feel offends your delicate sensibilities, though it may plase your fellow citizens or they just plain don't care that much.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Tell Muslims that the terrorists have gone astray from doctrine, and you maintain their support in catching them."
What a good idea! There's no way they'll see through that subterfuge! We'll trick them into not murdering us!
"The BLM movement is comprised mostly of kids who went to good schools in expensive SUV's."
Yes and they discovered they could not keep up with the hated whites so they are going to tear down the place and rebuild it as a "Black Studes" program.,
Hagar:
The 14th was adopted for the express purpose of guaranteeing newly freed slaves the full panoply of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If the Incorporation Doctrine did not exist, how would the 14th do what it was passed to do?
Are you suggesting what was needed was another Constitutional Amendment? Assuming one could be passed to do what the Incorporation Doctrine does, proscribe laws by states that intrude on fundamental freedoms, I would heartily agree that such is the appropriate remedy.
However, assuming the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant to accomplish what they said they mean to accomplish, I cannot see that the Incorporation Doctrine is an affront to the 14th Amendment.
1. Islam is NOT a religion; But, is a criminal-terrorist movement-or-ideology not far
different from the KKK or Nazi-Party (Sharing the same principles of hate-of-Jews and all real religions, use of violence and the other horrors taught in Mein Kampf and the Koran;
2. Islam (Like the KKK, Mafia and the SS brand of Nazism) has/had a very thin veneer of religion
coupe @ 9:45am I like your story.
Islam is not a religion of peace IMO. Peaceful people do not behave like the various Islamic groups that are headquartered in the ME but are growing all over the globe.
Jupiter said...
Ann Althouse said...
"But we feel that religion is different, and religious ideas deserve special respect, even though religion makes ideology especially dangerous."
The notion that religious ideas deserve special respect, is, in fact, a perversion of the idea exemplified by the First Amendment, which is that religious ideas are so irrational and pernicious that those who espouse them must never be allowed to wield the power of the State.
7/4/16, 10:40 AM
Actually your comment is the perversion of the document's intent. First the founders wanted to avoid the European concept of a State Church and secondly the foundational documents and concepts make no sense without relying on God. Otherwise its all within the State and nothing outside the State. That should be enough to give pause to an intelligent atheist, not so much as a reason to believe in God but enough to not want to ban religion if for no other reason as a measure of one's own safety.
Jupiter: "My mistake. I should have burned someone at the stake, so you'd know I was a like-minded soul." 7/4/16, 12:02 PM
Oops. Suspicions of bigotry confirmed!
Three bombings in kingdom today.
What a good idea! There's no way they'll see through that subterfuge! We'll trick them into not murdering us!
Better than tricking them into murdering us like your hero W. did, dumbass.
It's not subterfuge to be nice to the people who report harms to the country more frequently than any other group. I mean, assuming you don't want those harms to materialize. But I guess you do. Terrorist attacks are good for Trump, so I'm told. Presidential politics over party, when it comes to you guys.
Jupiter said, "The clear purpose of the First Amendment was to avoid the violence which had long wracked European nations when the power of the State was used to support a particular religion."
In point of fact many of the original states had their own state religion. For example Maryland was officially Catholic and only Catholics were eligible to be elected to office within Maryland.
People at the time the first amendment was proposed and then passed didn't think it was intended to bar this sort of thing.
Under the Constitution, the states of the united states were allowed to be just as oppressive as any other nation in the world with a few rather important exceptions.
The constitutional restrictions on government power are mainly aimed at the federal government, not the state governments. Thus the constitution lists all the things the federal government is allowed to do and anything not listed, is not allowed. Whereas for the states it lists the things they are not allowed to do, and anything not listed, is allowed. Notice the reversal there.
It's clever and I think the underlying expectation is that, yes, some state governments are going to be bad, repressive and even evil, but we just have to allow for that because it is in the human nature for this sort of thing to happen. One way the Constitution tries to protect against our bad tendencies, is by giving everyone the right to freely move between states, and there is the expectation that as long as the national government is very limited in power it is improbable that the whole country will go bad simultaneously.
With thirteen states, there would always be some states that were at least somewhat problematic, including sometimes from a religious perspective, but there would always be other, better alternatives within the US.
Progressives have long argued against this. I think because they believe there is only one right way to be and anything else is evil. Plus I cynically suspect that they really don't want to see side-by-side practical comparisons.
If I remember correctly, that 1st Amendment case was overruled a few years later. You might want to look it up just to be sure.
@Birkel,
A law, or a constitutional provision, prohibiting the City of Belen (Spanish for Bethlehem) from having a creche on the plaza is in itself "a law respecting an establishment of a religion, ..."
See the problem?
And anyway, this has nothing to do with securing citizenship rights for the former slaves, nor does the right to incorporate your business, or any of the other wonderful things that the Supremes have found flitting about within the 14th Amendment over the years.
Yes, Hagar, I do see the problem.
But I wondered if you had an answer to my query.
Obama used his position of authority to instruct us about what is orthodox in religion
In his defense, he also uses it to decide which forms of Christianity are worthy as well.
"Rhythm and Balls":
After you see something and say something, I look forward to CAIR calling you an Islamophobe, getting you fired and made a social pariah as you are sued into bankruptcy.
Then you can tell me about reporting harms with a little more insight.
However, assuming the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant to accomplish what they said they mean to accomplish, I cannot see that the Incorporation Doctrine is an affront to the 14th Amendment.
And anyway, this has nothing to do with securing citizenship rights for the former slaves, nor does the right to incorporate your business, or any of the other wonderful things that the Supremes have found flitting about within the 14th Amendment over the years
The incorporation doctrine is not about incorporating a business, it is about extending the protection of the Bill of Rights to include not just the federal government, but the state governments. It is the one thing "inferred" from the 14th Amendment that can be defended. when the Bill or Rights was written, it was legal for states to have a state religion. Now it is not.
That being said, there is no way the men who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment meant it to confer birthright citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens, legalize sodomy and contraception, or create a Constitutional right to an abortion.
LOL. Birkel's taken to warning American Muslims that they risk having CAIR denounce them as "Islamophobes" (and worse) for reporting terrorist activity. Good times.
Have a good one, Birkel. Don't ever change.
I'm enjoying the 4th. It's possible I might read the endless plethora of straw men you'll surely come up with to untwist yourself out of this one, but can't guarantee it. Have a nice 4th thinking about how much CAIR scares you!
Laters -
Interesting picture of the kids raising their arms in a salute to the flag. It appears that the salute the Nazis adopted is not all that unique, but has a long history of being used as a show of respect. If those historical movies are at all accurate the salute went back to at least Roman times. Of course in the USA-Of-Hypersensitivity we are now supposed to associate the Pledge of Allegiance with Nazism. The next thing you know those kids in the picture were killing Jews and invading Poland.
I have always had a minor aversion to the Pledge because pledging your allegiance to a flag struck me as strange. However since the Left has raised disdain for the Republic to such heights that defending America is now viewed as being on the same plane as Nazism by all right-thinking people, and that patriotism is for losers, I feel much better about the Pledge. It’s a quick-and-easy way to distinguish between the people who hate America, its history and its people, and those who love it.
People need to remember that both Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett, his top advisor, spent happy portions of their childhoods living in Muslim countries. I strongly suspect that their view of Islam is colored by their many decades-ago experiences, and they are having trouble processing 21st century reality.
Laters -
Don't let the door -
"Rhythm and Balls":
You are either a Muslim or you lack reading comprehension skills or both.
Try again, this time with logic.
Gabriel:
Did you mix two sets of quotes without attribution?
Hagar:
You are confusing the 13th and 14th Amendments. Sad.
"As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations."
So, what did I get confused about again?
"BTW, what is with the stack of cheese slices?"
Joke. Metaphor.
I referred to how Americans process things for our comfortable consumption.
Packaging, processing...
American processed cheese.
details left out of the picture,
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/dhaka-restaurant-attackers-followed-controversial-indian-islamic-preacher-zakir-nayek-2893714/
So, what did I get confused about again?
Look,I'm not trying to embarrass anybody, but the incorporation clause does not refer to corporations. Trust me.
OK, I give. The marvelous things SCOTUS found within the 14th A. were about the rights and powers pertaining to corporations; not the right to incorporate to start with.
I don't know about "ditzy," but certainly a mind capable of an unusual range of idea associations.
BTW, if SkiQueen can sell 50 cents' worth of 15% goat cheese or $8 and tax, someone in Wisconsin ought to see a business opportunity there. A boutique market sure (though it is sold in Kroger's), but at a right fair profit margin.
No, Hagar.
Incorporation Doctrine refers to holding the various 50 states to the same standard as the federal government w/rt the Constitutional protections of individual rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The federal government was bound by the Bill of Rights.
The same rights are incorporated against the states.
You are welcome.
A doctrine is not a clause, and there is no "clause." It is just something some justices thought they saw in there, so they made up a "doctrine."
"American processed cheese."
A sterile, petroleum based, industrial grade, food product that never loses it's flavor even when wet! Good for the whole family. Good for You!
Sorry.
Processed cheese was developed by the Swiss in 1911 according to Wikipedia. While it does not have the flavor of most unprocessed cheeses, most who dismiss it are snobs who want to one-up the plebs. Unprocessed cheeses come in such a wide variety of flavors and textures that people who compare the processed cheese to un-processed cheese have to be asked: compared to what? If you want a sharp cheddar, for God’s sake buy it. But I’ll bet that most of the cheeseburgers consumed yesterday were made with processed cheese. Of course most references to processed cheese are simply ways of establishing moral, financial and gastronomic superiority.
For a guy who isn't a Muslim cleric and scholar he sure speaks about Islam with authority.
He imams the shit out of stuff.
Good thing this terrorist attack didn't have anything to do with Islam. The White House must be greatly relieved.
The killed probably had it coming.
Also, the shooters were probably Republicans. Somehow.
Ann gets a perverse little tingle in her private parts when she gets her hillbillies on her porch all worked up into a lather with their Muslim hate talk.
Muslims, yet again, slaughter infidels and all that matters is that Althouse posters aren't thrilled that Muslims killed more infidels. Got it.
This is how genocide works. Their motivations and actions are the same as other evil genocidal murders throughout history.
Given his hatred of Jews, fondness of Muslims, and desire to make everybody believe as he did, makes one wonder how hated Hitler would be on college campuses today.
It's not subterfuge to be nice to the people who report harms to the country more frequently than any other group
Plenty of Klansmen helped lead to the dissolution of the KKK. We didn't sit there and discuss how kind and noble the KKK were during the process.
Equilateral triangles.
(We did not use all these terms that you learn in American high schools in Norway.)
Given his hatred of Jews, fondness of Muslims, and desire to make everybody believe as he did, makes one wonder how hated Hitler would be on college campuses today.
Himmler could run as a Democrat and 53% of the country would vote for him.
Hitler's economic policies were right up there too among our friends on the other side of the aisle.
47%, Rusty. 47%.
A supreme court justice recently wrote a concurring opinion that addressed a relevant question using the pre-1925 understanding of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and further analysis - and without resorting to the progressive era (apparently selective) incorporation doctrine purported to be found in the due process clause of that section. It's worth reading to see another way to handle Section 1 in a manner that could allow some continuing recognition of the separate sovereignty of the several states and the federal government.
Discussion: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/mcdonald-thomas-concurrence-on-privileges-or-immunities/
Text of concurring opinion (at 67/214 in pdf): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा