[The Immortal Goon]

The fact that the Founders sonquickly broke into "tribes" seems to take the premise out of this.

At no point did the Federalists sit down and whine that the Anti-Federalists were becoming a religion.

Further, you are conflating British history and bias with American. There were few Catholics of note in the US; in fact at roughly the same time John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice was arguing Catholics could never be Americans, the Founding Fathers were finishing a treaty promising that Americans were incapable of disliking Muslims in the Treaty of Tripoli.

Regardless, the First Amendment was for the government to ignore this stuff, not create some kind of arbitrary even-footing for butt hurt political factions.

And if it was, I think the left has a lot better case about having been systematically murderered for a hundred years, then what ever center-right party feels like there's not enough television about them, or whatever pathetic feelings they want the government to rectify for them.

[SolarCross]

The fact that the Founders sonquickly broke into "tribes" seems to take the premise out of this.

At no point did the Federalists sit down and whine that the Anti-Federalists were becoming a religion.

Does it? federalism vs anti-federalist seems like a policy divide and not so much an identity divide. Policy divides are weak tea in comparison to tribal identity divides. In the run up to war with Germany in the 30s British administrators had basically two policy directions on the table with regards to dealing with Germany: appeasement or confrontation but they are all still brits batting for the same team. There may be some strong feelings on one side or the other of a policy divide but whose side your on trumps that. Sometimes policy can become pretty hardcoded into a tribal identity, like the policy of forbidding abortion and even contaception is pretty much an immutable pillar for the Catholic identity, it ain't easy for that policy to be modified and still be Catholic. So confusing a policy with a tribe is understandable.

Further, you are conflating British history and bias with American. There were few Catholics of note in the US; in fact at roughly the same time John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice was arguing Catholics could never be Americans, the Founding Fathers were finishing a treaty promising that Americans were incapable of disliking Muslims in the Treaty of Tripoli.

No the Wars of Religion raged across Europe off and on for centuries, Britain was not unaffected there was the English Civil War and before that Henry the VIII's reformation, but it was a pan-european conflagration from one end to the other. The founders were substantially european people primarily British in origin in a new world so they knew they were potential carriers for that conflict, they were geographically removed but not so much culturally removed. They did want to avoid all that, the 1st amendment was their solution.

Regardless, the First Amendment was for the government to ignore this stuff, not create some kind of arbitrary even-footing for butt hurt political factions.

It is the same thing. The even footing comes from ignoring this stuff, avoiding throwing petrol on the fire by playing favourite. As tactics go it is not terrible.

And if it was, I think the left has a lot better case about having been systematically murderered for a hundred years, then what ever center-right party feels like there's not enough television about them, or whatever pathetic feelings they want the government to rectify for them.

Which left? I guess you mean marxists or fellow travellers like the wobblies? Sure they / you can be sore over dead activists but none of you are innocent given the chance you would, and have, spilled plenty of blood for your tribe. Unless you are rooting for the blue church as a proxy for your more particular gang (they do wear Che t-shirts apparently unironically whilst furiously tap out their hate of capitalism from their beloved iphones to their facebook page) then you don't have a dog in this fight, so why do you take one side over the other?

[The Immortal Goon]

Does it? federalism vs anti-federalist seems like a policy divide and not so much an identity divide.

If anything, it was an identity divide more than a policy divide in practice.

In European terms, it was whether the United States was going to try to keep peace with the British (Federalist); or join a world revolution to overthrow the institution of the monarchy (anti-federalist).

Jefferson made his position clear: if it took killing almost everybody in every country, the French Revolution (which he saw as a continuation of the American Revolution) must succeed and become global:

The Jacobins saw this, and that the expunging that officer was of absolute necessity, and the Nation was with them in opinion, for however they might have been formerly for the constitution framed by the first assembly, they were come over from their hope in it, and were now generally Jacobins. In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent. These I deplore as much as any body, and shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree. A few of their cordial friends met at their hands5 the fate of enemies. But time and truth will rescue and embalm their memories, while their posterity will be enjoying that very liberty for which they would never have hesitated to offer up their lives. The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are really those of 99 in an hundred of our citizens. The universal feasts, and rejoicings which have lately been had on account of the successes of the French shewed the genuine effusions of their hearts.

He also cut apart the Bible to show that Jesus wasn't divine, something that the Federalists would have found...Questionable.

If Obama had sat in the Oval Office cutting apart a Bible or openly advocated that the Islamic State should destroy everyone in the world except for two people in each country, then we could compare the two time periods. This divide doesn't at all compare to the Founders.

No the Wars of Religion raged across Europe off and on for centuries, Britain was not unaffected there was the English Civil War and before that Henry the VIII's reformation, but it was a pan-european conflagration from one end to the other. The founders were substantially european people primarily British in origin in a new world so they knew they were potential carriers for that conflict, they were geographically removed but not so much culturally removed. They did want to avoid all that, the 1st amendment was their solution.

This in no way whatsoever changes any of the facts I brought up. John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice, thought that Catholics shouldn't be able to officially be Americans; and that the same Founders were saying it was virtually impossible for Americans to not like Muslims.

It is the same thing. The even footing comes from ignoring this stuff, avoiding throwing petrol on the fire by playing favourite. As tactics go it is not terrible.

So anybody whining about their hurt feelings gets to have the Feds come in and make sure the mean people hurting their feelings aren't acting too much like bullies?

Obviously not. Even Jefferson, in advocating a holocaust of horrifying proportions, thought that this would be a stupid interpretation of the first amendment.

Which left? I guess you mean marxists or fellow travellers like the wobblies? Sure they / you can be sore over dead activists but none of you are innocent given the chance you would, and have, spilled plenty of blood for your tribe.

Obviously.

You're blubbering about your feelings that the current Feds are being too nice to someone because of nothing in particular, your feelings.

Meanwhile, this is what happens to us in broad daylight, well within living memory:



I wish I could believe that you were such a pathetic wretch that you need daddy government to come out and fellate you to show you what a good boy you've been for being a victim.

But the worst your "tribe" has had to endure is butthurt feelings. If anybody's going to get daddy government to come in and say an ideology has become too much of religion, I propose we start looking at capitalism as an ideology.

But that won't happen, and you won't impartially agree, because this entire subject is a laughably bogus attempt for rightwingers to feel a victims yet again.

[SolarCross]

I wish I could believe that you were such a pathetic wretch that you need daddy government to come out and fellate you to show you what a good boy you've been for being a victim.

But the worst your "tribe" has had to endure is butthurt feelings. If anybody's going to get daddy government to come in and say an ideology has become too much of religion, I propose we start looking at capitalism as an ideology.

But that won't happen, and you won't impartially agree, because this entire subject is a laughably bogus attempt for rightwingers to feel a victims yet again.

I think I mentioned that I am a foreigner to this quarrel between the Blue and the Red Churches so neither are my tribe. I am English or British person living in England I don't thump bibles, I don't own a gun, I don't listen to country music, I don't drive a pick-up truck, I had to look up nascar racing on the internet to have any clue what it is, I like Darwin and Dawkins better than I like Jeebus. The red tribe are remotely foreign exotics to me. You might as well accuse me of being a partisan Kalahari Bushman. I probably have more in common with the Blue Church actually though their SJWs are too comical.

[The Immortal Goon]

I proposed that, "we start looking at capitalism as an ideology" in the form of a religion and meant to accuse you of being a capitalist.

You, rightfully, seem to take offense to this. But for reasons that have to do more with your perceived aesthetics to a region of the United States more than capitalism as an ideology (or religion, if we're going to use the ridiculous premise of this thread).

If this is supposed to be using the First Amendment well out or proportion to interfere in keeping certain cultural and non-political and non-religious things alive, then I'm sure the Native Americans would love to have daddy government come in and start forcibly making an even playing field for their culture out there.

But they won't, and shouldn't, because the entire premise of the First Amendment is that the government won't interfere with any of that stuff. Not go out there and become social Levellers.

[SolarCross]

I proposed that, "we start looking at capitalism as an ideology" in the form of a religion and meant to accuse you of being a capitalist.

You, rightfully, seem to take offense to this. But for reasons that have to do more with your perceived aesthetics to a region of the United States more than capitalism as an ideology (or religion, if we're going to use the ridiculous premise of this thread).

If this is supposed to be using the First Amendment well out or proportion to interfere in keeping certain cultural and non-political and non-religious things alive, then I'm sure the Native Americans would love to have daddy government come in and start forcibly making an even playing field for their culture out there.

But they won't, and shouldn't, because the entire premise of the First Amendment is that the government won't interfere with any of that stuff. Not go out there and become social Levellers.

I shouldn't be surprised, you literally cannot participate in any thread without waving your obscure old timey cult around as if it was relevant to anything.

This thread is really about the blue church vs red church, neither has anything but tenuous fashionable connections to marx's cult; the red church signal their virtue and tribal allegience by hating on "commies", a habit they probably picked up during the McCarthy period, while the Blues to distinguish themselves from the Reds wear a che t-shirt in college and pretend to care about some obscure oppressed tribe lost in the congo (is it?) called the proletariat or somesuch. It is all a show though, just signaling, as much so as talking up muscle cars and bicycles. Your average red is literally nothing to fear from any commies, he will likely never even meet one in the course of his entire life while the blues will get a job with a fat salary on leaving college and spend the rest of his life eating artisan cheese, buying a private pension invested in the stock market and owning fashionable consumer electronics like the Iphone. It goes all the way down the line.. the Blue Church comes out against gun ownership, not because there is anything actually wrong with that, plausible arguments can be made either way but to select only one side in defiance of the opposite arguments is a matter of displaying tribal identity. The Blue Church signals against gun ownership only because the Red signal for it and in turn the Reds signal all the more loudly because the Blues signal against it. The same goes for Jesus. The fastest way for the Blues to switch Reds on to Darwin (if they actually wanted to do that which they don't) would be for the Blues to come out as born again christians.

But you only want to talk about Calvinism.. or sorry which cult was it again? oh right Marxism, because Calvinism, or whatever it was, is relevant to everything when you are a Calvinist.

[The Immortal Goon]

This thread is really about the blue church vs red church

There is no "blue church" or "red church." This is rhetorical nonsense you invented to hold up the ridiculous premise that the American First Amendment should not only reverse meanings to interfere with religion, but interfere with your silly conception of what it feels like to have a political ideology.

the red church signal their virtue and tribal allegience by hating on "commies", a habit they probably picked up during the McCarthy period, while the Blues to distinguish themselves from the Reds wear a che t-shirt in college and pretend to care about some obscure oppressed tribe lost in the congo (is it?) called the proletariat or somesuch.

Citations?

Or are you just explaining your sad feelings?

If you have no citations, how do you propose that the FBI, or whoever, regulate what people are interested in, "some obscure oppressed tribe lost in the congo [sic]?"

How do you think the census should measure how much someone, "hates on commies," so that we can reverse the First Amendment to comply with your sad feelings?

Your average red is literally nothing to fear from any commies, he will likely never even meet one in the course of his entire life while the blues will get a job with a fat salary on leaving college and spend the rest of his life eating artisan cheese, buying a private pension invested in the stock market and owning fashionable consumer electronics like the Iphone.

Are you saying that the First Amendment, then, should regulate, "fashionable consumer electronics like the iPhone," as a religious expression?

What exactly are you arguing in this thread beyond a big blubbering session about you being sad that you think one centre-right group is cooler than your centre-right group? Is this what you want the First Amendment to regulate?

Perhaps you could provide some case history in the courts and we can get a common law argument for why your feelings should be covered by the First Amendment?

It goes all the way down the line.. the Blue Church comes out against gun ownership, not because there is anything actually wrong with that, plausible arguments can be made either way but to select only one side in defiance of the opposite arguments is a matter of displaying tribal identity. The Blue Church signals against gun ownership only because the Red signal for it and in turn the Reds signal all the more loudly because the Blues signal against it.

Why should gun ownership be covered in the First Amendment when there's a Second Amendment?

Why, if you're being an originalist (and you kinda were), did the Founders include a Second Amendment if this is—according to you—something that the First Amendment should cover because feelings on gun ownership is a religious issue that needs to be covered?

Do you have any citations for this either?

But you only want to talk about Calvinism.. or sorry which cult was it again? oh right Marxism, because Calvinism, or whatever it was, is relevant to everything when you are a Calvinist.

See, this is exactly what I was saying. Marxism isn't a religion, and thus not covered by the First Amendment. No screaming through tear-filled eyes is going to change the fact that a political ideology is a religion that not only needs to be protected from state interference, but has to have the state come in and actually regulate everything so every political ideology is on equal footing.

As you, yourself, point out for some reason Marxism would be excluded from your completely bizarre assertion that the government needs to regulate political opinion so rightwingers will be less sad. If we were to apply the First Amendment in the way you seem to think it should be applied, it would also mean a state-sponsorship of Marxism because they are left behind in the cultural dialogue, as you yourself point out.

But let's be honest—You're not even trying to make a logical argument about the First Amendment. This was just a thread created by one of your buddies so ye could have a safe space to feel your sad. You don't actually have any kind of logical argument. Just feelings...So many feelings...

[SolarCross]

Just feelings...So many feelings...

Meh.

[skinster]

True story.

[AJS]

The best defence against these crack pot liberal beliefs is scrutiny which requires free speech and not being afraid of the inevitable barrage of abuse and slurs which follow challenging liberal dogma as surely as night follows day.

[The Immortal Goon]

Absolutely.

Non-liberal leftists say, "You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

The rightwing pretending it isn't liberal blubbers, "Is there some way to legally ban things that hurt my feelings?"

One isn't afraid of the barrage of crackpot liberals, the other licks the hands of its masters and whines for protection.

[SolarCross]

Absolutely.

Non-liberal leftists say, "You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

The rightwing pretending it isn't liberal blubbers, "Is there some way to legally ban things that hurt my feelings?"

One isn't afraid of the barrage of crackpot liberals, the other licks the hands of its masters and whines for protection.

Or in an alternative universe in which the Battle of Berkley happens..

Absolutely

Non-left liberals say, "We don't want your chains! FREE SPEECH!"

The leftwing pretending to be liberal blubbers, "Is there some way to legally ban things that hurt my feelings?"

One isn't afraid of the barrage of crackpot leftists, the other licks the hands of its odious marxiodal teachers and whines for protection.

[The Immortal Goon]

Non-left liberals say, "We don't want your chains! FREE SPEECH!"

So now since it's convenient, you're completely abandoning everything you've said in the thread and now there shouldn't be some kind of First Amendment intervention against your imagined political adversaries?

Oh, how nice it must be to be a right-winger that isn't bound by any kind of consistency or reason...

The leftwing pretending to be liberal blubbers, "Is there some way to legally ban things that hurt my feelings?"

One isn't afraid of the barrage of crackpot leftists, the other licks the hands of its odious marxiodal teachers and whines for protection.

Do you have any evidence that the, "Battle of Berkley," had anything to do with an ideology other than liberalism?

More specifically, can you show that Marxists, in the Leninist sense, were behind any kind of mass action taken there?

Or are you just blubbering about being a victim of a conspiracy you feel like existed, because your own personal feelings are precious snowflakes that need to be catered to by everyone else?

[Pants-of-dog]

Adding to TIG's request, I would also accept Marxists from any Latin American tradition, such as Sandinistas, Allendistas, or Cuban socialists.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Should the Separation of Church and State Apply to Irrational, Religiously-held Liberal Beliefs?

Can Someone Explain to me What the Separation of Church and State Means? I'm Too Lazy To Use Google and Would Rather Proudly Display My Ignorance

[SolarCross]

So now since it's convenient, you're completely abandoning everything you've said in the thread and now there shouldn't be some kind of First Amendment intervention against your imagined political adversaries?

Oh, how nice it must be to be a right-winger that isn't bound by any kind of consistency or reason...

You are imagining things again. I said if there is a case that the beliefs of "liberals" (meaning left-liberals as opposed to conservatives) enjoyed some significant state patronage then the 1st amendment might apply.

Examples of state patronage would be: laws which censor opposing beliefs and state subsidies for proselytizing institutions.

Where I think Hong Wu was going with this thread was to point out that as the public education system is wholly subsidised by the state up until college / university (?) and even the colleges are only semi-private since they do take some pretty substantial subsidies and so if they also could be said to be institutions that proletysied for some irrational beliefs over others then that would be state patronage. You know of course that education can just as easily be indoctrination rather than a simple business performing skill transfer so where you have subsidies for education in the context of a nation with the 1st amendment then potential conflicts can arise if those subsidised institutions can be said to be propagating an ideology. Would it not be against the 1st amendment to have Churches subsidised by the state?

Another aspect is legislation that prohibits the expression of some ideas, censorship. I don't think there is much of that in the US compared with many countries, presumably thanks to the 1st amendment, but wiki notes:

Societal implementation

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[90] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[91] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[92]

So there are attempts being made to create censorship, even if so far they are mostly unsuccessful.

Do you have any evidence that the, "Battle of Berkley," had anything to do with an ideology other than liberalism?

More specifically, can you show that Marxists, in the Leninist sense, were behind any kind of mass action taken there?

Or are you just blubbering about being a victim of a conspiracy you feel like existed, because your own personal feelings are precious snowflakes that need to be catered to by everyone else?

Well if anti-fa, black bloc and others that self-identify as socialists or marxists are liberals and on the other side anti-commies, conservatives, republicans, Trump supporters (and the odd fascist and white nationalist thrown in) are also liberals then yeah everyone is a liberal. Nothing to see here just liberals punching liberals.

[Decky]

The black bloc hate Marxism. They are anarchists. Why do you keep talking about things you obviously don't understand?

[SolarCross]

The black bloc hate Marxism. They are anarchists. Why do you keep talking about things you obviously don't understand?

I'm aware that the far left has its schisms. What you fail to appreaciate is that to the opposing sides of a schism the schism looks very large but to those outside that schism completely it looks small. To illustrate that, the schism in Christianity that led to the Catholic vs Orthodox split or the Catholic vs Protestant split was a big deal for those within Christianity but to a buddhist or shinto they all still look like Christians.

So it goes with the far left. An-coms substantially believe the same crap as Leninsts do except that they don't really go in for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat doctrine. If you are a commie that is big deal worth killing over but to anyone who isn't a commie it hardly looks like a difference worth mentioning at all.

[Decky]

If you can't speak English it is your own problem. Stop trying to justify it and go out and buy a dictionary.

[The Immortal Goon]

Where I think Hong Wu was going with this thread was to point out that as the public education system is wholly subsidised by the state up until college / university (?) and even the colleges are only semi-private since they do take some pretty substantial subsidies and so if they also could be said to be institutions that proletysied for some irrational beliefs over others then that would be state patronage. You know of course that education can just as easily be indoctrination rather than a simple business performing skill transfer so where you have subsidies for education in the context of a nation with the 1st amendment then potential conflicts can arise if those subsidised institutions can be said to be propagating an ideology. Would it not be against the 1st amendment to have Churches subsidised by the state?

Not only does this not particularly mean anything in relation to the First Amendment, but it's a crude dodge around the questions I've been pressing you in how any of this applies to the First Amendment at all.

I know that you're not American, nor do you seem to know anything about American law. Nor should you. Why you keep trying to come up with elaborate reasons why an ideology is actually a religion, and why that religion should reverse the meaning of the First Amendment, and why the First Amendment should be used to forcibly level for the first time ever, remains a mystery.

If, perhaps, you could answer my previous questions, we'd at least know what you were talking about. But I suspect that you, least of all, know what you're talking about in relation to American constitutional law.

Well if anti-fa, black bloc and others that self-identify as socialists or marxists are liberals

They are not. You can stop panicking.

I'm aware that the far left has its schisms. What you fail to appreaciate is that to the opposing sides of a schism the schism looks very large but to those outside that schism completely it looks small. To illustrate that, the schism in Christianity that led to the Catholic vs Orthodox split or the Catholic vs Protestant split was a big deal for those within Christianity but to a buddhist or shinto they all still look like Christians.

A schism implies that they were part of the same movement to begin with and then split. You are then, weirdly, conflating this with religion. If I were to go with this twisted analogy, it would be more like Calvinism and moon worship by people on a Pacific island. That is to say, there is no real connection beyond your conspiracy theories made up to make you feel like a victim of an elaborate plot