Heard a guy on the radio arguing today that where you were born has more control over your life than just about anything else.
1. More than anything else, the zip code where you were born will determine whether you go to college and how wealthy you are.
2. Where you were born controls your religion. Take the most anti-muslim today, and have them born in Pakistan and they'll be muslims themselves.
Heard a guy on the radio arguing today that where you were born has more control over your life than just about anything else.
1. More than anything else, the zip code where you were born will determine whether you go to college and how wealthy you are.
2. Where you were born controls your religion. Take the most anti-muslim today, and have them born in Pakistan and they'll be muslims themselves.
What was the name of this person?
So you remembered enough to quote those two lines, but don't know his name. Got it.
For the record, I've seen those two lines elsewhere. In that context, they were used to bait for racist and xenophobic comments.
Number one illicited several comments regarding inner city persons. The original poster then turned it around making the comments about race.
Number two illicited several comments about muslims and the middle east in general. The original poster then turned those comments around painting them as both racist and xenophobic.
You've got a bit of history in dropping flaming turds in the proverbial room, then standing back to watch the chaos. I imagine in real life just watching with a "who me?" look on your face. Given the wide disparity of subjects you post these questions with, I find it hard to believe it's not deliberate with no intention of writing a book with them.
For the record, I've seen those two lines elsewhere. In that context, they were used to bait for racist and xenophobic comments.
Those thoughts do describe pretty closely the leftist mantra that they promote so heavily, especially to minorities: "You are a victim of circumstance, you can't do anything about it without Government help".
"You are a victim of circumstance, you can't do anything about it without Government help".
Which is a BS mantra considering it is possible...even probable in inner cities...that it was government policies that led to those circumstances.
If people are so upset with their current local leadership, why do they keep voting the same leadership in?
Name recognition.
And generally, every politician is looked at as equally scummy, so one who can point to something they did that actually was beneficial for a voter is probably gonna get that voter's vote. Incumbents can usually point to some infrastructure or something that gets them votes.
And remember, a sizeable percentage of voters (well over half) will vote for the party they identify with. Regardless who is the candidate. You could have a candidate that is worse than Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler COMBINED, and if he got one of the party's nomination, he'd get a minimum of 20% of the vote. If he was a democrat running in Chicago, he'd win.
If people are so upset with their current local leadership, why do they keep voting the same leadership in?
Because they don't have any real choices. Where I am, significant number of local elected offices only have one candidate running.
And even where there is a choice, while the candidates pay lip service to different ideologies, once in office, there is very little difference in what they actually do.
And even where there is a choice, while the candidates pay lip service to different ideologies, once in office, there is very little difference in what they actually do.
To be fair, there's little difference they can actually make. Municipal politicians generally have to pay for things that they have no control over - they can't reduce spending all that much, there's usually debts from years ago that have to be repaid and contracts that are more expensive to get out of than to continue. And there's usually unfunded mandates from above - they're responsible for running and paying for a program, but with no option to minimize costs.
And the ones who try to make the best of a bad situation and still follow through on their promises... the media tries to get rid of. Remember Mayor Ford?
By the end, he was mostly a punchline for latenight shows. But he actually tried to deliver on his campaign promises. (After he died, his brother eventually ended up running the province.)
Well, I do have to say being born in Australia had a heavy impact on my ability to attend a US college. Only the few very rich families can afford to send their kids to a US college.
In a way he's right, as where you are born will often have an impact through the economic and employment opportunities available in that area as you grow up. It will also vary with when you are born due to the changes over the years. A person born in Chicago in 1901 had very different option to one born in Chicago in 2001.
I think it would be a good idea for bob to specify who this person is before responding.
I think it would be a good idea for bob to specify who this person is before responding.
Why? If the person is right then he or she is right. If they're wrong, they're still wrong, no matter who they might be, no matter if you agree with his or her politics or religion or education.
Why?
Because the person might have an ulterior motive for pushing the idea not connected to religion or politics.
It might still be true, but if the person has incentives for motivated reasoning that does affect the assessment.
where you are born will often have an impact
But not always. Dad was a West Point graduate in 1940 and spent 30 years as an Army officer. I was born in Cleveland, Ohio in late 1944. My sister in Bad Nauheim, Germany in late 1946. We both went to lots of different schools mostly where he was stationed although not always. We both graduated from the University of Washington in the late 60s and went on to careers in business in various parts of the country. Where we were born had very little to do with our economic and employment opportunities.
That might be true if you and your parents were raised where you were born. That is not true of many of us, so I doubt it is a true statement.
My dad was military and we moved from my place of birth very early in my life. I have no memories of where I was born.
During my early years, my parents were the only people who influenced my beliefs and character, and they were not from the area where I was born.
By the time I was 16 years old, I had lived in more than 12 places in over 6 states. Those locations and my parent's life style had far more influence on my life than the place I was born.
Although there are plenty of unique little snowflakes, in general this is entirely true. The research is easily googleable and the it's the kind of features that everything from marketing to insurance is driven by these days.
The research is easily googleable and the it's the kind of features that everything from marketing to insurance is driven by these days.
If such research actually exists and it's the way it was stated up thread, it is the poster child for the saying "Correlation is not causation"
1. More than anything else, the zip code where you were born will determine whether you go to college and how wealthy you are.
So if you are a child of a rich person born in a rich zip code you will be rich, whereas a child born of a poor person in a poor zip code sucks to be you.
2. Where you were born controls your religion. Take the most anti-muslim today, and have them born in Pakistan and they'll be muslims themselves.
More likely it's based on the religion of the parents.
So if you are a child of a rich person born in a rich zip code you will be rich, whereas a child born of a poor person in a poor zip code sucks to be you.
I wonder what happens to a child born to poor parents in an otherwise wealthy zip code, or a child born to relatively wealthy parents in an otherwise poor zip code?
So if you are a child of a rich person born in a rich zip code you will be rich, whereas a child born of a poor person in a poor zip code sucks to be you.
I think it is saying that a person born in a wealth zip code has a higher probability of becoming rich than they would if they were born in a poor zip code.
Personally, I don't agree with the premise as stated in the OP.
I think it is saying that a person born in a wealth zip code has a higher probability of becoming rich than they would if they were born in a poor zip code.
I would disagree.
It works as a simple predictive: if you live around lots of rich people you are probably rich.
However, it has zero causative power. A poor person who moves into a rich neighborhood has not in any way improved their future financial prospects.
However, it has zero causative power. A poor person who moves into a rich neighborhood has not in any way improved their future financial prospects.
Then how did the poor person afford to move in to a rich neighborhood?
The town I live in is low to middle class with many apartments and 3 trailer parks with houses going for between $300,000 to 600,000. less then 10 miles is a town that is upper to high class where you would be hard to find a house under 1.5m to over 5m.
2. Where you were born controls your religion. Take the most anti-muslim today, and have them born in Pakistan and they'll be muslims themselves.
This is a bullshit example.
Then how did the poor person afford to move in to a rich neighborhood?
1. Just because the median income is high that doesn't mean there is no low cost housing.
2. Live in servant to a rich person.
1. Just because the median income is high that doesn't mean there is no low cost housing.
Once low cost housing goes in, those with money start moving out. And if the community is rich enough, low cost housing can't get the permits.
Once low cost housing goes in, those with money start moving out.
That depends. The initial comment was about zip-codes. Some zip-codes are large enough geographically to cover both wealthy and poor neighborhoods.
Fairly often, you get a good correlation. He's overstating.
Whether you end up rich is mostly a function of whether your parents are rich. Consider one kid who is born to a couple of live-in servants to some millionaire; consider another who is born to the son of that millionaire while he is living in married-student housing at the University of Chicago.
Most kids born in the U of C's zipcode end up poor. The millionaire's grandkid won't.
Even though both sides are guilty of the same thing. At least the right openly admit they redraw districts to make sure they get reelected.
I wonder what would happen if every 10 years when they redraw district maps that the districts were at least some what square.
Best bet? Some areas would rapidly decline to match the surrounding Democrat district, while there'd be sudden gentrification of the areas added to the Republican districts.
Myself, I often joke because I am a bag of meat full of contradictions.
No surprise, I was born in Van Nuys, in Los Angeles. To an "Old School" Republican family. And first of all, throw away any current preconceptions of what this means, this is back when they were the "Liberal Party". One half fled the Alabama-Georgia area in around WWI for the Dakotas, the other half fled the Reservation in Oklahoma and went to California.
In most ways, I am quite "Liberal", especially when it comes to matters of personal issues. Race, religion, cultures, I am quite liberal. Personal rights, I fip quite Libertarian (believing the Constitution is a fixed document and must be followed). But also very large in personal responsibility, self-determination, and am very much "Fiscally Conservative".
Myself, I consider myself "militantly moderate", and believe in the center where compromise is reached is the best place. But if you look at my background, most would think I should be a Far-Left Liberal. When in truth, I reject all forms of Radicalism. Meanwhile my 20+ years of service make me almost literally "Militant" in the support of my country. Not to be confused with what some people think our country should be.
And anybody who thinks your place of birth determine your beliefs, they are to be honest an idiot. Some of the worst Klukkers in the 1960's were probably born within a mile or so of many of the most vocal adversaries of their beliefs.
And anybody who thinks your place of birth determine your beliefs, they are to be honest an idiot.
Coptic Christians being a good example of why that is true.
I fip quite Libertarian (believing the Constitution is a fixed document and must be followed).
I believe it was meant to be a living document meant to change as society changed. Otherwise we would still have legal slavery, women wouldn't have any rights, only a few would have the right to vote. All fixed by changing the Constitution.
while I believe we need a military and support our troops I am against where most of the money is spent. Where much of the $700 Billions go to private corporations while the families of our troops have to rely on welfare and food pantries to just survive.
I believe it was meant to be a living document meant to change as society changed.
That's why the US Constitution has the facility for an Amendment within it. However, what has been wrong in the US for an extremely long time is the way some political parties have tried to amend the meaning of part of the US Constitution by reinterpreting the clauses within it through a changed meaning of the words involved, and then use that to change the intent and application of the content of the US Constitution.
some political parties have tried to amend the meaning of part of the US Constitution
Shame! Shame on the Bullmoose and Mugwump Parties.
Shame! Shame on the Bullmoose and Mugwump Parties.
I'm not sure which party is behind it, but the US Constitution has Freedom of religion as an important matter in it. The wording and the original intent are clear that they intend the government can not mandate one religion over another and that people can worship as they please. Over the last few decades that has been distorted to be Freedom from religion and has been used to ban anything of a religious nature and are not allowed to worship or do anything of a religious nature in government owned, controlled, or mandated space - which is the exact opposite of what the US Founding Fathers intended.
which is the exact opposite of what the US Founding Fathers intended.
Unless you were there, how do you know what the Founding Fathers intended when it comes to freedom of religion?
Unless you were there, how do you know what the Founding Fathers intended when it comes to freedom of religion?
Well, you can start with the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. It was a series of "articles", written by the very authors themselves (and those that opposed them), and said what their intent was when creating it in the first place.
That is the first place I point anybody to when this comes up. And I also tell them to read both sides, to have a fuller view of both sides of the arguments.
And that actually becomes a rather silly argument I must say, when one is aware of the FP and AFP. Both sides laid out very clearly why they wanted a Constitution. The Bill of Rights was created to address many of the issues of the AFP, because they were afraid people would use the Constitution to try and bully people over their beliefs. Ironically, they very thing we are seeing happen today.
Over the last few decades that has been distorted to be Freedom from religion and has been used to ban anything of a religious nature and are not allowed to worship or do anything of a religious nature in government owned, controlled, or mandated space - which is the exact opposite of what the US Founding Fathers intended.
Worse. They are not permitted to worship or pray in spaces they own! The courts believe that the entire constitution may be suspended if the government scares the public enough.
Worse. They are not permitted to worship or pray in spaces they own!
Is there some federal court ruling that asserts the Constitution prohibits Americans from worshipping or praying in spaces they own?
Is there some federal court ruling that asserts the Constitution prohibits Americans from worshipping or praying in spaces they own?
Not exactly.
Several states have issued emergency orders prohibiting worship services because COVID.
These orders have been challenged in the federal courts.
These orders have generally been upheld in the federal district courts.
Several Federal Circuits (first layer court of appeals for federal courts) have upheld these orders
IIRC, two circuits have overturned them.
There are 13 circuits with geographic jurisdiction and a 14th (the federal circuit) which has been given exclusive appellate jurisdiction over certain subject matters.
The issue has not yet reached the US Supreme Court.
The issue has not yet reached the US Supreme Court.
Of which 6 are Catholic (5 on the right and 1 on the left) and 2 are Jews.
Gee I wonder how the vote will go.
The wording and the original intent are clear that they intend the government can not mandate one religion over another
The problem is that nobody thought enough to realize that atheism is a religion. I'm agnostic for the simple reason that I lack the faith that atheists have. Prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'll become a Pastafarian. Or prove that your imaginary friend that can control reality actually exists, I'll believe in him. Actual proof, though. Prove nothing exists, I'll become a atheist. The fact is, there's a lot of things that the probability of is approaching zero (ie: p(1/x) where x is approaching infinity), but until you have evidence the probability is actually zero, you haven't really proved anything.
But to the point, most of the SCOTUS rulings on religion have essentially established atheism as the official religion.
Pastafarian
"wikiHow is where trusted research and expert knowledge come together. Learn why people trust wikiHow
PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIONFAITH AND BELIEF
How to Become a Pastafarian
PARTS
1Joining the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
2Following the Principles of Pastafarianism
3Becoming a Master of Pastafarianism
OTHER SECTIONS
Questions & Answers
Video
Related Articles
References
Article Summary
Author Info
Last Updated: August 29, 2020 References
Pastafarianism is the world's fastest growing carbohydrate-based religion. Pastafarians worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), an omnipotent deity that the church does not necessarily believe to actually exist. Outsiders call the church's members satirists, enemies call them heretics, and landlubbers call them dirty pirates, but one thing is certain about Pastafarians – they sure love beer!"
You can find nearly anything on line.
I believe it was meant to be a living document meant to change as society changed. Otherwise we would still have legal slavery, women wouldn't have any rights, only a few would have the right to vote. All fixed by changing the Constitution.
while I believe we need a military and support our troops I am against where most of the money is spent. Where much of the $700 Billions go to private corporations while the families of our troops have to rely on welfare and food pantries to just survive.
It could be changed, which is the very reason it has an amendment process.
But to be honest, most of your argument then turns outright silly. Slavery was already illegal in over half the states by the time the Constitution was changed. All that did is codify and finish it, it did not actually do it itself. Emancipation movements in Northern states and a war did that.
Voting, fine. But rights for women? Well, other than allowing them to vote, that is really all it says about "women's rights". And once again, that is a state issue. Are you aware the first state to guarantee women the vote was actually Wyoming? Right in their Constitution?
For the military, are you aware that the vast majority goes for things like pay, dependent care, housing, schools, and the like?
Not trying to bring up politics, I hate politics. But this is what irritates me, when people do around saying things like that, and do not even know where most of the budget goes. Less than 2% in the military uses welfare. And those are on because of the simple reason that they have too many dependents. I knew one guy in particular. A Sergeant, with 5 kids. And ultimately nobody but he and his wife are responsible for them being on welfare, I was a Corporal with 2 kids and was doing fine.
Long before the what you call the distortion of Freedom from Religion was the distortion Freedom of only one Religion.
If people didn't push their religion on others it wouldn't be a problem. The whole freedom from religion movement was because local governments were pushing ONE RELIGION RULE. Only one religion had the right to conduct prayer in schools, only one religion had the right to open government meetings with a prayer, only one religion uses the word GOD so why do we have "in god we trust" on our money and on the walls in our courts and "so help me god" when sworn in. No other religion were allowed those same rights. Our Founding Fathers didn't use that word but did use the word "our maker"
The whole freedom from religion movement was because local governments were pushing ONE RELIGION RULE.
And what "one religion" was that exactly?
I am nor aware of a large Episcopalian Cabal insisting that we return to the Anglican Church and put the King of England back as the head of religion in the nation. Or bands of Puritans in Upper New England insisting that the entire nation outlaw Christmas because it was a sacrilege.
The irony is, most people do not even know what the phrases they repeat mean. They are talking bullet points, which look silly when actually viewed when understanding what those phrases they repeat actually mean.
Like if somebody was to scream if the Stories Online God decided to stop this entire debate. He would not be violating anybody's "Freedom of Speech", because that clause of the Constitution does not even apply. That is how ignorant most people are, which is sad.
And what "one religion" was that exactly?
Christianity.
They all follow the same book. They just disagree on some parts of the same book. They all consider themselves Christians even if they don't consider other Christians true Christians.
Like if somebody was to scream if the Stories Online God decided to stop this entire debate. He would not be violating anybody's "Freedom of Speech", because that clause of the Constitution does not even apply. That is how ignorant most people are, which is sad.
Of this I fully agree with you. It is sad when a self-proclaimed Constitutionalist cry's that some blogger took away his Right of Free Speech.
I disagree. The right to free speech is a human right existing prior to and separate from the First Amendment.
I disagree. The right to free speech is a human right existing prior to and separate from the First Amendment.
Where the hell did you get that idea?
At least you are not saying it is a god-given right.
Where the hell did you get that idea?
At least you are not saying it is a god-given right.
The Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The very founding theory of the United States is that rights exist BEFORE governments are formed. If that were not the case, it would be impossible for a government to violate 'human rights'.
The very founding theory of the United States is that rights exist BEFORE governments are formed. If that were not the case, it would be impossible for a government to violate 'human rights'.
It doesn't mention anything about Freedom of Speech does it?
Yet the Constitution does.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Only Congress is banned from taking away some one's right of free speech.
Only Congress is banned from taking away some one's right of free speech.
You are failing to consider the 14th amendment.
It doesn't mention anything about Freedom of Speech does it?
The point being where rights pre-existing government are mentioned. A 'Bill of Rights' wasin't included in the original constitution because it was a document delegating limited powers. Adding the Amendments may not have helped reinforce that, as the 9th and 10th are ignored by the courts.
Only Congress is banned from taking away some one's right of free speech
More to the point, freedom of speech is not the same as a right to an audience or a platform. If I own a megaphone and we're outside in front of a group of people, your freedom of speech doesn't allow you to take my megaphone so you can be heard over the crowd noise. And if you have a loudspeaker and a microphone, the cops are entitled to force you to turn the volume down if there are noise complaints.
It's only when you're jailed for saying what you want the freedom of speech is the issue, but there's ways around that - you can be jailed for how or where you say something without it violating your freedom of speech. But if you say something in your home, and a cop is the only one to hear it, unless you've just disclosed classified information that he wasn't cleared for there's no justifiable reason for you to be arrested.
It doesn't mention anything about Freedom of Speech does it?
That once again comes from the British.
Among the many rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of 1689 guaranteed was the Freedom of Speech. Once again, addressing things that the King had done to Parliament which caused him to loose his head.
The very founding theory of the United States is that rights exist BEFORE governments are formed. If that were not the case, it would be impossible for a government to violate 'human rights'.
You are missing context.
The Declaration was essentially the "Divorce Decree" with the UK, and it did not even start out that way. Originally it was only supposed to be an even more strongly worded request that the UK actually follow it's own laws in regards to how it was treating the colonies.
Along with the phrase most know, "No taxation without representation" comes another lesser known one. "The rights of Englishmen". They already had a Constitution, and even a Bill of Rights. It was not a single document, but it held the same position.
And key among those was that the King could not raise taxes, that was a power that only existed in the House of Commons in Parliament. Not even the House of Lords could do that. And the actual contention was not taxes, but that their rights were being violated in how the money was being raised.
And to give an idea how serious that could be, it had happened only 127 years earlier. When as it has been said King Charles I started his reign at 5'6", and ended it at only 4'8". The very crisis that caused the entire English Civil War, and cutting off the head of their King was that he would dissolve Parliament at any time, only letting them convene if he needed money. Then arresting any members who spoke out against him.
Hence, the unusual charge of the King committing Treason against his own people. They were essentially accusing the King and Parliament of doing the exact same things that Oliver Cromwell (and his war) accused Charles I of doing.
All they actually were reiterating was English Common Law, and stating why England itself was in violation of it, so they had a right to rebel. Just as the Roundheads had a century before.
There is a reason why a great many "Alternate Histories" use 1776 to branch off of real history. The declaration does not get turned into a demand for separation, and the Crown and Parliament instead do what had been asked. In either assigning seats in Parliament, or create a permanent body in the colonies and the division was avoided.
Thomas Jefferson was a student of the English Civil War, and specifically used phrases that had been used before and during that conflict to help drive the seriousness of this issue. John Milton himself wrote in the decades after that conflict the following.
"No man who knows ought, can be so stupid to deny that all men naturally were borne free, being the image and resemblance of God himself [...] born to command and not to obey: and that they liv'd so"
And John Locke said the following:
All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural rights of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
No, they are in fact not referencing "God" for these rights, but their rights, as had been established in the English Civil War. Where certain rights were given to all men, and not the Crown.
No, they are in fact not referencing "God" for these rights, but their rights, as had been established in the English Civil War. Where certain rights were given to all men, and not the Crown.
Which is not what Jeffersno said in the Declaration of Independence, and which was used by the Colonists as the philosophical underpinnings for the future political commpact.
Read the arguments against inculding a 'Bill of Rights' in the Constitution and the reason for the 9th and 10tm Amendments.
Human rights exist because humans exist, and existed before government. Look up 'Natural Law' - rights are intrinsic to human beings, and pre-exist government.
Which is not what Jeffersno said in the Declaration of Independence, and which was used by the Colonists as the philosophical underpinnings for the future political commpact.
Did you completely miss the fact that those lines were paraphrased by him from the writings of John Milton? Like most of his era in the "Age of Enlightenment", Jefferson was a Deist. He believed in a "Higher Power", but not defined as the "Christian God".
This was a common philosophy in that era. Milton, Voltaire, Montesquie, and more. But first and foremost, they were Englishmen. And were closer to a previous bloody Civil War that we are to our own Civil War. One which was fought over such important issues to them. Such as Absolute Power, and where the rights of the "common man" begin and end.
If you have not done so, let me recommend a movie. The 1970 movie "Cromwell", staring Richard Harris and Sir Alec Guinness is available for free on Youtube right now. It does take liberties, but is a good way for people to help understand what brought the war about, and why it was fought. Or if you want a more cheeky "Cliff's Notes" version, you can listen to the song by Monty Python (which I actually referenced).
But to understand the mindset of the Founders, one must understand the English Civil War. And it was fought over most of the very same issues the Colonies were facing at that time. Where does the Power of the Crown end, and the Rights of Englishmen begin.
Most in the US are taught little to nothing of English history, so are completely unaware of these issues. But one has to be aware of the "Backstory". Which by the way resulted in the Third Amendment, which is both highly curious when looked at today, and the one least often challenged in court.
Third Amendment, which is both highly curious when looked at today, and the one least often challenged in court.
Because of all the Bill of Rights amendments, it's the only one the federal government doesn't violate on a regular basis.
In fact, the only 3A case I'm aware of basically got laughed out of court.
A family had their house "seized" by the police for 4 hours so the police could observe another house across the street that they were planning to raid.
The family tried to sue on the basis of the 3rd amendment and ended up getting lectured by the federal judge who dismissed the case because:
1. Police aren't soldiers.
2. A temporary seizure that doesn't even last overnight isn't quartering.
Did you completely miss the fact that those lines were paraphrased by him from the writings of John Milton? Like most of his era in the "Age of Enlightenment", Jefferson was a Deist. He believed in a "Higher Power", but not defined as the "Christian God".
Did you completely miss where I said 'intrinsic' without any reference to God? Jefferon nodded to "Nature's God" but I'm not invoking an deity to defend natural rights because I don't need to.
And yes, I'm aware of the history. But the point remains that human rights are intrinsic, disputes between Roundheads and Cavaliers notwithstanding.
I disagree. The right to free speech is a human right existing prior to and separate from the First Amendment.
And you're totally entitled to say whatever you want. However, you have no right to expect someone else to spread your message.
Christianity.
That is not a "religion", it is a classification of religions. And if you call that a "religion", .then you must then include all Abrahamic Religions, including Islam and Judaism.
If you actually look at what the Founding Fathers wrote, they predominantly talked about "God", and not "Jesus". Therefore Christianity is actually not really a valid claim.
In fact, Jews were prominent behind the scenes as well as in front during the Revolution. Do once again, your claim is simply wrong. ALl you are doing there is projecting.
I believe the question was about spaces other then a church.
Nope, several states have issued such orders explicitly covering churches/temples.
One state had even attempted to ban outdoor worship services because COVID.
The governor of New York has explicitly threatened to send armed state police to Jewish Synagogues in NYC to keep people out of them.
The governor of New York has explicitly threatened to send armed state police to Jewish Synagogues in NYC to keep people out of them.
I believe it was NOT to prohibit them from gathering, but to prevent too many of them AT ONE TIME to gather in one place because of the danger of spreading the disease.
I believe it was NOT to prohibit them from gathering, but to prevent too many of them AT ONE TIME to gather in one place because of the danger of spreading the disease.
An irrelevant distinction when their religious practice is to gather together as a community for worship.
I believe it was NOT to prohibit them from gathering, but to prevent too many of them AT ONE TIME to gather in one place because of the danger of spreading the disease.
Works the same - ten men are required, which violated the State's orders.
California banned all singing and chanting which has the effect of prohibiting Russian Orthodox liturgies from being served. (Orthodox services are sung and chanted, not said, including Scriptural 'readings'. Only the homily is spoken, not sung).
Works the same - ten men are required, which violated the State's orders.
Did this same restriction apply to everybody - or did it apply only to religious gatherings? And if it applied to everybody, was it the motive of the rule-makers to somehow discriminate against religious gatherings?
Did this same restriction apply to everybody - or did it apply only to religious gatherings?
There were states where the maximum allowed gathering for a church was set lower than other types of gatherings.
Another thing that was out there in several states is that restaurants and other businesses were allowed to open at limited capacity provided they enforced social distancing requirements, but churches had to remain closed even in the face of offers by churches to limit capacity and enforce the same social distancing required of various businesses.
There was one state (New Jersey I think, but I won't swear to it) that prohibited indoor services all together where one church attempted to hold an outdoor drive in (everyone remained in their own cars) service. The governor sent cops to shut down the drive-in services.
Another thing that was out there in several states is that restaurants and other businesses were allowed to open at limited capacity provided they enforced social distancing requirements, but churches had to remain closed even in the face of offers by churches to limit capacity and enforce the same social distancing required of various businesses.
Those businesses needed to open in order to pay property taxes, and utilities, etc. And they bring in tax revenue.
Churches don't really benefit the economy, and certainly don't help the tax revenues of pretty much any level of government.
So the distinction isn't that "churches got more restrictive rules" it's that "businesses got relaxed rules".
As to the Jersey incident... I could see sending cops to verify there was no intermixing.
However, about religion and the virus: look at Italy. It was (maybe still is) the poster child for being hard hit by the virus. The vast majority of the transmissions were centered on various Catholic locations. If the Catholics hadn't gotten all the bad press for turning Italy into a disaster area, it's likely churches wouldn't have faced as difficult a time as they have here...
I could see sending cops to verify there was no intermixing.
Except the cops were sent not to prevent intermixing but to shut the gathering down.
So the distinction isn't that "churches got more restrictive rules" it's that "businesses got relaxed rules".
And arguably the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment does not allow the government to make that distinction.
The law wouldn't have singled out churches, tho... they'd be subject to identical rules to other non-business locations.
My point was that the rules were set as a "this is what's best from a public health perspective" with the addendum "and we're going to relax them for businesses to try to keep them viable"
And the constitution really only limits the federal government, if you read it. (Yes, judicial precedent is to assume it limits states too, but there's also precedent for local limitations - fire codes can limit the number of people in a church, permits can be required for various demonstrations, etc)
The law wouldn't have singled out churches, tho... they'd be subject to identical rules to other non-business locations.
Emergency orders by governors, mayors or public health officials are not laws
And yes, there were states that explicitly closed or set other rules for churches separate from other non-business locations.
There were states where the maximum allowed gathering for a church was set lower than other types of gatherings.
There may be good reason for that if the worship involved singing or chanting.
AJ
There may be good reason for that if the worship involved singing or chanting.
"Good reason" does not override the Free Exercise Clause, court rulings and decisions of governors to the contrary notwithstanding. An outright prohibition on services (which a ban on singing and chanting would be for Orthodox Christians) cannot possibly pass constitutional muster.
Remember, the SC gets things wrong - Dred Scott being a preimary example. Korematsu being another.
There may be good reason for that if the worship involved singing or chanting.
Bull.
There may be good reason for that if the worship involved singing or chanting.
And what gives you the right to determine that?
As I had said, I am actually rather strict when it comes to the interpretation. And if a "religion" was to say their rites mandated that the entire congregation was mandated by their Creator to dance skyclad under the moon, I say that is their right. Only that reasonable measures be taken for modesty and to prevent offending others.
So dance naked out of sight in a private compound, that is your right. All I ask is that you not do it in the middle of town.
Hell, I only start to draw the like as to what religions do when they are done with minors under the age of 18, and unwilling human sacrifice.
And what gives you the right to determine that?
Science.
Singing and chanting release droplets which exacerbate the spread of covid if any of the singers or chanters are infected.
AJ
Science.
Singing and chanting release droplets which exacerbate the spread of covid if any of the singers or chanters are infected.
Which a) does not trump the First Amendment; b) has been unequally applied.
And there is less spread of droplets due a BLM protest?
It's ironic that BLM protests are likely covid spreaders, as though the attendees don't think black lives matter all that much - especially since the virus is deadlier to blacks (in the UK at least).
AJ
And there is less spread of droplets due a BLM protest?
No, but if those people all die, no big loss. Not like they matter.
The point is that religion is entitled to special protection under the first amendment - not merely equal treatment.
ystokes
10/30/2020, 2:46:40 PM
I believe the question was about spaces other then a church.
Replies: Dominions Son
Yes, the question was about spaces other than a church.
I believe the question was about spaces other then a church.
Nope. Oregon closed the churches. At the same time mass protests were happening in Portland which involved a great many more people that they did nothing about.
If they think their god will protect them from getting sick more power to them even though many who have still ended up sick and even some died after.
I consider myself a agnostic because I believe there is a higher power either a god, gods or little green men as that would explain the difference between human and animals. What I am against is religions as they are just con men living off their followers.
What I am against is religions as they are just con men living off their followers.
The problem isn't religion, the problem is Organized Religion.
Once you try to organize religion it becomes an institution. An institution run by people and just as subject to corruption and subversion as any other institution.
What were the Founding Fathers thinking when they wrote the 1st Amendment?
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, wrote: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
The problem with that quote isn't the entirety of it, it's the soundbite sociology that grabs the last five words and holds that that is the point, rather than the phrase "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Separating Church and State is preventing a national 'official' religion (such as Pastafarianism or Atheism or Islam or whatever) that could then crowd out other religions by making rules against them.
Separating Church and State is preventing a national 'official' religion (such as Pastafarianism or Atheism or Islam or whatever) that could then crowd out other religions by making rules against them.
And even more, requiring members to belong to a specific religion in order to do things like vote or hold public office.
Which was still in the cultural memory of the Founding Fathers, as England not that long before had gone through several waves of that. Removing any who were Catholic, or Puritan from holding office or even working for the government. Only Anglicans need apply, everybody else get out.
England had that happen many times, something they never wanted to see in their new country. They did not want to see anything like the "Church of the United States" form.
Which is not a joke, such a thing actually pretty much happened early on. The dominant church at the time was the Episcopal Church. And the most influential members of the leadership of the Revolution were all Episcopalian. Which in case any are not aware is simply an offshoot of the Anglican Church, with the King removed as the head of the religion.
SO it was not even "Christianity", or "Abrahamic Religion" or anything else they were afraid of, but the power of the Episcopalians coming to dominate the government.
Washington National Cathedral? Yep, it's an Episcopal Church. 34 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Episcopalian. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Chase, Lee, Hewes, Gwinnett, Taylor, Morris, all Episcopalians.
And the second dominant religion was Puritan churches, or their descendants. Like John Adams, who was a Congregationalist.
At the time the Constitution was written Jefferson was 3000 miles away celebrating the mob lynching of assorted French nobles. He had zero involvement in the drafting of the Constitution and when he was out of power worked tirelessly to undermine the federal government. His interpretation is meaningless.
It's only when you're jailed for saying what you want the freedom of speech is the issue, but there's ways around that
Not so in the US. The government is forbidden from making content-based restrictions in most caes, per the Supreme Court. Reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions may be put in place, but they must be the least restrictive means possible to achieve the stated (non-content-based) goal.
Not so in the US.
Title 18 § 798
In other countries, it would be part of a Official Secrets Act.
Title 18 § 798
The US federal courts have generally killed attempts to prosecute journalists under that act for publishing classified information they received from a source.
Attempts to prosecute non-journalists who aren't government employees have had mixed results at best.
Anyone who has been granted clearance and willfully and knowingly reveals same to zomeone not cleared, however, is another story. If the journalist revealed the source, the source could be arrested.
Title 18 § 798
Can't generally stop you from speaking or publishing. See, for example, New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713).
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity"
No law can prevent anything. It's only use is in punishing after the fact, much like the only use of cops (other than keeping the donut population in check) is showing up after you've bled out and tracking down whoever they think did it. Which may or may not be the actual killer.
Its an interesting theory. I dont doubt that if you are born and raised in a community where very few go to college or ever leave the community, then you are probably more statistically likely to be the same. That said, its only a factor, as others have said, family history, or your own personal desire to achieve would factor in no matter your geography.
I dont doubt that if you are born and raised in a community where very few go to college or ever leave the community,
But the theory never mentioned where you are raised just where you were born.
1. More than anything else, the zip code where you were born will determine whether you go to college and how wealthy you are.
2. Where you were born controls your religion. Take the most anti-muslim today, and have them born in Pakistan and they'll be muslims themselves.
I was born in one zip code but raised in another 4 zip codes away. Why he used the term zip code and not area is beyond me.
But the theory never mentioned where you are raised just where you were born.
If you were born in a chicken coop, you're overwhelmingly likely to grow up to be a chicken.
AJ
If you were born in a chicken coop, you're overwhelmingly likely to grow up to be a chicken.
If you were born in a outhouse would you grow up full of shit?
If you were born in a outhouse would you grow up full of shit?
If you were born in an outhouse the shit would be full of you. :)